Photo illustration
Saturday, Feb. 1, 2020 | 2 a.m.
The Trump administration is on track this year to approve a number of large-scale renewable energy projects on public lands, some of which are proposed for Nevada.
The state has already been a leader in renewable energy efforts, with Gov. Steve Sisolak signing a bill in 2019 to more than double the amount of renewable energy provided by Nevada’s electric companies. But there’s growing concern among Nevada environmental proponents about the impact some of the new developments will have on public lands, particularly in Southern Nevada.
As the scramble to find renewable alternatives to fossil fuels peaks, the path toward renewable energy can be problematic in its own right. Lithium, for example, is crucial in batteries for its ability to store large amounts of energy when wind or sunshine isn’t readily available. But the process of cultivating that rare metal can wreak havoc on ecosystems and threaten rare species, says Patrick Donnelly, state director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The issue came up regarding the Silver Peak Range in Esmeralda County, where wildlife conservation groups feared a proposed lithium mining pit would decimate the world’s only population of Tiehm’s buckwheat, a small perennial wildflower. A proposed geothermal plant in Dixie Valley was also of concern because of its proximity to a rare Nevada species known as the Dixie Valley toad.
“The Dixie Valley toad is an utterly unique species, and its habitat is unique in the Dixie Valley springs,” Donnelly said. “There are many places to develop geothermal energy that don’t have [threatened species]. So why should we choose to prioritize developments next to its habitat?”
Ormat Technologies, the company that plans to build the geothermal energy plant, has proposed mitigation strategies to protect the toad’s habitat. But Donnelly says he’s wary of any development nearby. When it comes to renewable energy, he says, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch,” referring to one of ecologist Barry Commoner’s four laws of ecology.
“Every energy source we utilize is going to have some cost,” Donnelly says. “It’s about understanding these costs ahead of time and making calculated decisions.”
Can renewable energy projects and wildlife coexist?
A massive solar energy project proposed 30 miles north of Las Vegas has caused some division between renewable energy proponents and wildlife conservation groups. If approved, the Gemini Solar Project would generate 690 megawatts of electricity across 7,100 acres in the Mojave Desert just south of the Moapa River Indian Reservation. It would send power to cities in Nevada, Arizona and California, making it the largest solar array in the nation.
Mark Boyadjian, a managing partner at Arevia Power, the developer behind the project, says large-scale renewable energy projects are key in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, leading causes of wildlife habitat destruction.
“Renewable energy developers play a key role in combating climate change while also developing projects in a way that preserves as much habitat as possible,” he says.
Kevin Emmerich, co-founder of the Basin and Range Watch, has been critical of the Gemini Solar Project from the beginning, arguing that it would damage the desert tortoise population and threaten rare desert plants that inhabit the 11-square-mile site.
Boyadjian says his team at Arevia Power analyzed more than a dozen potential sites before concluding that Gemini’s proposed location is among the best in the state because of its proximity to existing infrastructure and Las Vegas’ population.
“Avoiding development on Southern Nevada public lands and land completely free of wildlife habitat would make it [virtually impossible] for the region to develop cleaner sources of energy,” he says.
He added that developers considered the desert tortoise population while designing the project and plan to implement “innovative measures” that will both minimize the impact to the tortoises and “provide valuable information about the coexistence of solar energy projects and desert tortoises.”
One mitigation proposal involves a “mowing method” during construction, with vegetation being mowed in development areas rather than completely removed through more traditional methods such as disking and compacting.
Such “coexistence” happened on a much smaller scale when Bombard Electric constructed a solar plant in Pahrump. Developers implemented a partial reintroduction of desert tortoises on the project site.
But Emmerich says the mitigation proposal will not only be ineffective, but harmful to the wildlife in the area, since mowing would still dramatically alter the tortoises’ habitat. He says reintroducing desert tortoises disorients them, making them more vulnerable to exposure and predators.
“With solar energy, you open a Pandora’s box of issues,” he says. “There are good-intentioned people who want to see solar energy and habitat coexist in the same area. All that’s going to do is create another set of issues.”
But some desert tortoise advocates, like Kobbe Shaw of the Nevada-based nonprofit Tortoise Group, take a more nuanced perspective. Shaw says that while any massive development would affect the tortoise population, from a conservation standpoint, renewable energy should be looked at more holistically, and what’s better for the greater good should be weighed.
Emmerich emphasizes that he’s not opposed to solar energy, but finds large-scale projects to be problematic, and would prefer to see more rooftop and community solar options.
“Large-scale solar is a sloppy way to do it,” he says. “It takes up and alters habitat, destroys archaeology and bums people out.”
Donnelly, meanwhile, says he finds it more useful to prioritize his efforts elsewhere toward areas like Dixie Valley or the Silver Peak Range, where a recent lawsuit by the Center led to an agreement by an Australian lithium mining company to temporarily protect the Tiehm’s buckwheat.
Part of the equation involves educating people to reduce electricity consumption, he added. “We use electricity as if it were not a limited resource,” he says. “We have a nearly unlimited demand juxtaposed with limited resources capable of producing limited supply. Transitioning to a less energy-intensive lifestyle may need to be part of our response to climate change.”
This story appeared in Las Vegas Weekly.
