Connect with us

Published

on

In many parts of the American southwest, a mesa is a flat topped geological formation known as a tableland. One of them is the Morman Mesa, a 149,000 acre tableland located above the confluence of the Muddy and Virgin Rivers, north of Las Vegas, Nevada.

The area is under the control of the federal Bureau of Land Management and is a protected area for the desert tortoise. It is also the home of Double Negative, an artistic rendering by artist Micheal Heizer. It consists of two trenches 30 feet wide, 50 feet deep, and 1500 feet long dug into the Earth. It is significant that the 244,000 tons of rocks excavated to create the “sculpture” were unceremoniously dumped into the valley below during its construction. More about that later.

Several years ago, a plan spearheaded by then Senator Harry Reid was put forward to build Battle Born Solar Project, the largest solar power plant in the United States, on Mormon Mesa. The project would cover 14 square miles — about 9000 acres, or less than 7% of the mesa’s total area. Over time, the project developer became Solar Partner VII, a subsidiary of California based Arevia.

Even though the project would be sited out of sight of nearby towns, it provoked a fierce backlash from the local community, a backlash that coalesced into something called Save Our Mesa. At the end of July, Arevia notified BLM it was abandoning the project. The Save Our Mesa folks were ecstatic.

The group argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and curtail the area’s popular recreational activities such as riding dirt bikes and ATVs and skydiving. It also said it would discourage tourists from visiting Heizer’s Double Negative sculpture. But the heart of the protest was “not in my backyard” self-interest. Let’s take a look at the overheated language presented on the group’s website.

I first want to make it clear that we are just a group of residents that saw a possible tragedy for our community and our way of life. We are NOT against renewable energy, we are against irresponsible decisions that are being made without sufficient studies as to what the impacts are.

The majority of our community’s revenue comes from tourism. We lost a lot of tourism and businesses when the shrinking lake levels of Lake Mead occurred closing a nearby beach. We have struggled but built back our economy through tourism. When people come and camp/hotel for a week, they buy our gas, our groceries, eat in our restaurants, use our mechanics and parts stores. This allows these businesses to thrive thus keeping us self sufficient. Feedback from many of our Snowbirds was that they would look for new places to go ‘[if the solar power plant was built]. That’s lost revenue. 

We were simply trying to save our community and our way of life. We are not expendable for the “greater good” as I was told we should be! Moapa Valley would NOT gain anything from this project. In fact the power was slated for California. So why should we sacrifice OUR lives? The solar farm that was being proposed was going to be the largest in the nation. 14 sq miles, equivalent to 2/3 the size of Manhattan. Our homes are less than 8000’ from it.

There aren’t enough studies to show what this size of a project would do to us. Will our temps be too hot to live here, would the dust choke us or make us sick, would we ever get rainfall? Would our rivers, that run down both sides of the Mesa into Lake Mead, get contaminated? The list goes on. These were SERIOUS concerns! Simply “saying” that won’t happen, was not good enough, we were essentially going to be lab rats. Our goal all along was to get them to move this project to a more appropriate location, in which they have stated is one of their reasons for withdrawal.

Why are we not pushing for rooftop solar as much as we are pushing to destroy the desert southwests public lands? Look at the rooftops available in major metropolitan areas alone!! Las Vegas has thousands of acres of rooftop with the casinos alone!

We need to slow this rush to solar farms in the desert until studies are done. What will it look like in 10, 20, or 30 years down the road when all these solar farms age out. Are we creating a bigger problem for our future generations when there is millions of tons of non-recyclable waste? The deserts would never recover. Once it’s done, it can’t be undone.

Dissecting The Opposition

OK. That’s quite a long list of complaints Save Our Mesa has got there. And some of them are valid. If the Battle Born Solar Project did actually have a negative impact on the local economy [the developers says it would create over 2,000 new jobs], that would be a valid reason to oppose it. But many of the group’s complaints are 100% pure horse puckey.

A solar power plant will create dust that will roll down and pollute the local lakes and rivers, but thousands of people tearing up the landscape on dirt bikes, off-road vehicles, and jeeps won’t? That strains credulity. Millions of tons of non-recyclable waste? Where did they hear that, Tucker Carlson? And what about the 244,000 tons of debris from the Double Negative project that got dumped into the valley below. Was that used to mulch the petunias in local flower beds?

That seems like the comment left recently on a story I did about Toyota and its anti-EV policies. “Super smart move, let’s all replace CO2 emissions with toxic batteries that end up in rivers and lakes.” Yup, there’s some certified Artificial Stupidity right there.

Selfishness And Self-Interest

NIMBYism is strong in some of the group’s complaints. Why should they provide electricity to those pinheads in San Francisco and LA? The connection between an overheating planet and a lack of water to fill Lake Mead apparently is too remote for them to comprehend. But people are funny. Folks in Wyoming wonder the same thing about wind farms that supply power to West Coast nerds. Those who live in western New York are none too keen about giving up their farmland to keep the lights on in New York City.

Can you suggest a strategy that might help get people onboard with renewable energy? How about cutting them in on the deal by sharing some of that clean energy with the local community? That’s such a no brainer that it’s hard to believe every renewable energy developer doesn’t make it part of their toolkit every time a project is proposed.

Would the attitudes of local residents change if they could have access to clean energy at an attractive price? How about helping them get residential storage batteries that would keep their lights on if there is a power outage?

The Takeaway

A lot of the complaints about the Battle Born Solar Project are overblown, but there is a kernel of reality to them. People who are worried about their personal finances are inclined to be a little bit skittish about slick-talking outsiders riding into town with a trunk load of fancy promises. I’m nobody from nowhere, but I know a developer has to offer the locals something to get them to buy in to all those pie-in-the-sky plans.

You wouldn’t expect a new car customer to buy an EV just because it’s good for the planet, would you? Why should renewable energy be any different? These developers don’t seem to have a very good understanding of human behavior. Yes, the locals doth protest too much, but the developer deserves some blame for handling the public relations aspect of its project so poorly.

Why spend all that time and money on plans and permits but none on some good old-fashioned salesmanship? The US and the world are the big losers in this deal.

[Editor’s note: Some research in Denmark several years ago found that a critical solution to avoid NIMBYism blocking large wind power projects was to bring the financial benefits to locals to some degree — give them a cut of the profits. I’m not sure how much that insight is used by large renewable energy project developers, but as Steve says, at this stage, “it’s hard to believe every renewable energy developer doesn’t make it part of their toolkit every time a project is proposed.” My impression, though, is that not much is offered to local communities in almost all cases. Promises of jobs and an economic boost, of course, but not clear direct benefits to nearby residents. —Zach]

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Cummins acquires hybrid heavy mining equipment experts First Mode

Published

on

By

Cummins acquires hybrid heavy mining equipment experts First Mode

Cummins has its eye on hybrid powertrains to help decarbonize the transport, construction, and mining spaces the operates in. To that end, the company has acquired the hybrid equipment experts First Mode, and plans to make the first commercially available retrofit hybrid system for mining equipment a reality not just soon – but now.

The Cummins brand is almost synonymous with diesel in the US, but they’re making big moves in the ZEV space, too, with their Accelera brand and, now, with their purchase of First Mode.

The acquisition includes the rights to all of First Mode’s tech in the mining and rail space, where the company has developed a full IP portfolio of “energy agnostic” (my words) electric drive powertrains that can draw power from internal combustion engines, hydrogen fuel cells, or batteries. And, because the First Mode Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) retrofit is designed as a modular platform, it allows equipment fleets to either back out of the electric drive conversion or take them a step further, going to fully battery electric operation with same (relative) ease.

That sort of flexibility will help Cummins meet customers where they’re at – whether they’re OEMs, or fleet managers at multibillion-dollar mining operations.

“This acquisition is an important step forward in our goal to lead our Power Systems customers through the energy transition,” explains Jenny Bush, President of Power Systems at Cummins. “With First Mode’s hybrid retrofit technology, we are accelerating our ability to provide decarbonization solutions that meet miners’ need to drive down operating costs today.”

We’ve seen this before

Liebherr and Fortescue repower R 9400 excavator to electric configuration
Massive excavator converted to BEV by Liebherr; via Fortescue.

If the notion of converting heavy equipment from diesel to electric sounds familiar, that means you’ve been paying attention. The heavy mining equipment experts at Liebherr recently converted a pair of their massive R 9400 excavators from diesel to battery electric power for use at a Fortescue mine.

That project was successful enough to move millions of tons of Earth in just a few months – leading to a $4 billion order from the global mining leader for even more electric equipment.

“The modular design of Liebherr equipment makes it possible to repower existing diesel excavators to new zero emission configurations, such as electric powertrains,” explains Oliver Weiss, Executive Vice President of R&D, Engineering, and Manufacturing for Liebherr Mining. “This means that the diesel equipment customers buy today is also future-proofed for many years to come. The fact that we can ease the transition from traditional to decarbonized mining fleets for our customers is one of the key strategies of the Liebherr Zero Emission Mining Program.”

For their part, Cummins’ executives seem just as excited by the promise of offering electrified mining equipment that can utilize existing assets, dramatically extending their life while reducing the up-front costs usually associated with electrification.

“Cummins’ dedication to partnering with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and miners ensures that these technologies are developed and tested in real-world environments,” Jenny Bush adds. “With hybrid retrofit kits, modular component upgrades and scalable solutions, we are bringing miners the flexibility and confidence they need to decarbonize operations while adapting to evolving technologies and infrastructure.”

Cummins believes its trusted relationships with OEMs across various industries combined with their vast global service and parts network will give their hybrid retrofit packages a competitive edge, delivering technical support that similar, startup outfits simply can’t.

SOURCE | IMAGES: First Mode, via Cummins.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Volvo L25 Electric compact wheel loader helps set this organic vineyard apart

Published

on

By

Volvo L25 Electric compact wheel loader helps set this organic vineyard apart

Grapes are sensitive – and when you’re depending on them to have a certain flavor, a certain acidity, and even a certain smell, the last thing you want is diesel particulate matter settling on them. That’s just one of the reasons electric equipment options like Volvo’s electric wheel loader offer unique advantages to companies like Ästad Vingård.

Located in Sweden’s beautiful Åkulla beech forest nature reserve, Ästad Vingård is one of Sweden’s largest commercial vineyards, growing organic Solaris grapes and producing its own award-winning wines. The vineyard also hosts tours ending at their own, onsite, Michelin-star Restaurang ÄNG.

As you can imagine, they’re very particular about the way everything feels, smells, and tastes – but the sound, too, is part of the experience Ästad wants to create. That was the sort of thinking that went into Ästad’s decision to deploy one of the new Volvo L25 Electric compact wheel loaders late last summer.

“We’re super satisfied (with the Volvo),” explaines Henrik Carlsson, Head of Projects and Operations at Ästad Vingård. “It’s exactly what we hoped for – versatile and able to work a full day!”

The Volvo L25 Electric packs a pair of electric motors. One to drive the loader and the other to power the hydraulic systems. Together, they give the L25 wheel loader a lifting capacity more than 12,300 lb. Volvo says the 40 kWh battery and 48V electrical system are good for up to eight hours of continuous operation.

This electric compact loader supports the vineyard with everything from landscaping and waste transport to snow removal – all without disturbing the vineyard’s guests with noise or diesel smells. All that’s left for them to do is enjoy the experience.

Electrek’s Take

As the electric agricultural equipment market evolves, the winners will be the manufacturers who deliver bulletproof, seamless operation from a dealer and support network that’s just as bulletproof and seamless. The organic and hobby farm market (which I’d include vineyards in) is ready for electrification – it’s just a matter of which brand will deliver the most capable, flexible machines to market first.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Volvo CE, via LinkedIn.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump’s broadside against wind industry puts projects that could power millions of homes at risk

Published

on

By

Trump's broadside against wind industry puts projects that could power millions of homes at risk

A view of the turbines at Orsted’s offshore wind farm near Nysted, Denmark, September 4, 2023. 

Tom Little | Reuters

President Donald Trump promised to unleash U.S. energy dominance, but his sweeping executive order targeting wind power puts a pipeline of projects at risk that would generate enough electricity for millions of American homes.

The order Trump issued on his first day in office indefinitely paused new offshore wind leases in U.S. coastal waters and halted new permits pending the completion of a review. The order jeopardizes proposed projects on the East Coast that have not yet secured permits totaling 32 gigawatts of power, according to data from the consulting firm Aurora Energy Research.

“At the moment, it’s really hard to see how any of these projects will be able to move forward,” said Artem Abramov, head of new energies research at the consultancy Rystad. Like Aurora, Rystad estimates that around 30 gigawatts of projects on the U.S. East Coast are at risk.

Those projects, if realized, would provide enough combined power for more than 12 million homes in the U.S., according a CNBC analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration. The order is not expected to impact projects under construction totaling about 5 gigawatts, according to Aurora.

Trump has abandoned commitments made during the Biden administration to fight climate change, withdrawing the U.S. for a second time from the Paris agreement. He has focused on boosting fossil fuel production, opening U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas leasing on the same day he withdrew those waters for wind.

Trump’s order will jeopardize the efforts of states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast to transition away from fossil fuels and decarbonize their electric grid, Abramov said. New York, New Jersey and Virginia, for example, have ambitious clean energy goals adopted at the state level. But they are too far north to rely on solar with battery for power, Abramov said.

“If you want to achieve the future where the power generation in New York or New Jersey or Virginia is completely fossil free, if that’s the ultimate goal, there are not so many alternatives to offshore wind,” Abramov said.

The order could ultimately force states to rely more on carbon-emitting natural gas, according to Rystad and Aurora. But it is virtually impossible for a state like New York to meet its climate goals and ensure an adequate energy supply, particularly downstate in the New York City metro area, without offshore wind, said Julia Hoos, who heads Aurora’s U.S. East division.

Power projects waiting in line to connect to the electric grid in downstate New York through 2027 are almost entirely wind and transmission, Hoos said.

“There is virtually no possibility to bring online new gas in the next 18 to 24 months, unless there’s a significant reform or there’s some sort of fast track to bring online that gas, so you really can run into reliability issues,” Hoos said.

But more natural gas generation will likely be built later in the decade on the back of Trump’s policies, Hoos said. Investor sentiment was already shifting toward gas before the election results due in part to the need for reliable power to meet demand from artificial intelligence data centers, Abramov said.

Immediate impact

Two weeks after Trump’s order, New Jersey decided against moving forward for now with the Atlantic Shores project, which stood to become the first offshore wind development in the state. The state utilities board cited “uncertainty driven by federal actions and permitting” and European oil major Shell pulling out of the project.

“The offshore wind industry is currently facing significant challenges, and now is the time for patience and prudence,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement backing the board’s decision.

Murphy, who has set a goal to achieve 100% clean energy in New Jersey by 2035, said he hoped “the Trump Administration will partner with New Jersey to lower costs for consumers, promote energy security, and create good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs.”

Offshore wind in the U.S. “has come to a stop, more or less with immediate effect” in the wake of Trump’s order, Vestas Wind Energy Systems CEO Henrik Andersen told investors on the company’s Feb. 5 earnings call. Denmark’s Vestas is one of the world’s leaders in manufacturing and servicing wind turbines.

Industry headwinds

Vestas CEO says wind turbine manufacturer is ‘well positioned’ amid tariff concerns

But the industry has struggled against supply chain bottlenecks and high interest rates. Offshore wind was already the the most expensive form of renewable energy, Abramov said. Developers in the U.S. have faced a lot of cost certainty due to the challenges of building on water as opposed to land, Hoos said.

“The industry was hoping that the cost would come down,” Abramov said. “We haven’t seen any projects in the United States which was able to achieve lower levelized cost of energy.”

The world’s largest offshore wind developer, Denmark’s Orsted, decided on Feb. 5 to ditch its goal to install up to 38 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030. Orsted also slashed its investment program through the end of the decade by about 25% to range of 210 to 230 billion Danish crowns (about $29 billion to $32 billion), down from 270 billion crowns previously.

Orsted’s Sunrise Wind and Revolution wind projects that are under construction offshore New York and New England respectively should not be impacted by Trump’s order, CEO Rasmus Errboe told investors the company’s company’s Feb. 6 earnings call. Future developments, however, may be at risk.

“We are fully committed to moving them forward and deliver on our commitments,” Errboe said. “We do not expect that the executive order will have any implications on assets under construction, but of course for assets under development, it’s potentially a different situation.”

The order also should not impact Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the largest such project under construction in the U.S. at 2.6 gigawatts of power, Dominion Energy CEO Robert Blue told investors on the utility’s Feb. 12 earning call.

Stopping it would be the most inflationary action that could be taken with respect to energy in Virginia,” Blue said. “It’s needed to power that growing data center market we’ve been talking about, critical to continuing U.S. superiority in AI and technology.”

Looking for clarity

The wind industry lobby group American Clean Power in a Jan. 20 statement described Trump’s order as a blanket measure that will jeopardize domestic energy development and harm American businesses and workers. The president’s order contradicts the administration’s goal to reduce bureaucracy and unleash energy production, ACP CEO Jason Grumet said in the statement.

The ACP is now trying to get clarity from the Trump administration on how the executive order will be implemented, said Frank Macchiarola, the group’s chief advocacy officer. It’s unclear, for example, when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, Macchiarola said.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department simply said the department is implementing Trump’s executive order when asked for comment on a detailed list of questions. When asked when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, the spokesperson said any estimate would be hypothetical.

The wind industry is committed to working with the Trump administration, supports the president’s push for energy dominance agenda and is making the case that renewables have a key role to play in that agenda as the largest new source of electricity in the U.S., Macchiarola said.

“When past administrations have chosen to stifle American energy development that has been almost universally viewed as a mistake,” Macchiarola said.

Onshore wind permitting has also been halted pending the review, but the part of the industry is unlikely to face a substantial impact, Rystad’s Abramov said. Wind farms onshore are almost entirely built on private rather than federal land, he said. The market is also already saturated and adding capacity is largely dependent on building out more energy storage first, the analyst said.

Offshore wind, however, is a much less mature market in the U.S. and was viewed as major growth opportunity for the industry, Abramov said. But that appears to changing rapidly.

“They don’t see the U.S. as a market for continuous offshore wind expansion as long as this order is in place,” the analyst said.

— CNBC’s Gabriel Cortes contributed to this report.

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO:

Continue Reading

Trending