Renewable energy sources like solar and wind farms are; unreliable and inefficient, more expensive to produce electricity, damage vast areas of habitat, and there is no real plan for handling the toxic elements in old or broken solar panels, or damaged wind turbine blades. Yet Washington's Democrat-led legislature mandated that our state will have to have 80% of our electricity provided by these sources by 2035. Please, answer me these questions if you can; 1. Why was it such a fight to have hydroelectric power included in the renewable category?
2. With the toxic elements within solar panels, what is the plan for storage of damaged or obsolete panels? 3. Does it make any sense to destroy the environment trying to save the climate?
Hydroelectric power
It seems that part of the opposition to hydroelectric power being included in the renewable category isn't related as much to Washington state's environment, but the effect global warming may have on finding future suitable hydroelectric sites across the world. So instead of looking at this issue from the standpoint of Washington state's needs, the Democrats in Olympia seem to have been following an agenda that considered the possible effects of global warming on hydro locations worldwide rather on here in Washington state. They appear to have been more focused on a possible global solution rather than one for Washington. One of the main reliability issues that I have heard discussed was that California's rivers were expected to have much less flow due to population growth and climate change affecting waterflow. Making decisions for Washington's environmental and renewable energy future based on how California is expected to experience global warming and its population would seem to demonstrate a lack of forethought and leadership on the part of Washington's energy policy planners.
Solar Power
Solar power systems hold an entirely different set of negative environmental issues that seem to be down played, or ignored when the discussion of solar power policy in Washington state is brought up. The basic photovoltaic (PV) solar farm, an array of solar panels set to collect as much sunlight as possible, requires between 3.5 to 10 acres of land per Megawatt produced. The lifetime CO2 equivalent emmissions of a PV solar farm of this size is between 70-180 pounds of carbon-dioxide equivalent per Megawatt-hour. For a PV farm with a comparable power output of just the Bonneville Dam (5 billion kilowatthours of electricity per year) it would have to be approximately 14 times, or up to 140 acres of land dedicated solely to solar panels. Even more land would be needed if you factor in the fact that the dam can produce power at night, when solar is incapable of doing so. This land would have previously been home to wildlife or farm animals. But they would have to be removed to proceed with the installation of the solar farm. This led to the deaths of many tortoises in California after being moved into captivity from their borroughs in the desert.
The elemental toxins incorporated in the materials the solar panels themselves are made of, and the toxic chemicals used in manufacture and cleaning, as well as the final storage or possible recycling of these materials as the panels reach the end of their effective lifecycle after approximately 20 years also raise environmental questions that seem to again be ignored or downplayed in the mad rush to force conversion of up to 80% of Washington's energy production to these renewable energy sources.
For concentrating solar thermal plants (CSP) the land usage is even greater. Estimates range from 4-16.5 acres per Megawatt. These plants also can have a high water usage rate for cooling. These types of facilities are also notorious for killing dozens of birds per day. Solar energy sites of this size can also have the negative environmental effects of habitat destruction and land degradation. Unlike wind facilities, there is much less option for sharing land with agricultural and wildlife uses.
Wind Power
Wind farms can require from 30 to 141 acres per Megawatt of energy created. While some of the land in wind farms can be used for agriculture, the land can still be greatly disturbed. Also, wind turbines do fail on a routine basis, and their blades can easily delaminate and require replacement. Currently, most turbine blades are simply cut-up and buried at storage sites. Wind farms also kill millions of bats and thousands of birds every year. Many of these birds are endangered raptors such as; eagles, hawks, owls, and other large birds.
Also the high use of concrete in wind farms can be problematic. Both in production, and onsite. Mining for the materials to make the concrete can result in water contamination, and once in place, the large amount of concrete spread over a formerly empty landscape can alter how water flows. It can also effect the retention of heat, as concrete can make an excellent heat sink during a warm day. How the change in heat retention and release may affect local climate conditions is not well understood.
Also, the fact that wind turbines catching fire due to electrical shorts, bearing or brake issues can also be problematic. As the height of the turbines is often too high for most local fire fighting apparatus to fight the fire in a rapid response. The fact that often these wind farms are in arid and often remote locations only adds to the difficulties. One example is the Juniper Fire that was started in Bickleton, Washington by a wind turbine that failed and caught fire. Hundreds of acres burned, and nearly 40 homes were threatened by this one fire before fire fighters were finally able to put the fire out in 2019.
Wind farms at sea, are still not fully understood how they affect marine life. Whether the vast wind farms expected to be needed to generate the expected energy levels will have an adverse effect of local weather patterns is still not fully understood. The additional cost of offshore wind farms maintenance becomes even more of a concern when considering the strong winter storms that can hit the Washington coast.
Questions
Please, answer me these questions if you can;
1. Why was it such a fight to have hydroelectric power included in the renewable category?
2. With the toxic elements within solar panels, what is the plan for storage of damaged or obsolete panels?
3. Does it make any sense to destroy the environment, and possibly drive some species into extinction trying to save the climate?
4. With the low level of effective reliable energy generation, higher power production costs, problematic environmental concerns, why are the Democrats in Olympia so on fire to shift our electrical infrastructure to 80% renewable energy within the next 15 years?
Comments