☆ Opinion: SJ should stay away from the “green” energy boondoggle
Many local cities have tried—or are considering—natural gas bans on new buildings. Though “green” mandates get a good rep ‘round San Jose, Silicon Valley GOP head David G. Johnson believes we aren’t considering all the facts. Namely: that renewable energy’s expensive, unsustainable, insufficient for our needs, and—um—is a far cry from “clean.” His Opp Now exclusive op-ed, below.
One of the more popular narratives in the U.S. today concerns “green energy” and the elimination of the use of fossil fuels. This topic is popular in the media throughout the U.S., as well as here in California. One simply cannot read a newspaper these days without finding a reference to the greatness and future of solar power. But has anyone considered what they are saying when they demand for the push to end fossil fuels? Or do they think about how much it will cost to build all of these new clean power facilities? What about what the real cost to the environment is?
Make no mistake: clean energy has its place. Reducing greenhouse gases is a noble cause. But before we rush headlong into destroying the economy (see below), let’s look at some facts about solar power and specifically energy uses here in California.
Today, solar power represents a mere 7% of the State’s total retail energy usage. Currently, 41% of the state’s energy consumption is dedicated to transportation (fossil fuels); and another 24% of the State’s energy, mostly fossil fuels, is used for industrial purposes. With this in mind, one begins to see that the goal of the elimination of fossil fuels, while well-meaning, does not begin to address the end of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are essential in the operation of many solar facilities. Solar panels are comprised of a number of rare and extremely toxic and hazardous materials that are used in their manufacturing. Some of the materials used to make solar panels release in excess of 20,000 times the amount of greenhouse gases as the CO2 they are meant to help eliminate. Additionally, there is significant waste in the manufacturing process used to create the solar panels. Finally, the panels represent a huge problem at the end of their lives, as there are currently no laws in the U.S. concerning how these toxic panels are safely recycled or what they will do to the environment when they are put into landfills. (Source: California Energy Commission)
It is useful then, to gain an understanding of the place that solar has in California, how much solar capacity the State has, and how much energy in total the State needs. Without the proper perspective, it becomes easy to fall in line with the narrative.
California Solar Production Compared to Other Sources
Currently, there is one major solar facility in San Bernardino County, California, known as SEGS. SEGS is actually a series of facilities that were initially built in the late 1990s and commissioned in 2004, where it started with a capacity of 50 MW. The complex has since grown to a capacity of 354 MW spread over several sites. These sites initially were built utilizing solar thermal energy, but that has since evolved into a photovoltaic complex.
The facilities that make up SEGS now consist of a total of nine solar power plants spread throughout the Mojave Desert. The original site was a solar thermal energy facility, which—when it was built—was the world’s second largest. This type of facility uses sunlight to heat oil to 400 degrees °C (or more), which is then used to transfer the heat to water to create the steam needed to spin turbines, thereby creating electricity. This type of facility is located at Harper Lake and Daggett and employs about 140 people. (Source: Solargenix Energy)
One of the initial problems with solar thermal energy is the use of fossil fuels. In 1999, at the SEGS Daggett facility, a 900,000 gallon tank of Therminol (a type of mineral oil), which is a heat transfer liquid used to transfer solar heat to the steam tanks, caught fire and burned for hours. Firefighters had to rush to keep the fire from spreading to the other nearby tanks that contained sulfuric acid and caustic soda. It seems that not all solar plants generate electricity without the use of other fossil fuels. (Source: LA Times)
The largest U.S. solar thermal energy facility is a concentrated solar power (CSP) facility located at Ivanpah (Mojave Desert, near the California–Nevada border). At a cost of $2.2 billion to build (of which $1.6 billion was federally guaranteed money), this facility uses 173,000 mirrors designed to concentrate sunlight to the top of three towers in which boilers are placed to transfer the heat to boil water, which spins the turbines used to generate electricity. This facility was, at the time of its initial construction, the largest such facility in the world; but it has never lived up to its potential due to the high construction cost and numerous incidents and glitches in its operation. These glitches include a fire started by the mirrors directing heat to the wrong part of the solar tower, starting a fire which caused the shutdown of that portion of the facility, and the thousands of birds killed each year as they fly through the beam of heat generated by the mirrors. The complexity of the facility also leaves open the possibility of any number of piping or other mechanical issues that impair full production. (Source: BrightWorks)
The cost per KWh from various solar facilities such as mentioned here is also about two to three times that of the cost to produce electricity versus the more practical photovoltaic facility at SEGS. As a side note, this facility created 1,000 construction jobs to build the plant and has 89 permanent positions on site. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost to build a solar plant based on the most recent numbers (2015) is more than four times as much as the cost to build a natural-gas fired plant. Natural gas facilities last between 30 and 50 years, while a solar plant only has a life expectancy of 20 years. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
The cost to build a solar thermal energy facility or a photovoltaic facility is considerably more than the cost to build a natural gas facility, as noted by the chart below.
As of 2018, the total percentage of solar energy produced in California represented just 14% of the state’s electricity needs, while energy from coal was 15%. Electricity from nuclear power has fallen to 9.4% from the sole facility at Diablo Canyon, where production has remained constant as other sources of electricity have risen.
The combined totals of wind, solar, small hydro, geothermal, and biomass produce 32.3% of the state’s total energy output, but that number reached 43.6% with the addition of large hydro electricity production. Electricity from natural gas remains the top source of electricity with a total of 46.5% of the state’s total production. (Source: California Energy Commission)
One other important fact is that currently, California imports 32% of its power from other states. The total electrical generating capacity in the State of California is around 54,000 MW. Remove the +/-10,000 MW from Diablo Canyon, and the total magnitude of the problem begins to emerge. If California produced 100% of the power it needed, it would need an additional 17,000 MW of capacity. To achieve 100% “green” power from solar, it would take roughly 20 square miles of panels! That is a lot of panels.
An essential component of the solar conversation has to do with how the solar panels are manufactured.
Solar Panels—How They Are Made
There are two types of solar power plants, photovoltaic (PV) and heat generating. PV facilities use solar panels like the ones on your house to convert sunlight directly into electricity, whereas heat generating facilities use reflective panels to heat a liquid, which is then sent to a turbine, which in turn spins to create electricity.
The manufacture of the solar panels and what happens to them once they have reached their life expectancy is of some concern. According to Chem Service Inc., an industry standards magazine, the manufacture of solar panels is, like fracking, reliant on a variety of chemicals in order to work successfully and efficiently. The panels use silicon like they use for semiconductors, except that even pure silicon is not pure enough to make a solar panel efficient, so the raw silicon must be treated with a chemical-rich process.
First, the silicon is mixed with copper and hydrochloric acid to produce trichlorosilane gas, which is then reduced with hydrogen to make silane gas. The silane gas is heated into molten silicon, which leads to silicon crystals that can be reformed and used for PV cells and microchips. This process is very energy intensive and materially wasteful, with about half of the initial pure metallurgical silicon lost in the process. Silicon dust represents safety dangers, and silane gas is incredibly explosive (it ignites when it mixes with oxygen).
Some other chemicals used to make solar panels include cadnium, nitrogen trifluoride, and sulfur hexafluoride. Cadnium is a naturally occurring earth metal, produced from smelting zinc, copper, or lead ore. The EPA has noted that inhaling or being exposed to cadmium can lead to cancerous and noncancerous damage to lungs and other organs. Cadnium is also very expensive; and, like silicon, only about half of the cadmium is used in the PV making process—so the rest is waste. Finally, the risk of any type of breach or leak of cadmium into the water supply would be very harmful.
While solar panels do not generate greenhouse gases when they operate, the manufacturing process of solar panels does. Two additional chemicals used in the manufacture of solar panels include nitrogen trifluoride and sulfur hexafluoride. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times stronger than CO2, while sulfur hexafluoride is 22,800 times more potent than CO2. These gases are released into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process. (Source: ChemService Inc. Magazine)
Finally, there is the matter of what to do with the solar panels once they have reached the end of their life expectancy. Currently, there are no laws in the U.S. (as there are in Europe) with regard to the disposal of the used panels. Most panels go to a recycler first, who will remove any copper wires and the aluminum frame. But the rest of the panel is essentially chemically-laden glass, which is toxic and potentially lethal.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, there is a solar e-waste glut coming with an anticipated 78 million metric tons of waste being generated by 2050 with another 6 million metric tons each year thereafter. This is an environmental problem that has yet to be addressed. (Source: Renewable Energy Agency)
Goal of 100% Carbon Free by 2045
California has a stated goal of producing 60% “clean energy” by 2030, and 100% clean energy by 2045. This information comes from CA SB 100, “The Clean Air Act,” a report produced by the California Energy Commission. A close look at this document reveals that this goal only applies to the retail sector. So we are looking at 100% (or green energy) being used to serve the needs of 7% of the total energy market. It’s all about misdirection. Smoke and mirrors. A narrative put forth by well-meaning politicians and the media. Let’s all (not) get on the bandwagon.
These panels require extremely toxic chemicals in their manufacture, some of which release extraordinarily high levels of greenhouse gases. And the disposal of the used panels represents yet another hurdle, as there are currently no laws or regulations as to their disposal. 78 million metric tons represent 172 trillion pounds of toxic waste. How green is that?
It is becoming clear that solar by itself is not the answer to producing “clean” energy. Nuclear power is clean. Nuclear facilities last a long time, and despite the bad rap that has been placed on these facilities, there have been very few issues here in the U.S. Hydro power is efficient and clean, but there is not enough of it. Biomass as an industry that is still in its infancy, but one that has potential to become an important part of the creation of green energy. Natural gas is dominant and relatively clean, especially in California, and will remain the go-to source for electrical power for a long time to come.
With all of this in mind, we need more transparency when it comes to having an honest and realistic discussion about green energy. We must be honest about the cost, which is rarely discussed. Any rational discussion about green energy should focus on the resources we already have in the U.S. If we have a 1,000 year supply of natural gas, it seems that it would be far more cost-effective to utilize what already works.
The total cost for the conversion of California’s energy to solar is in the trillions. The footprint of these facilities is considerably larger than gas-fired power plants. Solar facilities do not last as long as other types of facilities. Disposal of used panels is clearly a problem.
With regard to “going green,” the cost is clearly not worth it, nor has it been thought through.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.