Sunday
31May2009
Just Say No To Renewable Energy Zones On Public Lands
Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:55
First published March 20th 2009
Update 8: I admit this article is a bit difficult to read as it has been updated no less than 8 times and has numerous links to pages supporting my argument. Stll. no one has managed to make any valid arguments as to why my ideas might not work-- not one. No matter if you're talking solar photovoltiaic (PV) concentrated solar power (CSP) or wind energy the argument remains the same. In some areas wind is a better choice and in other places solar is a better option but neither needs to be built on Federal lands. Not yet. Add Waste to Energy to the mix and our energy needs can be met.
I also think our plight is hopeless as "Humanity" is forever hell bent on destroying itself. The plan to locate alternative energy farms on Federal lands is yet another attempt by some big energy companies to continue their economic grip on the entire population of the United States and Canada, and if allowed to continue, even as energy becomes "greener" our addiction to big energy will continue to grow.
That said, there is hope provided each and every one who reads my words goes on to sign the petition and spread the word. (E-mail this article to a friend.) And for those who think my idea can't work, please allow me to explain that one of America's largest energy companies, Duke Energy, is moving in that direction and making the case for me. When the source is owned by the people it cannot and will not be taken away.
Remember: For the average citizen, being enslaved by American energy companies is no different than being addicted to imported oil. Why import energy from a few Western states when most states are capable of providing all the energy needed in that state?
Update 7: Duke Energy Proves Me Right!
Update 6: The fight isn't over-- Sign the petition and save the land!
Update 5: March 19, 2009: Okay, I’m pretty much done with this, it’s taken up too much of my time and energy. If America is set on destroying every single bit of wild land we have left then so be it. Onegreen superhero RecycleBill isn’t going to save the world. Besides, the ultimate solution to our energy and environmental problems is the eradication of Humanity itself-- something I couldn’t possibly do even if I really were a superhero.
So what does that mean? The answer is simple but because the "betterment of Humanity" always trumps saving the Earth I can only assume change will never come.
Have a nice day!
Begin original post:
Or, What Were They Thinking?
Updated3 4 5 times over.
What this? RecycleBill standing up against renewable energy—has he flipped his lid? Turned-in his green super hero costume? Who wouldn’t want 21 Million acres of windmills and solar collectors to be built on public lands?
It’s simple, really. It’s just that folks are so anxious to go green and save the economy that they haven’t even considered the alternatives to destroying 21 MILLION ACRES of wilderness. They aren’t considering the cost of building the tens of thousands of miles of roads necessary to get the trucks and equipment to these remote locations nor have they considered the environmental impact of building these roads, the fuel that will get burned or the air that will become even dirtier than it currently is.
So like cattle being led to slaughter or lemmings leaping to their deaths the green movement shouts, “We need renewable energy now! Damn the trees, fields, forest and streams! Bambi be dammed, we need green energy!”
Sad, isn’t it? What’s even sadder is, this isn’t a choice America needs to make. I’ll explain:
Windmills and solar collectors need not be placed in the wilderness. As a matter of fact, the farther away they are from where the energy is needed the more energy will be lost in transmitting the energy they produce from where it’s generated to where it’s needed. Why not generate the energy where it’s needed?
There Is A Better Idea
A better solution would be to utlize land that has already been developed. For example: the spaces beside and above our 46,000 mile Interstate Highway System could also become our Interstate Power System. And if that's not big enough then we could also employ the spaces above and beside our US Highway System. By the way, the use of the Federal Highway System for utilities is already written into existing law.
Now I'll admit that not every mile of highway would be suitable for the production of energy but the route doesn't end there. We could also add the roofs of state and federal buildings to the acreage available for wind and solar.
And if that's not enough then we should also look into leasing commercial rooftops as places to produce energy. As a matter of fact: a company called, ProLogis, is already leasing their roof tops to Southern California Edison to the tune of 2.2 Megawatts. From a 2005 report on leasing roofs for solar power:
" -- At $2.00-2.50 per installed watt, the annual market potential for grid-connected residential and commercial building PV applications is estimated at 2,900 MW, representing an annual market of about $6.6 billion (equipment and installations).
-- Rooftop space is not a constraining factor for solar development. Residential and commercial rooftop space in the U.S. could accommodate up to 710,000 MW of solar electric power (if all rooftops were fully utilized, taking into account proper orientation of buildings, shading from trees, HVAC equipment, and other solar access factors). For comparison, total electricity-generating capacity in the U.S. today is about 950,000 MW."
In other words: even without using our highways we already have enough roof space to generate most of America's electric needs. The report continues:
"-- The Pacific and Mid-Atlantic regions together would account for 52% of the potential residential and commercial sector demand.
-- California alone has the potential for about 40% of the total building rooftop market potential--through a combination of favorable sunlight levels and high retail energy prices."
In other words: the roofs are already located where the people are so why not use them? I'd be more than happy to lease my roof to an electric utility, wouldn't you? More:
"-- Other distributed forms of PV electric generation, including ground-mounted PV, car ports, curtain walls (a type of commercial building window), and awnings could further add to the potential identified by Navigant Consulting.
"Unlike most other power generation technologies, PV can be installed on the existing building infrastructure," said Lisa Frantzis, Director, Navigant Consulting. "This study shows that the available rooftop area can provide enough space to power a significant portion of U.S. electricity needs."
That's right, we don't need build a single road or knock down a single forest to meet America's electric needs. We need not displace a single wild animal from its home in the wilderness. We simply need to make enough noise to drown out the bulldoze and burn voices that have got us in this mess in the first place.
Then there's the spaces occupied by America's Railroads. Why the North Carolina Railroad alone controls 7684 acres within its 317 miles of track and 200' wide easements. (Someone, please check my math.)
Then there's farmland that could be leased. A windmill tower wouldn't have to take up any more space than the system of electrical towers that already crisscross America's farms and fields. And with a little bit of design work windmills could easily be placed on top of future electrical towers as new lines are drawn or existing lines are replaced. Has anyone thought about the fact that America's electrical grid is in dire need of replacement? Our current grid won't even support the proposed solar, wind and other renewable energy projects that are being proposed.
Please, let's not destroy America's remaining wilderness in the name of energy when we've really no need to do so.
Update: March 15, 2009: My thanks to Domenick Yoney of AutoBlogGreen for helping spread the word. Yes, I have been known to use a bit of hyperbole-- it's a common trait of poets and I just happen to be a poet as well as an environmentalist. As to those who believe that BLM lands aren't wilderness lands-- they may not be designated as wilderness according to Federal definitions but for most of this nation BLM lands are the closest thing to wilderness that most of us will ever experience. We should be working to prevent any kind of development on BLM lands for as long as possible. As selpern stated in the comments below, "We have already created scars on the land. Re-scar the scars. Wind power down the I5 corridor would be invisible."
It's about setting precidents: Every time an acre of BLM land is developed the environmental value of the acre beside it drops and the developers, be they energy companies, miners, foresters, road builders or simple home builders make the case that the land is already scarred so why prevent their development when we didn't prevent the last development?
And if energy installations are built in the middle of nowhere then new towns will be needed to support those who live and work in the installations.
Update 2: March 16: A few facts and some thoughts I'd like to add.
The cost of building new roads into remote locations will exceed $1 Million Dollars per mile. The cost of building the new transmission lines to connect the new power supplies to the existing grid will probably be almost as high. The cost of using public lands as proposed by Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar will far exceed building the energy installations closer to home. New towns will need to be built to support the new power installations. Towns and roads create environmental nightmares.
Would you like to earn some extra money leasing your roof to a utility company? Or as Ron pointed out in the comments below, cows don't mind sharing pasture with windmills, lease the thousands of acres of grazing lands beside the Intestates to the energy companies. The American people are paying the price, why not let the American people and not just big energy companies get some of the profits? This just might be enough to save a few of America's family farmers.
Local governments could get in as well. Right now every city in America is struggling with paying the bills-- why not lease the roof tops of local government buildings to the energy companies so that we can reduce our tax burdens? I'll be encouraging my city leaders to lease municipal rooftops to energy companies-- if you're smart you'll do the same.
The plan to use BLM lands for alternative energy is hardly any better than allowing drilling for oil on these same lands. Most people mistakenly think that oil spills are the biggest threats drilling might impose but you can bet that oil companies would rather sell their black gold than spill it on the ground and will do everything they can think of to prevent such spills. The biggest danger from drilling for oil is the grading, clearing, paving and town building that is required. And those are the very same environmental nightmares that alternative energy installations on public lands will generate. Why swap one evil for another?
And finally, for those of you who think solar would be best placed in the middle of the desert-- have you ever seen what a sandstorm does to the glass on the front of a solar collector or mirror? I have. Sandstorms whip through deserts several times a year and it only takes one sandstorm to wipe out a solar farm.
Update 3: March 17: You know, I've been wondering who the companies are that will build these wind and solar plants on United States Bureau Of Land Management properties so I decided to try and find out. I've not learned the answers yet but I did stumble across some things you might find interesting:
See any windmills or solar panels?
In the course of my research I discovered that at least one major energy company is already leasing rooftops. In other words, the energy industry already knows my ideas will work.
So if the industry already knows my plan will work then why would there be a need to develop remote locations that might lie hundreds of miles from anything? Can you say, land grab?
Ann Carlson reports that have legal concerns about building giant energy plants in the middle of nowhere.
Update 4: March 18: What about the Desert tortise? Does he not matter too?
One of the leaders in the plan to locate solar farms in the desert is BrightSource Energy. Is there really any reason why such a plant has to be built in the middle of nowhere? Their towers could be constructed in the middle of any city in the Sunbelt and the mirrors placed on rooftops all over the city-- problem solved. Have the folks at BrightSource never seen what blowing sand does to a mirror?
Sign the petition and save the land.
Links:
Think it can't be done? Check out this solar powered stadium built for the 2009 World Games.R>
Update 8: I admit this article is a bit difficult to read as it has been updated no less than 8 times and has numerous links to pages supporting my argument. Stll. no one has managed to make any valid arguments as to why my ideas might not work-- not one. No matter if you're talking solar photovoltiaic (PV) concentrated solar power (CSP) or wind energy the argument remains the same. In some areas wind is a better choice and in other places solar is a better option but neither needs to be built on Federal lands. Not yet. Add Waste to Energy to the mix and our energy needs can be met.
I also think our plight is hopeless as "Humanity" is forever hell bent on destroying itself. The plan to locate alternative energy farms on Federal lands is yet another attempt by some big energy companies to continue their economic grip on the entire population of the United States and Canada, and if allowed to continue, even as energy becomes "greener" our addiction to big energy will continue to grow.
That said, there is hope provided each and every one who reads my words goes on to sign the petition and spread the word. (E-mail this article to a friend.) And for those who think my idea can't work, please allow me to explain that one of America's largest energy companies, Duke Energy, is moving in that direction and making the case for me. When the source is owned by the people it cannot and will not be taken away.
Remember: For the average citizen, being enslaved by American energy companies is no different than being addicted to imported oil. Why import energy from a few Western states when most states are capable of providing all the energy needed in that state?
Update 7: Duke Energy Proves Me Right!
Update 6: The fight isn't over-- Sign the petition and save the land!
Update 5: March 19, 2009: Okay, I’m pretty much done with this, it’s taken up too much of my time and energy. If America is set on destroying every single bit of wild land we have left then so be it. One
So what does that mean? The answer is simple but because the "betterment of Humanity" always trumps saving the Earth I can only assume change will never come.
Have a nice day!
Begin original post:
Or, What Were They Thinking?
Updated
What this? RecycleBill standing up against renewable energy—has he flipped his lid? Turned-in his green super hero costume? Who wouldn’t want 21 Million acres of windmills and solar collectors to be built on public lands?
It’s simple, really. It’s just that folks are so anxious to go green and save the economy that they haven’t even considered the alternatives to destroying 21 MILLION ACRES of wilderness. They aren’t considering the cost of building the tens of thousands of miles of roads necessary to get the trucks and equipment to these remote locations nor have they considered the environmental impact of building these roads, the fuel that will get burned or the air that will become even dirtier than it currently is.
So like cattle being led to slaughter or lemmings leaping to their deaths the green movement shouts, “We need renewable energy now! Damn the trees, fields, forest and streams! Bambi be dammed, we need green energy!”
Sad, isn’t it? What’s even sadder is, this isn’t a choice America needs to make. I’ll explain:
Windmills and solar collectors need not be placed in the wilderness. As a matter of fact, the farther away they are from where the energy is needed the more energy will be lost in transmitting the energy they produce from where it’s generated to where it’s needed. Why not generate the energy where it’s needed?
There Is A Better Idea
A better solution would be to utlize land that has already been developed. For example: the spaces beside and above our 46,000 mile Interstate Highway System could also become our Interstate Power System. And if that's not big enough then we could also employ the spaces above and beside our US Highway System. By the way, the use of the Federal Highway System for utilities is already written into existing law.
Now I'll admit that not every mile of highway would be suitable for the production of energy but the route doesn't end there. We could also add the roofs of state and federal buildings to the acreage available for wind and solar.
And if that's not enough then we should also look into leasing commercial rooftops as places to produce energy. As a matter of fact: a company called, ProLogis, is already leasing their roof tops to Southern California Edison to the tune of 2.2 Megawatts. From a 2005 report on leasing roofs for solar power:
" -- At $2.00-2.50 per installed watt, the annual market potential for grid-connected residential and commercial building PV applications is estimated at 2,900 MW, representing an annual market of about $6.6 billion (equipment and installations).
-- Rooftop space is not a constraining factor for solar development. Residential and commercial rooftop space in the U.S. could accommodate up to 710,000 MW of solar electric power (if all rooftops were fully utilized, taking into account proper orientation of buildings, shading from trees, HVAC equipment, and other solar access factors). For comparison, total electricity-generating capacity in the U.S. today is about 950,000 MW."
In other words: even without using our highways we already have enough roof space to generate most of America's electric needs. The report continues:
"-- The Pacific and Mid-Atlantic regions together would account for 52% of the potential residential and commercial sector demand.
-- California alone has the potential for about 40% of the total building rooftop market potential--through a combination of favorable sunlight levels and high retail energy prices."
In other words: the roofs are already located where the people are so why not use them? I'd be more than happy to lease my roof to an electric utility, wouldn't you? More:
"-- Other distributed forms of PV electric generation, including ground-mounted PV, car ports, curtain walls (a type of commercial building window), and awnings could further add to the potential identified by Navigant Consulting.
"Unlike most other power generation technologies, PV can be installed on the existing building infrastructure," said Lisa Frantzis, Director, Navigant Consulting. "This study shows that the available rooftop area can provide enough space to power a significant portion of U.S. electricity needs."
That's right, we don't need build a single road or knock down a single forest to meet America's electric needs. We need not displace a single wild animal from its home in the wilderness. We simply need to make enough noise to drown out the bulldoze and burn voices that have got us in this mess in the first place.
Then there's the spaces occupied by America's Railroads. Why the North Carolina Railroad alone controls 7684 acres within its 317 miles of track and 200' wide easements. (Someone, please check my math.)
Then there's farmland that could be leased. A windmill tower wouldn't have to take up any more space than the system of electrical towers that already crisscross America's farms and fields. And with a little bit of design work windmills could easily be placed on top of future electrical towers as new lines are drawn or existing lines are replaced. Has anyone thought about the fact that America's electrical grid is in dire need of replacement? Our current grid won't even support the proposed solar, wind and other renewable energy projects that are being proposed.
Please, let's not destroy America's remaining wilderness in the name of energy when we've really no need to do so.
Update: March 15, 2009: My thanks to Domenick Yoney of AutoBlogGreen for helping spread the word. Yes, I have been known to use a bit of hyperbole-- it's a common trait of poets and I just happen to be a poet as well as an environmentalist. As to those who believe that BLM lands aren't wilderness lands-- they may not be designated as wilderness according to Federal definitions but for most of this nation BLM lands are the closest thing to wilderness that most of us will ever experience. We should be working to prevent any kind of development on BLM lands for as long as possible. As selpern stated in the comments below, "We have already created scars on the land. Re-scar the scars. Wind power down the I5 corridor would be invisible."
It's about setting precidents: Every time an acre of BLM land is developed the environmental value of the acre beside it drops and the developers, be they energy companies, miners, foresters, road builders or simple home builders make the case that the land is already scarred so why prevent their development when we didn't prevent the last development?
And if energy installations are built in the middle of nowhere then new towns will be needed to support those who live and work in the installations.
Update 2: March 16: A few facts and some thoughts I'd like to add.
The cost of building new roads into remote locations will exceed $1 Million Dollars per mile. The cost of building the new transmission lines to connect the new power supplies to the existing grid will probably be almost as high. The cost of using public lands as proposed by Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar will far exceed building the energy installations closer to home. New towns will need to be built to support the new power installations. Towns and roads create environmental nightmares.
Would you like to earn some extra money leasing your roof to a utility company? Or as Ron pointed out in the comments below, cows don't mind sharing pasture with windmills, lease the thousands of acres of grazing lands beside the Intestates to the energy companies. The American people are paying the price, why not let the American people and not just big energy companies get some of the profits? This just might be enough to save a few of America's family farmers.
Local governments could get in as well. Right now every city in America is struggling with paying the bills-- why not lease the roof tops of local government buildings to the energy companies so that we can reduce our tax burdens? I'll be encouraging my city leaders to lease municipal rooftops to energy companies-- if you're smart you'll do the same.
The plan to use BLM lands for alternative energy is hardly any better than allowing drilling for oil on these same lands. Most people mistakenly think that oil spills are the biggest threats drilling might impose but you can bet that oil companies would rather sell their black gold than spill it on the ground and will do everything they can think of to prevent such spills. The biggest danger from drilling for oil is the grading, clearing, paving and town building that is required. And those are the very same environmental nightmares that alternative energy installations on public lands will generate. Why swap one evil for another?
And finally, for those of you who think solar would be best placed in the middle of the desert-- have you ever seen what a sandstorm does to the glass on the front of a solar collector or mirror? I have. Sandstorms whip through deserts several times a year and it only takes one sandstorm to wipe out a solar farm.
Update 3: March 17: You know, I've been wondering who the companies are that will build these wind and solar plants on United States Bureau Of Land Management properties so I decided to try and find out. I've not learned the answers yet but I did stumble across some things you might find interesting:
See any windmills or solar panels?
In the course of my research I discovered that at least one major energy company is already leasing rooftops. In other words, the energy industry already knows my ideas will work.
So if the industry already knows my plan will work then why would there be a need to develop remote locations that might lie hundreds of miles from anything? Can you say, land grab?
Ann Carlson reports that have legal concerns about building giant energy plants in the middle of nowhere.
Update 4: March 18: What about the Desert tortise? Does he not matter too?
One of the leaders in the plan to locate solar farms in the desert is BrightSource Energy. Is there really any reason why such a plant has to be built in the middle of nowhere? Their towers could be constructed in the middle of any city in the Sunbelt and the mirrors placed on rooftops all over the city-- problem solved. Have the folks at BrightSource never seen what blowing sand does to a mirror?
Sign the petition and save the land.
Links:
Think it can't be done? Check out this solar powered stadium built for the 2009 World Games.R>
tagged eenergy, greenwashing, renewable energy in Green not!, conservation, ecology, energy
eenergy, greenwashing, renewable energy in Green not!, conservation, ecology, energy 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (14)
Good point Billy. I am as you might know all for renewable energy, especially solar power which I have personal experience with. I have read reports suggesting the deserts for solar power and have seen nothing wrong with that since the deserts certainly have the sun year round. But you are correct that the land along our high ways would be a much more efficient and less costly as well as environmentally sound alternative. Now how do we get the Congress onto this idea? BB
Great points. We have already created scars on the land. Re-scar the scars. Wind power down the I5 corridor would be invisible.
Brenda wrote: "Now how do we get the Congress onto this idea?"
We have to make a lot of noise and we must make it fast, before the damage is done.
selpern wrote: "Wind power down the I5 corridor would be invisible."
I've traveled every mile of Interstate Highway in the nation-- most every mile is exactly the same as you describe the I5 corridor.
I agree with much of your argument, but I think the point of using desert is to generate power using solar thermal, not PV. This requires big open spaces. Solar thermal is much less expensive than PV, and probably will be for at least another decade (unless Nanosolar's claims are true). Solar thermal is already price-competitive with wind and natural gas, too.
dasein,
I think you're missing the bigger point. BLM lands aren't all desert and the projects being proposed are for the most part wind farms, geothermal, and natural gas. Very few solar thermal projects are being proposed. Selling out our nation to energy companies and mining operations has long been SOP for BLM and the current BLM leadership is following the same practices.
You're right on with this Bill. Here in Montana, there is a ton of farmland used for raising cattle that is perfect for wind farms, with so much of it next to freeways or state highways. Using public land is just plain stupid.
Ron,
Exactly, give our farmers some of the profits too-- no need to give it all to the energy companies. Exxon, Chevron and the other big energy companies want to use BLM lands so they can continue to control new forms energy the same way they controlled energy for the last 100 years.
Spread the wealth!
FYI
Google can do math
317 miles = 1 673 760 feet
(1,673,760 feet) * (200 feet) = 31,099,478.4 m2
31,099,478.4 (meters^2) = 7,684.84847 acres
Couldn't agree more with you on placing renewables with the people. However, politically it might be easier to do it elsewhere. Although, if the $$ is more than 2x the hassle. We might have people clamouring for a chance to have wind/ solar farms on their roofs.
the problem with both Solar and Windpower is that they kill wildlife faster than burning oil. Solar panels gover vast acreges, and wind power kills vast numbers of birds, especially federally protected birds of prey. They're not an option, period.
They kill wild life??! Well what do you know about that! Huh! Lordy, Lordy but we can't possibly let a few birds fly into wind turbines. Much better just to destroy forests and habitat with the filthy acid rains. Not to mention the pollution of the seas and oceans with tar and oil spills, and more common polluting "leakage" that energy companies and the governments don't want to mention. Brenda Bowers
It's amusing/baffling/enlightening to witness extremist environmentalist types naysaying the very technologies they've touted for so long. They've painted themselves into a corner.
Windmills being built near people? it won't happen. Have you ever seen what happens when a large windmill self-destructs? (youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ) They are located in remote regions for a reason.
Windmills not an option because they kill vast numbers of birds? Haven't you heard of radar systems that shut down windmills when flocks of birds approach?
Solar arrays cover vast acreage? Yes, of waste land that isn't used for anything else.
New roads and transmission lines built. It's called infrastructure, the thing that benefits many. It makes us all wealthy.
Where there's a will there's a way. But extremists/purists can't get anything constructive done.
Bud wrote: "It's amusing/baffling/enlightening to witness extremist environmentalist types naysaying the very technologies they've touted for so long. They've painted themselves into a corner."
I'm not naysaying the technology, I'm saying put it where the energy is needed. Wildlife have no need for electricity.
Bud wrote: "Windmills being built near people? it won't happen. Have you ever seen what happens when a large windmill self-destructs?"
That's why I advocate putting the windmills on ranches where their only potential victims will be cows that were going to be slaughtered anyway.
Bud Wrote: "Solar arrays cover vast acreage? Yes, of waste land that isn't used for anything else."
Bud, I have personally set foot on the ground of every one of the lower 48 states-- there is no such thing as waste land except for the lands Humanity has already laid to waste.
Bud wrote: "New roads and transmission lines built. It's called infrastructure, the thing that benefits many. It makes us all wealthy."
It would appear you value your money more than you value the earth. It's sad that your priorities are so screwed-up.
It would appear you value your money more than you value the earth. It's sad that your priorities are so screwed-up.
You're making a value judgment that you're not qualified to make. I believe in <u>balance</u>. One can value both. The charge that if one values one he cannot value the other is really dishonest and ridiculous. It is exactly these kinds of extremist, polarizing ideas that have created the situation we now face.
Your comment on waste land is valid. My usage of the word implied land not being used for human benefit, i.e., a waste of resources. If you think that land lying unused takes precedence over human betterment, then it is you who have the screwed up priorities.
"human betterment,"
What makes the needs of humans more important than all the rest of God's creatures? If you value both then you must understand that the environment must be protected.
Bud, I haven't been extreem at all. I'm simply pointing out there is no need to waste more land than we've already laid to waste. There is more than enough available land for our energy needs without using public lands. Look at the State of Texas-- the leader in wind energy. In Texas, all the alternative energy projects built to date are built on PRIVATE LAND. There is no reason why all these projects can't be built on land that has already been spoiled.
Once public lands are used for ANYTHING they will never be made whole again. The BLM has a long history of making mining companies forest companies and oil companies very, very rich at the expense of the working class-- why should yours and my tax dollars go to building and supporting infrastructure on public lands when the energy companies who build there keep all the profits to themselves and jack up prices anytime they feel inclined to do so?
Build all the wind farms and solar farms you want to build but don't build them on land we've yet to destroy.
Think about it, Bud, a roof built over an interstate highway and covered with solar collectors or wind mills would not only make electricity, it would make the highway safer to drive-- plowing snow wouldn't be as necessary and asphalt pavement would last longer because it's shaded. And the cost of keeping everything working would be less because everything would be more accessable.
There simply is no logical argument against the proposals I've made here.