The Heartland Institute, the infamous fossil-industry-funded climate denier group that faked 500 scientists to deny climate change, is now creating a new fake narrative about water use in utility scale solar. They did a very thorough job of disseminating their 500 supposed skeptic climate scientists story; as Desmogblog notes – helpfully printing 150,000 copies for distribution across the US including 850 journalists, 26,000 schools, “19,000 leaders and politicians”.
Now they are working on a new disinformation narrative: That solar power uses more water than traditional oil, gas, coal and nuclear power.
Their story is now that Environmentalists Oppose Mojave Desert Solar Power. But the quotes come not from “environmentalists who oppose desert solar power”, but from another fossil-funded think tank. Here’s their false claim about water use (with a bonus false claim about land use):
“With solar power plants having a much larger footprint and demanding more water for power generation than traditional power plants require, battle lines between environmental activist groups are being drawn in the desert sand.”
Solar power plants actually demand less water than traditional power plants. Much, much less:
As much as 60 times less, according to the (pdf) Report to Congress on Concentrating Solar Power Commercial Application Study: Reducing Water Consumption of Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation.
Of all the kinds of solar power, the one that uses the most water is wet cooled solar thermal trough concentrated solar power. Even this; the most profligate water user of all the utility-scale solar technologies uses 60 times less water than nuclear, 50 times less water than coal, and 20 times less water than gas, per megawatt hour of electricity generated. (And solar also has a much smaller footprint than coal, as Grist writer Gar Lithow demonstrates.)
But battle lines are supposedly being drawn in the sand because of this supposed solar thirst. But who are these environmental groups? Tom Tanton is one.
Tom Tanton, a senior fellow for energy studies at the Pacific Research Institute said,
“It’s not just the construction of the solar farms but the ongoing maintenance of the plants that further encroach on habitats”. Tanton is also disturbed by the preferential treatment wind and solar projects receive.“They already get favoritism in the form of tax credits; they should not get it when it comes to habitat conservation. It’s time to stop extreme favoritism for wind and solar and make them play by the same rules,” Tanton said. “Sacrificing anything, especially endangered species, to enable one of the dumbest modern energy ideas imaginable is anathema,” Tanton added.
While using the catch-phrases of environmentalism (encroach on habitats, habitat conservation, endangered species) note how Tanton’s actual argument here is that (supposedly) un-subsidized traditional electricity is not getting a fair shake.
This assertion doesn’t pass the smell test; when one group of “environmentalists” demands a fair shake for traditional (fossil-fueled) electricity plants. Climate change will make many species extinct, forget their habitat conservation.
It is frustrating to see resistance being created to utility-scale solar over cleverly propagated water myths. Yet I always assumed that the environmental resistance was genuine.
Now I am not so sure that at the heart these are not fundamentally astro-turfed movements where we environmentalists are being cynically manipulated by the fossil industry. The Heartland Institute has also put out well propagated myths about wind turbines’ supposed bird kills.
Now the organization has successfully generated an echo in the environmental movement to the effect that solar in the desert uses too much water. There has been a whole spate of articles about desert solar thermal with wild claims about water use.
But since when did we environmental writers get our facts from organizations that work to keep us wedded to fossil fuels? It is sad to see these lies about water use dutifully make the rounds of the environmental blogs as if this is a fact-based objection.
Can people be persuaded that a common good is bad for the environment? People can.