Letters to the Editor: Stop calling solar energy ‘clean.’ It’s low-carbon, but not clean

To the editor: I am tired of solar and wind-produced energy being called “clean.” The production and use of both create plenty of pollution and environmental harm. (“Biden’s Western solar plan sounds scary. But it’s better than climate change,” column, Feb. 1)

At best they can be called “carbon-free” — which, of course, is a good thing.

It is interesting that simply using less energy is never discussed even as a partial solution to global warming. And the fact that the constant growth of the Earth’s human population must stop at some point is also a taboo subject. Does anyone really believe that constant population growth is sustainable?

Economists should study how the human population can be reduced without devastating economies. Isn’t that worth seriously discussing as a way to slow climate change or perhaps reverse the devastation of the natural world that we have already inflicted?

Lore Spangler, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Installing solar panels over just half the length of the roughly 440-mile California Aqueduct would go a long way to helping our state meet its solar power goals.

Assuming a 100-foot wide installation over just half of the aqueduct, this would allow for more than 100 million square feet of solar panels on already developed infrastructure. Those installations would limit environmental impact and public resistance to large-scale installations on undeveloped, sensitive public lands.

Additionally, the shading provided by the installation could reduce evaporation losses along its long journey to its end users.

Seems like a win-win to me.

Dean L. Pratt, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: We need all the renewable energy we can generate from solar, wind and other sources.

A major conflict in the solar power arena is the use of public lands for large solar farms. These are opposed by many rural communities and conservationists because of a loss of open space and habitat, and yet these projects are part of the solution we cannot ignore.

To minimize opposition to such projects, a balance of federal investment dollars should be struck between remote solar farms and urban locations (e.g., rooftop solar). A 50-50 split between the two options could be a place to start.

Disturbed oil fields and mining sites should always be priority locations for solar farms. This could lead to cost savings by not first requiring the restoration of these sites.

Todd Collart, Ventura