One of the new opposing forces to the deployment of renewable energy has been dubbed “Energy Sprawl,” referring to a symptom of energy sites requiring dubious amounts of land that could purportedly threaten our natural landscape. Where NIMBY voices are troublesome, these claims are more misguided. There is no question that some renewable power options need space. Energy sources like wind and solar require land in order to build arrays large enough to make them efficient, but the real sprawling epidemic has nothing to do with energy, is much worse and has been going on unaddressed for decades: suburban sprawl. Anyone raising arms about devoting land to renewable energy should be prepared to combat the growth of our suburban communities.
Over the past half century, flight from cities has created an explosion of development in suburbia that claims more virgin land every year. As late as the housing boom that lead up to the current recession, the cost of construction, laxity of zoning laws and ease in security mortgage debt lead to new communities sprouting up across the country almost over night. The result is an ever-expanding network of roadways and a lifestyle driven by automotive travel that breeds inefficiency and waste.
There seems to be a misconception that land used for building new cul-de-sacs wrapped in colonial revival vernacular is somehow less desirable than land used for erecting wind turbines or solar panels. Virgin forest or prime farmland is consumed every year to be subdivided and turned into brand new housing stock. In her book A Field Guide to Sprawl, Dolores Hayden says “the American Farmland Trust estimates that in the United States, 1.2 million acres of farmland were lost to development every year between 1992 and 1997.”
As a point of reference, a solar farm planned for Deming, New Mexico will be one of the biggest in the world, producing up to 300 MW or enough power for 240,000 homes. If completed, the array will require 3,200 acres of land. Using the same ratio of roughly 1 MW per 11 acres of land, the 6 million acres of land consumed for homes in the 1990’s could contribute a maximum capacity of 545,450 MW (545 gigawatts.) According to the Energy Information Association, our total national power generation capacity is in the neighborhood of 995 GW (so over half of our power.)
Unlike energy development, suburban land acquisition does nothing for the natural environment. Its conception lays more roads, erects more power lines and creates more commuting traffic by perpetuating the need for more cars on pavement. The fortunate developments may only waste time, money and resources by laying new sewers while those too far from town or city centers rely instead on septic systems. Despite our best wishes, pouring Drano into a sink that leads to a leeching field is nominally the same as going outside and pouring it on the ground.
Energy installations like wind farms produce clean power and by doing so are diverting generation from sources like coal and oil that can bring damaging effects to the environment along every point of their supply chain from mining to combustion. Modern wind turbines are also usually tall enough that land beneath them can still be farmed. Though some energy arrays may pose some interference with the habitat or migration of natural species (a common attack against wind farm construction), it is estimated that in the U.S. up to 130 million animals are killed on the road every year by cars.
On the other hand, suburban plots produce nothing. They are not havens for animal habits. Unlike the land that they consume, rarely are they net sources of food, clean water or energy. An article by Dan Shapley notes that according to Census Bureau data, in 2006 nine of the ten fastest growing counties were located in the South or West in areas already stressed for the capacity of fresh water. In Dallas Fort-Worth, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, a North Texas Future Fund report states “by 2050 the [water] deficit could reach 1.1 million-acre feet per year — an amount greater than total current demand.”
Like anything else, the construction of renewable energy has its drawbacks but the argument of space does not come close to comparing to the epidemic of waste that comprises our history of limitless suburban expansion.
In honor of Blog Action Day 2009
Photo Credits: Alex Maclean & Sincerely Sustainable
October 15, 2009 at 8:29 am
Interesting, so take the idea that suburban growth is bad and try to find a solution, what would you suggest? Should we build up instead of out? Huge skyscrapers which can house millions whilst taking up a small surface area, leaving more room for energy generation, farming and vegetation.
Not only that but a vertical system, with a higher population density, would allow for much more efficient use of energy in, for example, heating, cooling and transportation.#
Or we could just limit our growth somehow.
October 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Michael,
Smart growth is a huge topic with a lot of solutions depending on the region, climate, resources, industries, etc. I would say that first and foremost, greenfield development in our suburbans should stop. An easy option, as you hinted at, is to stress and support urban or infill development by adding to the existing density of our town and city centers (building up instead of out.) Density itself is markedly efficient with numerous studies that point to savings in energy due to more efficient systems and decreased use of automobiles. It facilitates more walkable and active streets, it better utilizes a mass transit network and generates more business.
Is it possible to make a better functioning suburb? I think that has become a hot topic for debate over the last decade for architects and planners. At a minimum, they should be achieving a benchmark level of density, be designed around a link to a larger alternative transit system like commuter rail or high speed rail, should be a walkable community centered around pedestrian and bike traffic rather than cars and lastly, should explore ideas of suburban properties being net producers of resources. It is not a leap for a home to produce a surplus of power, food or fresh water. Suburbia’s place in the cycle could drastically change if it transformed into a supplier of society rather than a drain.
October 16, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I would tend to agree. I commuted 40 miles to London every day for a year for my course 2 years ago; I actually don’t want to work out how far I must have travelled. London is slowly growing and eating the countryside around it. I can see the day when there are no cities any more on this small island, but homogeneous urban grey-ness.
How do you propose individual homes produce resources like food and fresh water, though? I would have thought that the requirements of a household would be greater than the ability of the land to grow food or collect water.
October 16, 2009 at 5:42 pm
We can only hope your vision doesn’t come to pass. I have only been to England once, but it was a beautiful place.
Residential suburban living is still a largely untapped resource in terms of efficiency–perhaps unsurprisingly. As a culture we have never really tried to push the envelope or explore the full range of options open to us. Our misconception of limitless growth and infinite resources would have made struggling for efficient solutions a fool’s errand. The reality that continues to sink in now offers us time and motivation to change the way we live.
Now of course, this all is affected by climate, but for a moment we can put that aside. When it comes to water there are numerous options, even without going to extremes. Any fixture in your house has a low-flow equivalent. Showers are the easiest to change and make the biggest difference. Assuming 15 minute showers once a day, switching from a 2.5 gpm (conservative) to a 1.75 gpm is 4,100 gallons per year per person. When you add sinks and toilets you gain a lot of ground. Furthermore, greywater systems allow you to treat and recycle water for non-potable uses like dishwashers, washing machines or flushing toilets. Rainwater capture can augment the number further and if one really wants to get ambitious, they can do on site filtration.
Parts of suburbia are already rethinking the classic “yard” mentality. Lots of green, short grass made so by lots of chemicals, energy and water. Maybe not necessary? It can be surprising how much produce you can grow on even half an acre of land. Add composting to all this, and waste streams can seriously be diminished.
October 16, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Parts are lovely; parts are fairly dire, but that’s a conversation for another day.
I must say the idea of using gardens to grow food is an appealing one. I suppose I have a different idea from you of what a suburb is, though. Over here we don’t have a lot of private land in terms of gardens (and from what I can tell from television, our houses tend to be smaller in suburbs too), so I wonder if the idea is so feasible here. It’s just a matter of scale I suppose. America has a smaller population density, so there is more space per person (though of course big cities would be similar).
I heard of a company over there where you’d hire the business to come to your house, plant seeds in your garden, tend them, grow various things, maintain it all, set up irrigation and so forth, and then harvest it for you. It sounds like a marvellous idea for growing your own food given that we don’t have the knowledge or the time to do so ourselves any more.
I certainly agree that the science of suburbia has been underexploited. Until now though, there’s been no particular drive develop new ideas for it. We haven’t needed to save water (grey water), save on energy bills (microgeneration), consider the impact of food prices (self sufficiency) or consider pollution (electric cars/transport).
It’s very exciting though; I almost envy your position as a city planner!
October 22, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I agree that something has to be done about suburban sprawl and I liked Michael’s idea about limiting growth. However, I think it is also important to point out that a lot of the space used for renewable generation would be deemed by most as unusable. One of the benefits (the few benefits) of solar and wind technologies is that they can often be located in locations that are much less desirable for human occupancy. I think we also have to consider the benefits of integrated renewable technologies into suburban living. There is no doubt that the highest level of efficiencies come from large scale construction. However, with huge advances in smart grid technology and as (if) Americans become more comfortable with the visual impediments associated with solar and wind, we could see a lot more energy produced within the suburban communities.