On a cold morning on December 2020, over two hundred recreationists arrive on the hills of Mormon Mesa, Nevada, a landform between the Muddy and Virgin Rivers, overlooking Gold Butte National Monument. 

Although the group explored the scenic routes and enjoyed the clear air, the central reason for their arrival was to protest against a renewable energy project named Battle Born Solar, built in Mormon Mesa. Many individuals joined from communities such as Overton and Logandale in Nevada to display support; Local high school students came with drones to capture the scene's magnificence, and other protestors came with posters reading "No Solar Here."

Reporters arrived at the location, and soon afterward, word spread about the protest, obtaining support against the construction of the renewable project. However, what caught considerable people's attention was that many supporters against this renewable energy plant were predominantly environmentalists.

I. The birth of Battle Born Solar

On February 2020, Nevada governor Steve Sisolak signed an executive order (2019-22) to address and reduce climate change's effects. The executive action added Nevada with two dozen other states dedicated to reducing carbon emissions by 2025. In addition, Sisolak repeatedly promoted his support for shifting the state to 50 percent renewable energy by 2030; to accomplish this, Sisolak and his team started introducing solar energy proposals to increase renewable energy usage, one such project being Battle Born Solar.

Battle Born was a solar plant project that planned to use renewable energy to generate electricity. Renewable energy is any energy produced from naturally replenished sources (sun, wind) that will not run out; renewable energy can generate electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and more. 

The solar plant would be built on a fourteen square mile site (the equivalent of seven thousand football fields) and located in Mormon Mesa, Southern Nevada. According to the Wall Street Journal, the plant would have more than a million solar panels that are ten to twenty feet tall; Battle Born would produce 850 megawatts of electricity, approximately used by five hundred thousand homes in Nevada, nearly one-tenth of Nevada's total capacity. 

"The Battle Born project will bring economic benefits to Nevada as well as contribute significantly to the supply of clean, renewable energy in the western United States," Governor Sisolak said in a letter to the Trump administration. "It is projected that (it) will bring over 1,250 total jobs and more than $350 million in value added to the Southern Nevada economy."

The one billion project was presumed to be built in two to three years when it won approval in May 2020; however, the project developers withdrew from the project due to protests from locals and growing opposition from environmentalists.

II. Opposition of Battle Born

Environmentalists opposed to Battle Born and similar green energy projects stated that the amount of land these solar plant systems consume would do more harm than good. 

Chris Moorman, a professor and coordinator of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology program at N.C State's College of Natural Resources, believes that renewable energy has pros and cons. "Renewable energy often requires more land than fossil fuel production, with infrastructure fragmenting or even eliminating high-quality wildlife habitat," according to Moorman. "It can also lead to a variety of other impacts on wildlife, including behavioral changes and direct mortality." For example, concentrating solar plants, known as "power towers," produce strong enough sunlight to incinerate birds and insects. 

Residents also protested against the building of the project, stating that the project would hinder human activities such as hiking and horseback riding and would deter tourists from visiting artist Michael Heizer's environmental sculpture, "Double Negative" (1969). 

Cultural sites were also a problem; more than 600 sites of cultural value existed near Battle Born's proposed construction area. "There were about 53 sites there that would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places," Kristen Cannon, a spokesperson of the Bureau of land management, said. "As well as 555 isolated fire-affected rock features that would be more Native American primitive sites."

Save Our Messa is an organized group that locals created from Overton and Logandale, Nevada, to oppose the project. 

When asked what the group would prefer over solar plants, they explained that they would like Distributed Energy Resources (smaller generational units that can be used individually, such as rooftop solar P.V. units) over developing public lands. "We were given the usual push-back that "rooftop solar is too expensive," and that this public land is cheap for large-scale solar with its economies of scale," a protester said. "We pushed back, saying that rooftop solar has been hampered from achieving economies of scale by negative policies lobbied by the Investor-Owned Utilities."

III. Finding the middle ground

The company behind Battle Born, Candela Renewables, decided to move out, commenting that they understand local citizens' protestations. For other developers however, these challenges are infuriating. 

Nick Cohen, the chief executive of Doral Renewables, is the developer behind the Mammoth project, which is currently trying to create the most extensive U.S. solar farm in Indiana. "The project will not fell trees or disturb any fragile ecosystem," Cohen pointed out. "The conduct here is so irrational and perplexing… a small group of followers is working against the best interests of the entire community." 

Even after the Mammoth project was cleared to move on to its next phase, many other problems arose. The project brought in politics and hatred; residents who supported the project got anonymous phone calls filled with disgust. 

In a town filled with majority Republicans, the support of renewable energy, mainly a Democratic goal, showed betrayal against the Republican party. "It blows my mind! It is my farm – why do I need my neighbor's permission to do this?" Welker, a 62-year-old farmer, asked after he told residents he was willing for the project to keep moving. It is impossible to switch to renewable energy without using land: what is the solution to renewable energy without using land?

IV. Resolutions for Renewable Energy Implementation

Research has shown that renewable energy companies build farms in areas with the cheapest land and underdeveloped regions, with little regard for wildlife conservation. This method will destroy the natural wildlife instead of helping the environment; It seems illogical to destroy the environment to save the environment, says one solar farm protestor. In addition, conflicts can arise when solar or wind farms are built next to homes; disputes will arise between homeowners about compensation and the effects of the development on themselves; many have delayed the development of solar farms in states such as Ohio and Kentucky due to the effects of the projects on a personal level.  

Fragile ecosystems are an essential part that companies should look out for before building a farm; studies have shown that the conservation value of lands has degraded following renewable development in fragile areas, such as the Mojave Desert. 

"Renewable energy effects on the environment can be avoided or reduced if development is thoughtfully planned and implemented," according to Moorman. "For example, using native, pollinator-friendly plantings at solar facilities can increase populations of bees and other insects, benefiting both wildlife and energy consumption." 

Moving renewable projects away from land and shifting them to offshore plants is a potential solution. A research study from January 2020 titled RENEWABLES, LAND USE, AND LOCAL OPPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES shows that wind energy is more convenient than other renewable energy sources."Winds are generally stronger offshore, and wind speed and direction are more consistent, leading to greater potential generation and efficiency." 

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has given out a total of 1.7 million acres for offshore wind development, and although there have been some problems regarding the projects offshore, the offshore projects tend to be much better for wildlife than the projects on land. 

Combining solar projects with agriculture has also been a solution that could function; the solar panels would be mounted on stilts, allowing for work by agricultural machines to occur beneath the panels. In addition, the shade from the panels could "produce higher yields during times of drought stress, due to lower water transpiration through the leaves and a reduction in heat stress."

V. The future of renewable energy

Shifting towards renewable energy needs both public and business cooperation. There will be no perfect solution for the environmental crisis; renewable energy comes with problems, even if it is less harmful than fossil fuel usage. However, working with what we have will help us progress, enabling us closer to solving climate change instead of finding a negative aspect of every proposed solution and blocking them. Furthermore, if adequately implemented in the right places, Renewable energy can be used in a good way that can be pleasing to residents, environmentalists, and businesses.