There's an article in the New York Times today that addresses a subject matter I think we'd all like to forget: the environmental cost of renewable resource-based energies.

Todd Woody's piece examines the case of the Southern USA - an area of the country featuring a hot climate, little precipitation and a whole lot of desert land. It's also an ideal area to plant solar cells because of the consistent and direct sunlight.

Recently in Amargosa Valley, Nevada, a German power company announced plans to build two large solar farms, creating thousands of jobs in a time when the unemployment rate is nearing 10 per cent. Residents of Amargosa were starting to see a glimmer of hope in an otherwise bleak economic time, until, as Woody writes, "things got messy".

"The company revealed that its preferred method of cooling the power plants would consume 1.3 billion gallons of water a year, about 20 percent of this desert valley’s available water."

In Nevada, fresh water is no joke. There isn't much available and states like Colorado have already seen their ground water levels decrease by over significantly in the last few years, thanks to wide-spread damming and irrigation, flowing fresh water to other states. 20 million people are supported by the Colorado River and so are Las Vegas' fountains and swimming pools.

So a 20% reduction in the state's total available water would affect more than just Nevada residents. It could potentially affect the whole country, as more water will need to be pumped in, depleting reserves elsewhere.

It's ironic that the places best-suited to solar heat development are the exact places where its production hurts most.

"In California, solar developers have already been forced to switch to less water-intensive technologies when local officials have refused to turn on the tap. Other big solar projects are mired in disputes with state regulators over water consumption," Woody writes.

"To date, the flashpoint for such conflicts has been the Southwest, where dozens of multibillion-dollar solar power plants are planned for thousands of acres of desert. While most forms of energy production consume water, its availability is especially limited in the sunny areas that are otherwise well suited for solar farms."

Woody's point centres on water becoming the new "throttle" on renewable energies.

"Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year," he says.

Wind energy is the only form of renewable energy I can think of that doesn't rely on water to sustain itself.

That isn't to say, however, that wind energy is entirely free from having any sort of impact.

A new study out by National Wind Watch explains that over 60% of residents living near a new turbines felt their property value had decreased. Furthermore there is the visual impact, the environmental impact. Many turbines require deep foundations which disrupt the soil and surrounding habitat. The speed of the turbines results in killing birds, which are often found at the foot of the turbines.

But does that totally discount the benefits of wind energy?

What can we do to face those facts? Can we overlook any damage so long as it is a part of a greater good?