- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- nuclear@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- nuclear@sh.itjust.works
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/91685
cross-posted from: https://jorts.horse/users/fathermcgruder/statuses/112563861339745778
Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/solar-project-destroy-thousands-joshua-100000768.htmlIt’s crazy to me that a destructive photovoltaic solar project like this one is considered reasonable, but a new nuclear power plant within or adjacent to a city is beyond the pale.
You must log in or register to comment.
crossposted from /nuclear
Alright then…
What’s wrong with !nuclear@sh.itjust.works?
Saving the environment by killing trees. Good lord!
Wouldn’t be surprised if the local government did it on purpose to fight the jewish woke green agenda…
fight the jewish woke green agenda…
ah a fan of their space lasers I take it?
Uh, I thought a /s wasn’t necessary but I guess that I’m not outlandish enough
Your post was very clear, lemmy has a reading comprehension problem.
You clearly mean that’s the reason the local government did it, not that you think they’re right.
I mean, they’re called a tree, but they’re an overgrown cactus. They don’t get very big and don’t have near the carbon capture something like a pine does. But there are plenty of areas of just scrub brush better suited for this project.
I am always really annoyed when perfectly flat space in Austria is wasted with solar panels WHEN there are huge flat roofed buildings around.
I hope they are not also chopping down trees.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish there would be some trees around.
These people apparently found the only ones and decided to build a solar farm there.
No, not those shrivelled black things!
Oh no, there destroying 1000! That must be a lot!
Oh wait, there’s 10 million in existence.
Thanks, but I think this is a fine trade.
What about all the sunny land that doesn’t have Joshua trees? Why are we even trying to build power plants so far away from where the electricity is mostly needed?
Do you think there are no reasons? Would you accept this if there were, or would you just say the reasons were bad?
Cheap ground cannot be a reason then, OK?
Sure it can. Why not?
The issue with ground prices is they fail to account for stuff humans really need like clean air, clean water, biodiversity. So if you stripp all these factors in valuation and then start building while at the same time chopping down trees in need of protection. You are kinda rigging the game, or not?
That doesn’t mean it’s not a reason. It’s just a reason you don’t like.
The land is only cheap when you pretend those externalized environmental costs do not exist. They still have to be paid, usually by the public at large. I think the saying goes; socialize the cost and privatize the gains.
I knew I should not have taken the bait.
To me, good reasons would align with the goals of environmental protection and wealth transfer to the working class. How do Aratina-type projects do so better than a nuclear power plant (or concentrated solar or deep-well geothermal) within or nearby to a population center? If they ever do it’s just incidental. The real reason for the Aratina development is that this was deal that satisfied the various capital interests involved in it (the land owner, “Avantus, a California company that is mostly owned by KKR, the global private equity firm”, and the bourgeois interests served by the county).
Build over existing infrastructure. One example is current project to cover water canals with solar. Don’t need to acquire land, reduces evaporation saving water, reduces plant growth in canals lowering maintenance costs.
If people think solar destroys the environment, wait till they find out about coal and natural gas
I don’t care enough about the subject to actually look into this, but the title reads like astroturfing.
What headline would you have written instead?
Chopping down Joshua trees is a bit absurd. I live in the mohave desert, there are PLENTY of barren areas to do it, you almost have to be looking for the ancient Joshua trees to decide to do that. And as far as I know they are protected in most places, especially the California side.
But I will say the article seems a bit ragebaity. “To power wealthy people’s homes”. Unless they are super isolated somehow, that power is going into the grid, just like every other means of electricity production. The dude that wrote the article will be using it to charge his laptop when it’s done, just like the rest of us.
yep. and it’s hardly like there are FORESTS of johsua trees, it’s one here, another one over there, a few kms down the road another one… the idea that they’re paving over a forest…
also, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they can just build around the fuckers, they’re small ass trees to start with.
Edit:
there are totally areas chock fulla Joshua Trees. I stand corrected, see links below.
But still think they can find space for this and other solar all throughout the southwest desert.
Eh. There are legit forests as alien as it may seem. This is on my drive to work: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/10/ae/a1/0e/the-joshua-tree-forest.jpg
This is a random picture off Google, there are denser areas too. But, if you go a mile or two in any direction it is pretty desolate for another 50 miles. Just go anywhere other than the splotch of forest. Pretty simple.
That looks so strange
I’d love to see that in person
It’s on the drive to Grand Canyon West, if you ever plan on seeing that.
Time to add a pit stop on a vacation I’m planning for later this year
Thank you!
I’m pretty sure that picture was taken from the only access road to Grand Canyon West, so it’s not even a detour. You literally can’t miss it.
Wow, TIL!
But yeah, the empty areas seem ripe for this.
All of the electricity in a power grid is physically identical, but markets make a distinction between the sources by way of purchase agreements and various types of renewable energy credits. If it seems crazy for the locals to complain that they are losing their forest and not even getting the electricity from this new plant, it’s not because they’re mistaken. It’s because we have a crazy system to try and use market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Reads like NIMBY propaganda. “Oh no muh construction dust.” Bitch you live in a desert…
Yes. Joshua trees and desert tortoises live in a desert. That’s the point.
Put solar panels in parking lots and on buildings, where the humans live, not in fragile ecosystems. Deserts aren’t bereft of life, they are filled with some of the most resilient and charismatic flora and fauna known. Joshua trees and the Mojave have it bad enough already.
Honestly, solar panels above parking lots would rock. Shade for people in the parking lots, and power generation. Yet we don’t do it…
We are in California. Here parking is starting to add shade with panels on top.
Cool. I’m in Utah and i’ve never seen parking lot solar panels, it’s all either roof mount or on the ground in a big field somewhere.
This is what most of the schools around my area installed a couple years ago:
I want the term “parking desert” to take hold in place of parking lot. I hate most aspects of automobiles. The amount land we pave over for storage is just tragic and rude.
We should build solar farms over our parking deserts to reduce human footprint.
I largely agree. I think we should have car-free city centers (delivery truck and transit only) with parking garages at the edges near transit hubs. But instead of that, we subsidize driving and encourage a car-centric society.
Yes! I’m into it. Just imagine the dope ass garden towns we could all be living in.
What are you on about? Who is we? This is an extraordinarily popular application of solar panels.
I’ve never seen it. In my area, they’re all roof or ground mount, not suspended above parking lots.
And even in places where it is happening, it is still extremely rare for a parking lot to have solar panels. Legislation is needed.
Take a look at solarenergymaps.com Definitely not comprehensive though, I know of a couple in my area that are missing.
Kaiser, which is a major hmo here in California, has been putting solar panel parking shade in their lots. The community college in my town has it too. I can’t think of any downsides to them other than the installation cost. Everyone likes shade from sun and rain, and free electricity.
There’s more to NIMBYism than saying “not in my back yard” in opposition to any development for any reason. A position isn’t meaningfully NIMBY unless it is in opposition to an arguably good development for bad reasons. For example, it is NIMBYism to oppose the construction of affordable housing because you don’t want to attract poor minorities to your neighborhood. In this case, a PV solar power plant might arguably be a good thing, but the reasons for opposing it, including the destruction of a rare ecosystem and a specific type of dangerous construction pollution, are more than fair.
“Construction dust that stirs up the fungus that causes valley fever…”
Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert… So Rich People Can Continue Privileged, Unsustainable Lifestyle
I never liked U2 after they got all up themselves anyway.
I love the story of when they played at the Barrow lands in Glasgow, I think. I’m paraphrasing
Bono walks onto the stage and claps really slowly, at 3 second intervals.
After a bit, he says dramatically “Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies”
A bloke in the audience shouts “Stop doing it then you cruel cunt”
Scots take few prisoners, in humour.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !usa@lemmy.ml
Lemmy.ml no thanks, thank you bot for trying
Sounds fake
This is why new versions of net metering is a bad idea
How? What are the differences between the new and old versions of net metering in California that are affecting this situation?
I think the new version of net metering pays homeowners less than it did previously, for power that they feed into the grid, disincentivizing rooftop solar.
Yes. Why put solar on rooftops, where people need it, when the utility can bulldoze the desert and make miles of transmission lines and get paid 10% to do so?
Well, at a certain level of generation, adding more isn’t as valuable since the excess needs to be stored to offset the base need. So it makes absolute sense for the compensation to drop as supply goes up.
