Wind I can see, towers can be kind of obnoxious. Solar? I hope the land owners sue for unjust taking of their farm rights to harvest solar without compensation.
California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
61–70 of 214 posts
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#62San Bernardino County is home to the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility [1], which is a mirror-focused solar thermal power plant. It generates a lot of glare and is controversial for its impact on animals. It also took several years to ramp up to its promised output. Solar panels don't have problem with glare, but the landscape of the county has large viewsheds of sloping treeless desert, so any facility will have a large…
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
Blew my mind when I drove past that (on the way to Las Vegas?).
I swear it appeared as though the air was incandescing at the top of the tower where all the sun's rays were focused. Def something out of a Sci-Fi film....
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#63San Bernardino County is home to the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility [1], which is a mirror-focused solar thermal power plant. It generates a lot of glare and is controversial for its impact on animals. It also took several years to ramp up to its promised output. Solar panels don't have problem with glare, but the landscape of the county has large viewsheds of sloping treeless desert, so any facility will have a large…
IANABotanist, but I wonder if there are plants that do well in sandy soil and shade that could be used as ground cover underneath the panels and keep the dust down.
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t really matter how much electricity you consume if it’s coming from the sun. 1J of energy is 1J of energy. If the sun just hits the desert floor, it’ll heat up the earth immediately. If you collect the energy and convert (some of) it to electricity, whatever’s converted successfully won’t heat up the planet immediately, but it’ll end up back in the form of heat eventually. There’s really no benefit to decre…
> 1J of energy is 1J of energy. If the sun just hits the desert floor, it’ll heat up the earth immediately. If you collect the energy and convert (some of) it to electricity, whatever’s converted successfully won’t heat up the planet immediately, but it’ll end up back in the form of heat eventually. This is also true for water. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
I’m not seeing how water is relevant here. OP seems to think decreasing demand is better than increasing supply. I’m not convinced that it is, though another reply comparing it to painting deserts back does raise a fairly good point.
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#65> “These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities. But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause,” Fairchild told the supervisors. “Once destroyed, these landscapes can never be brought back.” Because climate change won't destroy precious fragile landscapes? Okay, here's my deal: you get…
Solar and wind will never be enough. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th...
The whole takeaway from that is "it's difficult and I, the author, doesn't think it'll work because it's difficult". With lots of hand-picked examples of shortcomings of implementation loosely collected into a semicoherent justification for nuclear energy.
I'm all for nuclear energy, if it can be done safely. (The cost might be too high for it to be commercially viable, but if it's worth doing the state can subsidize for the good of humanity).
But that blog post does not succeed in making any sort of case for why solar and wind won't be enough.
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t really matter how much electricity you consume if it’s coming from the sun. 1J of energy is 1J of energy. If the sun just hits the desert floor, it’ll heat up the earth immediately. If you collect the energy and convert (some of) it to electricity, whatever’s converted successfully won’t heat up the planet immediately, but it’ll end up back in the form of heat eventually. There’s really no benefit to decre…
> There’s really no benefit to decreasing consumption of electricity. There’s no difference between decreasing demand by 1W and increasing solar output by 1W. This ignores the sunlight that reflects back into space, and if conversion into electricity and slow return to heat actually increases the amount of energy that the planet can effectively absorb. At some level, it's just a question of if the planet would heat u…
Interesting point. I’m not sure there’s really any way I can estimate the difference there.
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#67Will they accept nuclear reactors though? If you're going to ban these, then offer a non-fossil-fuel alternative that could work.
"The policy approved by the supervisors prohibits utility-oriented renewable energy projects — defined as projects that would mostly serve out-of-town utility customers, rather than local power needs"
Well they don't seem to be banned. And seemingly they would be in favour of renewables for their own use. So disconnect them from the grid, add renewables and battery storage, that would seem to please everyone?
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#68Perhaps we should think about how to promote renewable power, e.g. new business model which gives direct benefit (may be short term) to the people.
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#69It took me a while to find out why locals were saying solar farms cause dust storms. The locals claim solar farms destabilize the soil. Dust isn’t in the interest of the energy producer because it lowers efficiency so my assumption is that they would do everything to limit dust. I guess I’m surprised that the LA Times would publish a claim like that without comment or caveat.
They’re just reporting what each side is saying without arguing against their claims. They leave it to the reader to make of it what they will. In my personal opinion, this is how reporting should be. Don’t do my thinking for me and don’t lead me in a particular direction. I doubt most people actually believe dust has anything to do with it. They don’t want these infrastructure projects near them, plain and simple.
That's not how journalism is supposed to work. One of the first lessons in Journalism 101 is if one source says the weather is sunny and another source says it's raining then a competent reporter should look out the window!
https://amp.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2012/08/08/th...
Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with the decision, either, but a desert is a biome that deserves respect like any other.
I hadnt heard this point of view yet. I never saw a desert as something worth preserving, quite the contrary actually. Afforestation projects to green deserts seem absolutely wonderful. Why do you think its a biome worth preserving? Its places hostile to life. Are there negative effects caused by a lack of deserts? edit: In case anyone else wonders, there would be a negative effect, as deserts are net carbon sinks.
I’m no wildlife expert, but aren’t there organisms that have evolved to thrive in deserts?