Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 214 posts

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#91

Post by tyrust »

cf498 wrote: post #56
tyrust wrote: post #35

Earlier 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.

There are a wide range of things that are considered deserts and organisms that live within them. They aren't just empty acres of sand. I'd recommend the Planet Earth episode about deserts to help gain a little appreciation without having to visit one.

They occur naturally and life has adapted to them. From a conservation standpoint that's enough reason for me to keep them around.

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#92

Post by anigbrowl »

zenexer wrote: post #30
killion wrote: post #12

It 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.

Chances are most readers aren't qualified to judge competing statements without further research and don't have time to do it. That's a reason newspapers became a thing in the first place.

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#93

Post by baroffoos »

OldHand2018 wrote: post #23

I gave this a little bit of thought. I agree with the decision, but not at all for the reason that San Bernardino County cites. We have (and California/Western States especially) drastically reduced per capita water consumption over the past few decades. Almost nobody has noticed. This same approach needs to happen with electricity and other forms of energy. We shouldn't build any net new large-scale generation facil…

If I have my house in the middle of nowhere and I put solar on my roof that more than covers my power usage. So much that I can run air con 24/7. Even when not home. This is obviously over consumption but I have an abundance of energy raining down on my roof. What difference does it make that I run my air con all the time when that energy was already wasted heating my roof.

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#94

Post by cf498 »

stuart78 wrote: post #80
cf498 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Deserts are often teeming with life. The term refers to rainfall, not population. There are plants and animals equally deserving of protection, and it is worth protecting for the same reason any other biome is. If you look for beauty and balance there you might find it. Covering them with solar panels disrupts the environment and displaces it’s inhabitants. https://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/deserts

> and it is worth protecting for the same reason any other biome is.

Other biomes are worth preserving as they keep this planet habitable. I thought deserts do quite the opposite.

https://www.environmentalscience.org/deserts-ecosystems

> Even though the plant and animal species that exist in hot deserts are well-adapted to those environments, we know from studies that such organisms are treading a fine line over environmental tolerance; some are even at their limits, according to the IPCC (25).

>Both The Sahara and The Namib are extremely hot deserts and in recent years have experienced some of the hottest temperatures to date. Pakistan and Iran have also experienced record dry spells and high temperatures in the last decade. Even semi-arid desert climates are experiencing an increase in hot and dry spells, becoming more parched and experiencing wildfires in areas where scrub, brush and tree cover is more abundant.

...

>Evidence demonstrates that the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula alone show increased water vapor feedback, much higher sensitivity, and increased sensitivity in deserts to greenhouse gas emissions. Simply, deserts become hotter and drier during a warming climate with wider implications for the warming climate.

However I was not aware of this

>Many are not aware that deserts are a net carbon sink, providing some relief from the increase in greenhouse gases. This will be problematic while carbon emissions continue to increase, and world governments will need to do something about it in the future. The discovery was made when researching bacteria in the desert. Research suggests that bacteria located in massive aquifers beneath the sand and in the sands itself, are capturing carbon from the air. In theory, the aquifers could hold more than the entire global population of plant material at present at 20 billion metric tons (or 22 billion imperial/US tons) (33).

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#95

Post by acidburnNSA »

rhegart wrote: post #6

Wide open rural land, little environmental or people impact, some of the best consistent sun in the world

Thus begin the challenges of ramping up distributed low-density intermittent energy harvesting by a factor of 40x.

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#96

Post by [deleted] »

rjf72 wrote: post #78
nradov wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

And when one source says they think it will rain in 20 days, and another says it they think it will not rain in 20 days?

[deleted]

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#97

Post by hopler »

almost_usual wrote: post #44
torpfactory wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of readers who aren't sophisticated enough to judge for themselves. This is exactly analogous to the vaccine debate. Journalists can and should add context where one side's argument is not supported by evidence.

Have you ever seen any heavy equipment operate before in a dry area? It churns up dust, this isn’t rocket science guys. It’s so obvious you shouldn’t need evidence.

How far does the does spread? How long until it settles?

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#98

Post by acidburnNSA »

threeseed wrote: post #45

> But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause They can't possibly be serious. How much damage could solar or wind even cause ?

Actually a lot, especially at scale. Solar PV is not as bad but wind is a significant threat to hoary bats as a species and to large threatened birds like eagles, owls, etc. Yes cats kill 1000x more birds than current wind but they kill swallows and robins and stuff, not damned eagles.

Mining and fabricating the amount of low-density energy harvesters and storage systems needed to fill in the intermittency also requires dozens of times more materials, land, and waste than the major carbon-free competition (nuclear).

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#99

Post by r00fus »

zenexer wrote: post #30
killion wrote: post #12

It 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.

> They leave it to the reader to make of it what they will. In my personal opinion, this is how reporting should be.

If one side lies out their ass or states "opinion" that is easily disproved as untrue, then it shifts the conversation without having facts.

In my view, proper journalism needs to reaffirm basic facts in their coverage so viewers/listeners don't have to put up with obvious bullshit or crazy opinions.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Re: California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms

#100

Post by epistasis »

RealityVoid wrote: post #75
benj111 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Frankly,this level of selfishness is astounding to me. Me, me, me, only for me, I got mine so screw the rest.

Welcome to every single planning meeting in California politics. And also many other places too, but California enables absolutely tiny groups of people to delay any construction or change.
Post reply on HN