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

121–130 of 214 posts

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

#121

Post by cladari »

epistasis wrote: post #109
acidburnNSA wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their only remaining nuclear generation station is being closed down early because people in California don't like it regardless of its reliable carbon-free energy [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...

Weird, I thought that Wikipedia page used to cite the costs of retrofitting Diablo Canyon's cooling to move away from once through water, but I don't see it there anymore. The history of that page shows scars of manipulating the narrative, but I stil didn't find it. Here's a PDF from PG&E that puts the cost at $2.6B: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/c... These days you can buy a lot of solar…

What they are talking about is what is used to condense the steam exiting the main turbine which is the thing that spins the generator. DC uses seawater to run through the condenser and then back out to the sea, warming the water about 20 degrees if I remember correctly. This is why you see most nuclear plants along the coast or lining the Great Lakes.

The only other methods I am aware of are the giant cooling towers people associate with nuclear plants or ponds (more like canals which snake back and forth, see Turkey Point in Florida) which allow the water to cool before reuse.

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

#122

Post by TomMckenny »

nerfhammer wrote: post #114
zzleeper wrote: post #7

Wow.. when I thought NIMBYism in California couldn't get any worst. From here: https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board... " some residents say the prohibition will protect communities from potential health hazards caused by blowing dust, which increases when pristine desert land is disturbed by construction. They also sited the protection of scenic views, carbon sequestration from desert vegetati…

What did it for me was the time they successfully blocked the hospital helipad, literally killing people. http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2008/10/15/a-san-francisco-general...

I was impressed with the community that didn't want their own kid's teachers living near them for fear it would reduce property values.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/06/turn-schools-into-tea...

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

#123

Post by bogomipz »

higginsc wrote: post #25

It's a fucking desert.

You sound like someone who has never even visited then. The "desert bloom" is one of the most unique and spectacular things you can see in California. It's actually coming up and it's a big source of tourism especially amongst Californians.

Here's an update on the upcoming desert bloom from a couple of days ago with a nice video included:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/21/its-almost-time-for-c...

Aside from this the Anza-Borrego Desert(within the area in discussion here) has natural springs and oases, bighorn sheep which are endangered, there's also golden eagles, black-tailed jackrabbits, kit foxes, deer, falcons and dozens of different reptiles. I would highly recommend spending some time there before dismissing it as a "fucking desert."

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

#124

Post by rjf72 »

r00fus wrote: post #103
rjf72 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then source's credentials, data or other factual bases for the opinion can help the reader/listener/viewer decide (e.g. source1 is a 25y veteran meteorologist, source2's data is based on postings from 4chan). Without facts and common assumptions, opinions are noise.

And when what was posted on 4chan was links to a series of meteorological studies and reports? I'm not being obtuse - I think this is actually a perfect example of one of the many problems here.

It's difficult to get (and in turn, give) a fair assessment of an issue without actually genuinely understanding the nuances of arguments on all significant sides. But issues are not simple and journalists are, in general, not qualified to meaningfully interpret the things they're reporting on. I think we've all probably experienced the pain that is reading an article that we happen to be experts on, yet we turn the page to something we're not experts on and suddenly expect it to be better?

Ideally providing 'context' would simply be that, but in practice 'context' can be, and frequently is, framed to cast an assessment on an issue - even when not intentional! Even your example here would be a perfect example of the inadvertent. Meteorological forecasts are pretty much meaningless at the 20 day level. Should our journalist mention this? Is failing to omit it misleading? There's just a lot of tricky issues like this. By contrast, if you simply report plain falsifiable facts directly driven by the story at hand, which would include things such as 'x' said 'y', you avoid all of this and simply have good, impartial reporting. That reporting could then be analyzed by more qualified parties to provide 'context'.

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

#125

Post by pmikesell »

samstokes wrote: post #120
JKCalhoun wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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....

The glowing tower contains molten salt, used to store the focused solar energy. [1] I never knew that was a thing until I too drove past it. It was one of the more memorable sights on a 3000 mile road trip. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_...

Ivanpah uses water, not salts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

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

#126

Post by grecy »

zzleeper wrote: post #7

Wow.. when I thought NIMBYism in California couldn't get any worst. From here: https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board... " some residents say the prohibition will protect communities from potential health hazards caused by blowing dust, which increases when pristine desert land is disturbed by construction. They also sited the protection of scenic views, carbon sequestration from desert vegetati…

> Sure, let's have more coal from Nevada instead

I have always wished that anyone who complains about wind or solar destroying their view should be forced to live with a coal or nuclear plant in their backyard for 12 months, so they can get some perspective.

That, or severely reduce their electricity consumption, forever.

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

#127

Post by almost_usual »

hopler wrote: post #97
almost_usual wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a combine in a dry soybean field.

https://youtu.be/PKBENzzEluY

Now imagine a lot more vehicle traffic in a desert. I know lumber companies will spray water on dirt roads to keep the dust down, not sure if that’s a viable option out in a desert though.

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

#128

Post by sgift »

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.

> It’s so obvious you shouldn’t need evidence.

And that's how we end up with things like "obviously, we cannot have a climate change, I mean it's cold on the outside!!".

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

#129

Post by tialaramex »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #14
zzleeper wrote: post #7

Wow.. when I thought NIMBYism in California couldn't get any worst. From here: https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board... " some residents say the prohibition will protect communities from potential health hazards caused by blowing dust, which increases when pristine desert land is disturbed by construction. They also sited the protection of scenic views, carbon sequestration from desert vegetati…

They’ve ramped it up to NIMC.

The step up from NIMBYs is BANANAs

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything/Anyone.

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

#130

Post by ivalm »

tempestn wrote: post #111
ralph84 wrote: post #104

Lots of commenters ITT who have obviously never actually been to the California desert. Paving the California desert with solar panels would be no less of an environmental tragedy than the clear cutting of the giant redwoods or the flooding of the Hetch Hetchy Valley.

Can you explain why? I can see how it would be undesirable to locals, but clear cutting redwoods would release massive amounts of stored carbon, whereas solar panels in the desert would seem to do the opposite.

California deserts arent sand dune heavy. Instead it is shrubs with their own ecosystem.
Post reply on HN