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

71–80 of 214 posts

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

#71

Post by almost_usual »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #62
niftich wrote: post #54

San 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....

You truly don’t understand how blinding it is until you drive past it. I didn’t realize it was in San Bernardino.

I saw it driving from Las Vegas to SF. Remember it being near Zzyzx which reminded me of Sonic Youth music video.

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

#72

Post by adrianN »

vidarh wrote: post #41
almost_usual wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not a good precedent to set.

Neither is a blanket ban. A precedent of striking down blanket bans and tell them to instead actually set out criteria that would block the specific things that does not address their concerns would be quite good. E.g. if their concern is the risk ruining views, then ban construction that ruins views, don't ban things you think may ruin views whether or not they actually do, while not banning a near infinite number o…

I'm sure you can find experts in writing laws so that they're technically not a blanket ban, but it's still impossible to fulfill all requirements while still being profitable.

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

#74

Post by adrianN »

golemotron wrote: post #55
jadell wrote: post #52

> “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...

Solar and wind and batteries, or solar and wind and a very large grid will be enough.

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

#75

Post by RealityVoid »

benj111 wrote: post #67
trimbo wrote: post #59

Will 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?

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

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

#76

Post by rjf72 »

baddox wrote: post #53
zenexer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know whether the claim that solar farms cause dust storms is true or not, but it isn’t a matter of opinion. I want journalists to find experts and scientific evidence and tell me which side is telling the truth.

Like many issues there is not going to be a black and white yes or no answer. It's going to depend on the exact locale, the nature/type of terrain in the region, the type/specification/quantity of panels being installed, and a million other variables. When newspapers start getting into topics like this it invariable just ends up with corruption and bias as the conclusion is often whatever the executive team decides the newspapers' stance should be, which is going to be driven by politics, advertising, etc.

Ask somebody who wants to claim that solar farms can cause dust storms and he'll be able to make a sound logical case for it. Ask somebody wants to claim that solar farms do not cause dust storms and he'll be able to make a sound logical case for it. Even if the person reporting genuinely wanted, and was able (e.g. - not prevented by the newspapers 'official' stance on an issue) to do that, they simply would be grossly unqualified to do so. Reporters rarely have any sort of scientific background whatsoever.

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

#77

Post by roninghost »

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.

Deserts hve unique fauna and vegetation. That alone is a good reason. Also deserts regulate the climate of adjacent and far away regions. For example the Amazon jungle is feed by the Sahara desert [1]

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-...

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

#78

Post by rjf72 »

nradov wrote: post #69
zenexer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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?

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

#79

Post by acidburnNSA »

trimbo wrote: post #59

Will they accept nuclear reactors though? If you're going to ban these, then offer a non-fossil-fuel alternative that could work.

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...

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

#80

Post by stuart78 »

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.

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

Post reply on HN