4 ms·

You can mine the materials, fabricate, and deploy solar panels or wind turbines without significantly impacting ecology (even when drastically increasing shade

You can mine the materials, fabricate, and deploy solar panels or wind turbines without significantly impacting ecology (even when drastically increasing shade in deserts) but dams completely change the landscape and flow of water with consequences reaching as far as tidal pools and tributaries fed by rivers that are damed hundreds of miles away. It's becoming more and more common to exclude hydro from the list of renewable energy sources because the ecological impact of dams is huge and largely irreversible - something that has only begun to enter popular conscience (at least in California) over the last few decades. The point of renewable energy is to avoid exhausting natural resources at an unsustainable rate and that includes ecological diversity.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Worse (if I understand correctly): There really aren't many good sites for dams that are still unused. I mean, there was a proposal back in the 1950s/1960s for two dams in the Grand Canyon whose sites are still unused, but I'm pretty sure that those dams will continue to be unbuilt, no matter how much electricity they could generate.
Retric 8y ago
I don't see how existing dams are going to harm biological diversity any more than they already have. So, that argument seems excessive. More directly, solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Renewable means something specific, pretending it must be good for the environment has noting to do with it.
- roryisok 8y ago
  > solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Wow. What?
  - Retric 8y ago
    Nuclear can be very self contained. They both take quite a bit of mining, but solar needs more land area. Sure, rooftops works for single family homes, but that does not scale for high rises. Unlike Wind you can't grow crops under solar, so you end up changing habitats that would have been untouched. Granted, if you fuck it up Nuclear can cause more problems. But most of it's issues are for Humans with our longer lifespans and higher cancer risks. Just look at all the wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. And, the area around Fukushima is rapidly turning into wilderness.
    - tim333 8y ago
      You can grow crops under solar sometimes http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crops-with-solar-farms-could-increase-land-use-efficiency-by-as-much-as-60/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crop...
      - Retric 8y ago
        That's rather low density solar and still requires extra farm land. But, point well made.
    - roryisok 8y ago
      Ok, your point was not at all what I expected and I have to concede it makes sense. But its also worth pointing out the that the best places for solar are usually hot deserts, not arable land. Regarding Chernobyl and Fukushima, the radiation keeps humans away which is probably the biggest contributor to wildlife resettlement. But I still would rather see arable land made unusable by shade than by radiation

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

Worse (if I understand correctly): There really aren't many good sites for dams that are still unused. I mean, there was a proposal back in the 1950s/1960s for two dams in the Grand Canyon whose sites are still unused, but I'm pretty sure that those dams will continue to be unbuilt, no matter how much electricity they could generate.

Retric 8y ago

I don't see how existing dams are going to harm biological diversity any more than they already have. So, that argument seems excessive. More directly, solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Renewable means something specific, pretending it must be good for the environment has noting to do with it.

roryisok 8y ago
> solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Wow. What?
- Retric 8y ago
  Nuclear can be very self contained. They both take quite a bit of mining, but solar needs more land area. Sure, rooftops works for single family homes, but that does not scale for high rises. Unlike Wind you can't grow crops under solar, so you end up changing habitats that would have been untouched. Granted, if you fuck it up Nuclear can cause more problems. But most of it's issues are for Humans with our longer lifespans and higher cancer risks. Just look at all the wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. And, the area around Fukushima is rapidly turning into wilderness.
  - tim333 8y ago
    You can grow crops under solar sometimes http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crops-with-solar-farms-could-increase-land-use-efficiency-by-as-much-as-60/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crop...
    - Retric 8y ago
      That's rather low density solar and still requires extra farm land. But, point well made.
  - roryisok 8y ago
    Ok, your point was not at all what I expected and I have to concede it makes sense. But its also worth pointing out the that the best places for solar are usually hot deserts, not arable land. Regarding Chernobyl and Fukushima, the radiation keeps humans away which is probably the biggest contributor to wildlife resettlement. But I still would rather see arable land made unusable by shade than by radiation