5 ms·

> “These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities. But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter th

by jadell 8y ago

> “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 to keep your precious desert, but as long as you oppose local renewable energy, you can only subsist off the crops, livestock and other resources you can grow in the desert. Why should you benefit from the rest of us sacrificing our own landscapes to save ourselves when you aren't willing to do the same?

golemotron 8y ago
Solar and wind will never be enough. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th...
- jadell 8y ago
  Is your point that we should stop building any solar or wind? Because if that is not your point, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    The point of the article is that unreliable energy like wind and solar with 35% and 25% capacity factors is extremely challenging to scale beyond those numbers. Large-scale low-carbon systems that are 24/7 reliable regardless of how windy or sunny it is may be more effective. Lots of people are promoting 50/50 mixes of intermittent/unreliable renewables + nuclear. The author of the article thinks the renewables are problematic and our money would be better spent just going for 24/7 reliable clean energy sources.
- Arn_Thor 8y ago
  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.
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    Nuclear is safe. It's safer than coal, solar, wind, and pretty much every other form of energy. And cleaner too. But it's "nuclear" and "radiation," which means half the public enters a state of paranoia. Do investigate the relative dangers of energy production.
    - door5 8y ago
      The Fukushima disaster almost got to the point where they had to evacuate Tokyo. I support nuclear power, but to say that it is without risks and the public is just irrational is disingenuous.
      - yostrovs 8y ago
        Nobody has nor anyone will die from Fukushima. Tokyo wasn't evacuated. I didn't say nuclear is without risks, but it is safer than other methods of producing lots of electricity
        trissi 8y ago
        This is just plain wrong. Although only one person has died from radiation YET, over 2000 died during/from evacuation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- adrianN 8y ago
  Solar and wind and batteries, or solar and wind and a very large grid will be enough.
- obtaniumstool 8y ago
  A right-wing mouthpiece is criticizing renewable energy? Crazy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sbov 8y ago
From the article: > 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 — within the boundaries of Community Plans that have been adopted by more than a dozen unincorporated towns. It doesn't seem like they're opposing local renewable energy. They're opposing renewable energy that is used primarily to serve out-of-town customers.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  Your comment should be somewhere on top or in the beginning of the article. It completely changes the outlook on this community and it's a shame one has to dig down this far to find this out. Argueably a very legitimate stance on the part of the community.
  - obtaniumstool 8y ago
    I suppose being an unapologetic NIMBY counts as a stance.
- pixl97 8y ago
  So somewhere else a powerplant should stop sending them power because they are the out of towners?
- gdpgreg 8y ago
  The same can be said about any power flowing into the county. Wikipedia indicates that the two major power plants in San Bernardino county are in solar, thus they must be importing power at night in order to meet the cities needs. Consequently the argument "They're opposing renewable energy that is used primarily to serve out-of-town customers" can be applied for any and all energy projects which has/is currently fedding the county. The power grid is communal resource, all communities benefit from it and as a result we all need to contribute to it, if not you'll end up with islanded power distribution systems that are a lot more expensive.
tyu1000 8y ago
These huge renewable projects do have major ecological impact, why lie about it? Due to low power generation density they take up a lot of space compared to fossil fuel/nuclear plants and that's not including the large amount of power lines that have to be run to all these new facilities. There are well known negative ecological impacts from the solar farms in this area that others have pointed out. Just because a desert or prairie ecosystem isn't as obvious a conservation target as a forest doesn't mean they are not valuable ecosystems that shouldn't be protected from development. There's no free lunch in energy generation, every form of it has some ecological drawback. Look at this virgin forest that Georgetown University wants to cut down to put a solar facility up. How is this a net positive for the environment? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/georgetown-wants-to-raze-210-acres-of-trees-to-meet-green-energy-goals-environmentalists-are-crying-foul/2019/02/17/428c22f2-2584-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/georgetown-...
- adrianN 8y ago
  Well the alternative to more renewables is, realistically, more coal and gas. I think that covering up one or two percent of even the most valuable biomes with solar panels is no where near as destructive as climate change.
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    You conveniently forgot nuclear and your percents are off.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I support nuclear but it's impossible to build enough in the current political climate and it takes too long to build and is terribly expensive. I don't think my percentages are off https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar-energy-united-states https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar-energ... 0.6% according to that article, so probably in the single digit percentages in real life.
  - squozzer 8y ago

by jadell 8y ago

golemotron 8y ago

Solar and wind will never be enough. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th...

jadell 8y ago
Is your point that we should stop building any solar or wind? Because if that is not your point, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  The point of the article is that unreliable energy like wind and solar with 35% and 25% capacity factors is extremely challenging to scale beyond those numbers. Large-scale low-carbon systems that are 24/7 reliable regardless of how windy or sunny it is may be more effective. Lots of people are promoting 50/50 mixes of intermittent/unreliable renewables + nuclear. The author of the article thinks the renewables are problematic and our money would be better spent just going for 24/7 reliable clean energy sources.
Arn_Thor 8y ago
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.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  Nuclear is safe. It's safer than coal, solar, wind, and pretty much every other form of energy. And cleaner too. But it's "nuclear" and "radiation," which means half the public enters a state of paranoia. Do investigate the relative dangers of energy production.
  - door5 8y ago
    The Fukushima disaster almost got to the point where they had to evacuate Tokyo. I support nuclear power, but to say that it is without risks and the public is just irrational is disingenuous.
    - yostrovs 8y ago
      Nobody has nor anyone will die from Fukushima. Tokyo wasn't evacuated. I didn't say nuclear is without risks, but it is safer than other methods of producing lots of electricity
      - trissi 8y ago
        This is just plain wrong. Although only one person has died from radiation YET, over 2000 died during/from evacuation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
adrianN 8y ago
Solar and wind and batteries, or solar and wind and a very large grid will be enough.
obtaniumstool 8y ago
A right-wing mouthpiece is criticizing renewable energy? Crazy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sbov 8y ago

From the article: > 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 — within the boundaries of Community Plans that have been adopted by more than a dozen unincorporated towns. It doesn't seem like they're opposing local renewable energy. They're opposing renewable energy that is used primarily to serve out-of-town customers.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
Your comment should be somewhere on top or in the beginning of the article. It completely changes the outlook on this community and it's a shame one has to dig down this far to find this out. Argueably a very legitimate stance on the part of the community.
- obtaniumstool 8y ago
  I suppose being an unapologetic NIMBY counts as a stance.
pixl97 8y ago
So somewhere else a powerplant should stop sending them power because they are the out of towners?
gdpgreg 8y ago
The same can be said about any power flowing into the county. Wikipedia indicates that the two major power plants in San Bernardino county are in solar, thus they must be importing power at night in order to meet the cities needs. Consequently the argument "They're opposing renewable energy that is used primarily to serve out-of-town customers" can be applied for any and all energy projects which has/is currently fedding the county. The power grid is communal resource, all communities benefit from it and as a result we all need to contribute to it, if not you'll end up with islanded power distribution systems that are a lot more expensive.

tyu1000 8y ago

These huge renewable projects do have major ecological impact, why lie about it? Due to low power generation density they take up a lot of space compared to fossil fuel/nuclear plants and that's not including the large amount of power lines that have to be run to all these new facilities. There are well known negative ecological impacts from the solar farms in this area that others have pointed out. Just because a desert or prairie ecosystem isn't as obvious a conservation target as a forest doesn't mean they are not valuable ecosystems that shouldn't be protected from development. There's no free lunch in energy generation, every form of it has some ecological drawback. Look at this virgin forest that Georgetown University wants to cut down to put a solar facility up. How is this a net positive for the environment? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/georgetown-wants-to-raze-210-acres-of-trees-to-meet-green-energy-goals-environmentalists-are-crying-foul/2019/02/17/428c22f2-2584-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/georgetown-...

adrianN 8y ago
Well the alternative to more renewables is, realistically, more coal and gas. I think that covering up one or two percent of even the most valuable biomes with solar panels is no where near as destructive as climate change.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  You conveniently forgot nuclear and your percents are off.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I support nuclear but it's impossible to build enough in the current political climate and it takes too long to build and is terribly expensive. I don't think my percentages are off https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar-energy-united-states https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar-energ... 0.6% according to that article, so probably in the single digit percentages in real life.
- squozzer 8y ago