7 ms·

Yes, there are some species that require desert conditions in order to live. They have adapted to this particular harsh environment and the conditions in these

by evgen 5y ago

Yes, there are some species that require desert conditions in order to live. They have adapted to this particular harsh environment and the conditions in these places help keep out competition for the scarce available resources. You really should do some basic research or at least watch an Attenborough documentary because "everything you know about biology" is apparently quite limited. Yes, deserts have less life and far less obvious signs of it given the lack of resources, but that also means that the web of life between the various organisms is far more fragile and takes a lot longer to recover from any injury or intrusion. A far better place to put solar panels are in places where we know the impact of people and machines will be barely noticed and where life will spring back quite quickly. Put them in the middle of farmland. We have far more arable land than we need to be using, taking it out of production for a decade or two will be good for the soil, and it will spring back to life within days of the construction machinery leaving.

patrickk 5y ago
Deserts have been growing though, particularly the Sahara due to human activities like farming and grazing animals. So perhaps there’s opportunities to reduce deserification by combining solar and agriculture, and also provide power to poor regions. According to this link there is promising benefits: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/09/combining-solar-farming-benefits-both/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/09/combining-solar-farming...
- californical 5y ago
  The California desert is so different though - there is so much life everywhere. Spending nights camping out there, you just see so much. There are these really cute rat-looking things that eat bark and make a crazy scratching sound while you’re trying to sleep. There’s a huge variety of birds, some of which are brutal — they’ll pick up those rats and throw them at a cactus to impale them so they can be eaten more easily. Then there’s mice, ants, coyotes (woke up in the middle of the night to a big pack running by), tons of crazy plants. There’s even some spots with water & real oasis feeling - palm trees, frogs, insects, and running water - right in between some cliffs, tucked away, with no people around as far as you can see. I always thought the desert was just mostly sand and occasional cactus, but have been proven SO wrong after spending lots of time there.
oblio 5y ago
> A far better place to put solar panels are in places where we know the impact of people and machines will be barely noticed and where life will spring back quite quickly. Put them in the middle of farmland. We have far more arable land than we need to be using, taking it out of production for a decade or two will be good for the soil, and it will spring back to life within days of the construction machinery leaving. "We need to be using" from a metric you just conjured, or we are actually using?
- evgen 5y ago
  Using the US as an example, too much land is used for cereal grains like corn and wheat, to the point where it has become politically necessary to subsidize worthless and inefficient usages like ethanol just to get rid of the surplus. Ergo, I am making the assertion that if the US can afford to waste arable farmland growing corn that then needs to heavily subsidized to turn into ethanol and HFCS this arable land is being wasted and could be better served as space for solar panels. Taking land like this out of production will serve the purpose of supporting crop prices (limiting the political fallout of such a move) and it is well-established that modern farm practices have done significant damage to topsoil and that leaving land fallow or planting gaps between panels with prairie grasses will help build back some of the topsoil and soil nutrients. Do you have a counter-argument to refute my assertion?
  - oblio 5y ago
    Food supply is a strategic priority for any country, and a bit of surplus is to be expected as you want such important things to have a slight slack built into them and not break under stress. Not everything is done in the name of 110% efficiency.

by evgen 5y ago

patrickk 5y ago

Deserts have been growing though, particularly the Sahara due to human activities like farming and grazing animals. So perhaps there’s opportunities to reduce deserification by combining solar and agriculture, and also provide power to poor regions. According to this link there is promising benefits: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/09/combining-solar-farming-benefits-both/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/09/combining-solar-farming...

californical 5y ago
The California desert is so different though - there is so much life everywhere. Spending nights camping out there, you just see so much. There are these really cute rat-looking things that eat bark and make a crazy scratching sound while you’re trying to sleep. There’s a huge variety of birds, some of which are brutal — they’ll pick up those rats and throw them at a cactus to impale them so they can be eaten more easily. Then there’s mice, ants, coyotes (woke up in the middle of the night to a big pack running by), tons of crazy plants. There’s even some spots with water & real oasis feeling - palm trees, frogs, insects, and running water - right in between some cliffs, tucked away, with no people around as far as you can see. I always thought the desert was just mostly sand and occasional cactus, but have been proven SO wrong after spending lots of time there.

oblio 5y ago

> A far better place to put solar panels are in places where we know the impact of people and machines will be barely noticed and where life will spring back quite quickly. Put them in the middle of farmland. We have far more arable land than we need to be using, taking it out of production for a decade or two will be good for the soil, and it will spring back to life within days of the construction machinery leaving. "We need to be using" from a metric you just conjured, or we are actually using?

evgen 5y ago
Using the US as an example, too much land is used for cereal grains like corn and wheat, to the point where it has become politically necessary to subsidize worthless and inefficient usages like ethanol just to get rid of the surplus. Ergo, I am making the assertion that if the US can afford to waste arable farmland growing corn that then needs to heavily subsidized to turn into ethanol and HFCS this arable land is being wasted and could be better served as space for solar panels. Taking land like this out of production will serve the purpose of supporting crop prices (limiting the political fallout of such a move) and it is well-established that modern farm practices have done significant damage to topsoil and that leaving land fallow or planting gaps between panels with prairie grasses will help build back some of the topsoil and soil nutrients. Do you have a counter-argument to refute my assertion?
- oblio 5y ago
  Food supply is a strategic priority for any country, and a bit of surplus is to be expected as you want such important things to have a slight slack built into them and not break under stress. Not everything is done in the name of 110% efficiency.