3 ms·

> If we covered an area 10% the size of Arizona in solar panels And what are the various Friends of Rare Bugs and Small Furry Animals groups doing in the meant

> If we covered an area 10% the size of Arizona in solar panels And what are the various Friends of Rare Bugs and Small Furry Animals groups doing in the meantime? I joke, but even I would balk at the environmental impact of that. Certainly it's going to be greater than any equivalent nuclear installation. > Of which 0.72% is U-235 Fortunately we're not limited to U-235. With breeder reactors, there's enough nuclear fuel to run human civilization for billions-with-a-b of years.

jodrellblank 3y ago
Cover 4,000 square miles of the USA in surface car parks[1] and that's freedom. Suggest covering 11,000 square miles of desert in solar panels which don't stop land being used for grazing or crop growing or insects or wildlife, and that's environmental distruction that "even" you would balk at. [1] https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-united-states-is-covered-by-parking-lots-how-do-we-redesign-our-cities https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-unite...
- internetter 3y ago
  Speaking of parking lots, it's not a terrible idea (and it's already been done before) to put solar panels above parking lots
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  False dichotomy. The people who will be screaming about covering the desert with solar panels are exactly the same people who scream about covering the land with car parks. Exactly. The only energy source radical environmentalists like is one that exists only in a fantasy. As soon as it starts being built, it becomes evil. Note that they're already up in arms about windmills killing birds. Also, covering the desert is definitely going to change the local environment. At a minimum, every joule that goes into the power transmission lines is a joule that will not be available for use by the desert ecosystem.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    The desert ecosystem wastes almost all of its incoming joules. The most valuable commodity in a desert is shade.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      If you were a cactus you'd no doubt disagree.
      - angiosperm 3y ago
        And you have discussed this with a cactus? Or are you still just making things up?

jodrellblank 3y ago

Cover 4,000 square miles of the USA in surface car parks[1] and that's freedom. Suggest covering 11,000 square miles of desert in solar panels which don't stop land being used for grazing or crop growing or insects or wildlife, and that's environmental distruction that "even" you would balk at. [1] https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-united-states-is-covered-by-parking-lots-how-do-we-redesign-our-cities https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-unite...

internetter 3y ago
Speaking of parking lots, it's not a terrible idea (and it's already been done before) to put solar panels above parking lots
Turing_Machine 3y ago
False dichotomy. The people who will be screaming about covering the desert with solar panels are exactly the same people who scream about covering the land with car parks. Exactly. The only energy source radical environmentalists like is one that exists only in a fantasy. As soon as it starts being built, it becomes evil. Note that they're already up in arms about windmills killing birds. Also, covering the desert is definitely going to change the local environment. At a minimum, every joule that goes into the power transmission lines is a joule that will not be available for use by the desert ecosystem.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  The desert ecosystem wastes almost all of its incoming joules. The most valuable commodity in a desert is shade.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    If you were a cactus you'd no doubt disagree.
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      And you have discussed this with a cactus? Or are you still just making things up?