4 ms·

And what about the effects on the local ecosystems and habitat?

by bmitc 3y ago

aidenn0 3y ago
Hopefully less than the 38M acres of federal lands leased out for oil extraction?
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  Surely those 38 M acres could also be used for solar?
justsocrateasin 3y ago
I think there is a very strong argument that the effects on the local ecosystems and habitat from putting down solar energy is significantly less than the effects that will occur from climate change. This is a straw man argument and I'm pretty tired of seeing it (similar vein - "wind turbines kill birds", yeah but not as much as climate change will!)
- Ajay-p 3y ago
  It appears to also be a legal argument that has been used to stop solar development, endangered species, but also NIMBYism. https://electrek.co/2021/07/26/us-largest-solar-farm-is-scrapped-because-nevada-locals-dont-want-to-look-at-it/ https://electrek.co/2021/07/26/us-largest-solar-farm-is-scra...
- bmitc 3y ago
  My comment isn't a logical fallacy. It's lazy of you to throw that out there, and it doesn't automatically debunk what you're responding to. Plus, I just asked a question. My comment comes from a place of pointing out a chain of events of engineering causing problems, then engineering solving those problems while creating new problems. Of course, if you just dismiss that plants and animals live there in the desert, then you don't need to think about them. But if you don't dismiss them but still need the solar power at all costs, then maybe studies could be commissioned that provide the ecosystem the best change for unintended negative change if the solar panels absolutely must be built. And let's not act like these solar panels will have much to do, if anything, with helping to mitigate climate change.
burkaman 3y ago
This is of course a big part of the analysis the government has already done: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20102762/251002762/2023%20Draft%20Solar%20PEIS%20Volume%201%201-10-2024_508compliant.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/..., https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20102765/251002765/2023%20Draft%20Solar%20PEIS%20Appendix%20F%201-10-2024_508compliant.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/.... You are welcome to comment on these assessments if you have concerns or input: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2022371/570 https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2022371/570. As the impact statement notes, there is already 9 gigawatts of solar deployed on BLM lands that we can study and learn from, to make sure the benefits outweigh the consequences.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Thanks for the links, though of course, it wasn't clear from the article.

And what about the effects on the local ecosystems and habitat?

by bmitc 3y ago

And what about the effects on the local ecosystems and habitat?

aidenn0 3y ago

Hopefully less than the 38M acres of federal lands leased out for oil extraction?

kwhitefoot 3y ago
Surely those 38 M acres could also be used for solar?

justsocrateasin 3y ago

I think there is a very strong argument that the effects on the local ecosystems and habitat from putting down solar energy is significantly less than the effects that will occur from climate change. This is a straw man argument and I'm pretty tired of seeing it (similar vein - "wind turbines kill birds", yeah but not as much as climate change will!)

Ajay-p 3y ago
It appears to also be a legal argument that has been used to stop solar development, endangered species, but also NIMBYism. https://electrek.co/2021/07/26/us-largest-solar-farm-is-scrapped-because-nevada-locals-dont-want-to-look-at-it/ https://electrek.co/2021/07/26/us-largest-solar-farm-is-scra...
bmitc 3y ago
My comment isn't a logical fallacy. It's lazy of you to throw that out there, and it doesn't automatically debunk what you're responding to. Plus, I just asked a question. My comment comes from a place of pointing out a chain of events of engineering causing problems, then engineering solving those problems while creating new problems. Of course, if you just dismiss that plants and animals live there in the desert, then you don't need to think about them. But if you don't dismiss them but still need the solar power at all costs, then maybe studies could be commissioned that provide the ecosystem the best change for unintended negative change if the solar panels absolutely must be built. And let's not act like these solar panels will have much to do, if anything, with helping to mitigate climate change.

burkaman 3y ago

This is of course a big part of the analysis the government has already done: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20102762/251002762/2023%20Draft%20Solar%20PEIS%20Volume%201%201-10-2024_508compliant.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/..., https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20102765/251002765/2023%20Draft%20Solar%20PEIS%20Appendix%20F%201-10-2024_508compliant.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/.... You are welcome to comment on these assessments if you have concerns or input: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2022371/570 https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2022371/570. As the impact statement notes, there is already 9 gigawatts of solar deployed on BLM lands that we can study and learn from, to make sure the benefits outweigh the consequences.

bmitc 3y ago
Thanks for the links, though of course, it wasn't clear from the article.