5 ms·
I have long thought there must be a reason why vast, empty plots of sun drenched land were not covered in solar panels. Half of Nevada could become the nation's
by Ajay-p 3y ago
I have long thought there must be a reason why vast, empty plots of sun drenched land were not covered in solar panels. Half of Nevada could become the nation's power plant.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- stvltvs 3y agoAnd destroy all that natural habitat full of biodivesity? Rooftop and parking lot solar for the win.
- barelyauser 3y agoIs this satire?
- njarboe 3y agoThe US has very little desert in the Sahara or Saudi Arabia style of nothing but sand and rocks. Most desert areas in the US are covered in cactus, brush, and grasses.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoOne acre can produce 250 - 300 kwhrs of electricity, enough for 10 houses. 22 million acres would mean it could produce enough power for every home in the US. Where do you think that power should be coming from to stop the cactus, brush and grasses from getting more shade?
- njarboe 3y agoMostly nuclear fission and hopefully fusion in the future, but one does have to worry about heating up the earth directly with these methods in the very long term. Using solar and wind only does prevent that problem.
- ericbarrett 3y agoNo. One example of many: https://www.nps.gov/jotr/learn/nature/cryptocrusts.htm https://www.nps.gov/jotr/learn/nature/cryptocrusts.htm
- xp84 3y ago[edit: if you're joking, good -- ignore my reply] It's a desert. There's arguably less biodiversity there than most places. I'm pretty sure there's enough room for there to still be plenty of cactuses and jackrabbits AND a massive amount of solar panels. Rooftop and parking lot solar isn't the same thing. It's not automatically better. The efficiency of rooftop solar isn't nearly as good as an array that can follow the sun. Given finite resources you could make a case we're better off deploying those panels in a desert and connecting a big fat cable to them vs. a million houses all paying individual installers to install tiny, inefficient arrays piecemeal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- petee 3y agoThe desert is teeming with life under the crust, and panels can disturb or destroy that. We've learned the hard way to not just rush in thinking we know what's best for the land, since we've destroyed so much already. I thought it was well established that desert panels have to be cleaned constantly, and use huge amounts of water; without data im assuming that'll cost more than whatever efficiency gain you get from tracking panels verses non. And parking lots just make sense -- lots store heat, cars get blistering, and solar gives power and shade...its a win win all day. A decently balanced article on diversity in the Mojave -- https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-06-27/solar-panels-could-save-california-but-they-hurt-the-desert https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-06-27/solar-p...
- jasonjei 3y agoBut climate change will disturb all ecosystems. If solar panels help mitigate, I think it’s a small price to pay at the risk of messing with desert ecosystems.
- tstrimple 3y agoI also feel like I'm taking crazy pills. > "Global climate change will have far reaching impacts and change ecosystems across the world!" > "Yeah, but solar panels will impact the ecosystem of this local desert so no." > "You realize the local desert is also part of the global ecosystem will be impacted by climate change right? Right?..."
- burkaman 3y agoWhy not both? We're also putting rooftop solar on the Pentagon: https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-more-104-million-advance-net-zero-projects-federal https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-....
- Eric_WVGG 3y agotechnically it could be as much as 80.1% of Nevada