3 ms·

> This is not going to displace and biodiversity than a truck stop in the same location would. You wildly underestimate what lives in an arid landscape. I don

> This is not going to displace and biodiversity than a truck stop in the same location would. You wildly underestimate what lives in an arid landscape. I don't blame you, because you can't really know unless you've spent time in these landscapes, and have the inclination to observe them. > More to the point, if we can't build a solar plant here then we're never going to build one in this country There's plenty of already disturbed land that can be used before decimating nature parks. Be it vacant agricultural land, decommissioned commercial real estate, etc. But like I said, roof-top solar and grid-scale batteries are still largely under-utilised and have the added benefit of not needing expensive transmission lines. This will become especially true as the cost of batteries continue to steeply decline.

legitster 1y ago
> I don't blame you, because you can't really know unless you've spent time in these landscapes, and have the inclination to observe them. I've actually spent a lot of time in Nevada and the SW. You're right that it's gorgeous and has its own ecology. But out of all the places that someone could say "not in my backyard", rural Nevada has probably some of the least claim as anywhere on this earth. It's vast, the wildlife is literally some of the most resilient on earth, and thanks to global warming, it's one of the few bioregions that's actually growing. Also, BLM land is specifically not nature preserve. Public lands are set aside for everything from forestry to mining to military testing to 4x4 racing. These are not actually pristine wildernesses being destroyed.
- aeonfox 1y ago
  According to the original article (looks like it's changed): > But some conservationists alarmed by the proposed rollout of large solar projects in Nevada and other Western states celebrated the demise of Esmeralda 7, saying as designed it took up up far too much land. > “Friends of Nevada Wilderness is thrilled that this poorly sited project is dead,” said Shaaron Netherton, the group’s executive director. > “In the push to get this particular project through, the BLM ignored the importance of this region’s cultural significance, biological significance and the fact that it is one of the most intact landscapes remaining in Nevada,” Netherton added. I have two conflicting opinions on the conservation value of the land. It might be that some significant part of it is worth saving, or perhaps FONW have become corrupt.
- olyjohn 1y ago
  Also there is so much piblic land that has been totally stripped of all vegetation and life by grazing cattle.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    That same land was once grazed by massive herds of buffalo. The native species need large animals grazing to stay healthy. Sure, there's overgrazing in places, but that's a matter of degree. The fact remains that cattle grazing is a necessary step to replace what was lost, if preservation of what remains of native species is desired.

legitster 1y ago

> I don't blame you, because you can't really know unless you've spent time in these landscapes, and have the inclination to observe them. I've actually spent a lot of time in Nevada and the SW. You're right that it's gorgeous and has its own ecology. But out of all the places that someone could say "not in my backyard", rural Nevada has probably some of the least claim as anywhere on this earth. It's vast, the wildlife is literally some of the most resilient on earth, and thanks to global warming, it's one of the few bioregions that's actually growing. Also, BLM land is specifically not nature preserve. Public lands are set aside for everything from forestry to mining to military testing to 4x4 racing. These are not actually pristine wildernesses being destroyed.

aeonfox 1y ago
According to the original article (looks like it's changed): > But some conservationists alarmed by the proposed rollout of large solar projects in Nevada and other Western states celebrated the demise of Esmeralda 7, saying as designed it took up up far too much land. > “Friends of Nevada Wilderness is thrilled that this poorly sited project is dead,” said Shaaron Netherton, the group’s executive director. > “In the push to get this particular project through, the BLM ignored the importance of this region’s cultural significance, biological significance and the fact that it is one of the most intact landscapes remaining in Nevada,” Netherton added. I have two conflicting opinions on the conservation value of the land. It might be that some significant part of it is worth saving, or perhaps FONW have become corrupt.
olyjohn 1y ago
Also there is so much piblic land that has been totally stripped of all vegetation and life by grazing cattle.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  That same land was once grazed by massive herds of buffalo. The native species need large animals grazing to stay healthy. Sure, there's overgrazing in places, but that's a matter of degree. The fact remains that cattle grazing is a necessary step to replace what was lost, if preservation of what remains of native species is desired.