You can never please the environmental purists.

[flacaltenn]

Even with my skeptical views of HOW solar is being added to the grid --- this little critique of solar siting put me back on my heels. For those of you who THINK Solar/Wind are immune from these nit-pickers --- you need to think again....


Only 15% of California's Big Solar Projects Are on the Right Kind of Land - IEEE Spectrum



The real estate agent’s mantra is well known: location, location, location. But location is important, too, when considering where to site utility-scale solar projects, and most of California's projects or planned projects are in less-than-ideal spots, according to a new study. As a result, these projects may have negative impacts on the environment and will not be as cost-effective or as carbon neutral as they could be.

Researchers from Stanford University and the University of California’s Riverside and Berkeley campuses identified 161 planned or proposed large-scale utility solar and applied an algorithm to determine how compatible they are with their location.

The results, which were published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that only 15 percent of sites were on compatible land.

The vast majority of projects were slated for a type of habitat called shrubland or scrubland. These are habitats dominated by sagebrushes and small plants that are common in Mediterranean climates. In California, they are "biodiversity hotspots," but have already lost around 70 percent of their original extent.

About 48 percent of the land sited for photovoltaic projects and 43 percent of the land for concentrating solar power (CSP) projects were on shrub or scrublands. The second most common area for utility-scale solar was on agricultural land.

Nearly 74 percent of PV installations and 90 percent of CSP installations were within 10 kilometers of a protected area—a range that Hernandez says is too close and could have ill effects.

"We really need to think especially hard about what we develop and the kind of activities that we do around protected areas or else it could compromise the protected areas.

Welcome to world of dealing with these issues. Now -- solar has reached the "big game" and is subject to the same negative pressures from the folks who won't ever be satisfied.

What is the "ill effect" of solar and on who or what? I know its vandal prone but ill effect?

the panels will create shade, meaning the plants won't grow as much

So they want to protect the weeds! Omg, oh they need a mental hospital.

yes

they want to save sage over the planet.


think about that, let it sink in

leftist choose weeds over people
they choose weeds over the planet
they want to stop warming, but not enough that they will sacrifice weeds.


they didn't think through, again, on what they forced on us.

solar and wind need, NEED, large areas to produce jack

but dont worry, you will soon be 'mandated' to install wind and solar on your property, you will just have to pay the zoning fines, taxes for animal deaths, etc, etc..

Nailed it --- Right there... Same deal with nuclear. More afraid of that technology than they are of GWarming.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Even with my skeptical views of HOW solar is being added to the grid --- this little critique of solar siting put me back on my heels. For those of you who THINK Solar/Wind are immune from these nit-pickers --- you need to think again....


Only 15% of California's Big Solar Projects Are on the Right Kind of Land - IEEE Spectrum



The real estate agent’s mantra is well known: location, location, location. But location is important, too, when considering where to site utility-scale solar projects, and most of California's projects or planned projects are in less-than-ideal spots, according to a new study. As a result, these projects may have negative impacts on the environment and will not be as cost-effective or as carbon neutral as they could be.

Researchers from Stanford University and the University of California’s Riverside and Berkeley campuses identified 161 planned or proposed large-scale utility solar and applied an algorithm to determine how compatible they are with their location.

The results, which were published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that only 15 percent of sites were on compatible land.

The vast majority of projects were slated for a type of habitat called shrubland or scrubland. These are habitats dominated by sagebrushes and small plants that are common in Mediterranean climates. In California, they are "biodiversity hotspots," but have already lost around 70 percent of their original extent.

About 48 percent of the land sited for photovoltaic projects and 43 percent of the land for concentrating solar power (CSP) projects were on shrub or scrublands. The second most common area for utility-scale solar was on agricultural land.

Nearly 74 percent of PV installations and 90 percent of CSP installations were within 10 kilometers of a protected area—a range that Hernandez says is too close and could have ill effects.

"We really need to think especially hard about what we develop and the kind of activities that we do around protected areas or else it could compromise the protected areas.

Welcome to world of dealing with these issues. Now -- solar has reached the "big game" and is subject to the same negative pressures from the folks who won't ever be satisfied.

What is the "ill effect" of solar and on who or what? I know its vandal prone but ill effect?

the panels will create shade, meaning the plants won't grow as much

So they want to protect the weeds! Omg, oh they need a mental hospital.

yes

they want to save sage over the planet.


think about that, let it sink in

leftist choose weeds over people
they choose weeds over the planet
they want to stop warming, but not enough that they will sacrifice weeds.


they didn't think through, again, on what they forced on us.

solar and wind need, NEED, large areas to produce jack

but dont worry, you will soon be 'mandated' to install wind and solar on your property, you will just have to pay the zoning fines, taxes for animal deaths, etc, etc..

Nailed it --- Right there... Same deal with nuclear. More afraid of that technology than they are of GWarming.

years ago, msn.com posted an article where the leader against nuke power in the 80-90's admitted his basis was in fear and not facts.

A week after I saw the article I couldn't find it again.

Nuke power is the absolute safest and most efficient form of energy.

How do I know? I lived on a nuke sub.

 

[Old Rocks]

When I was a child, the nuclear people were promising us nuclear power so cheap that it would not be metered. And it would be absolutely fail safe. It is very expensive power, and not at all fail safe, and leaves behind nuclear waste that will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

As the cost of wind and solar comes down, and as geothermal comes online, nuclear becomes less and less competitive or desirable. Simple economics.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is the "ill effect" of solar and on who or what? I know its vandal prone but ill effect?

the panels will create shade, meaning the plants won't grow as much

So they want to protect the weeds! Omg, oh they need a mental hospital.

yes

they want to save sage over the planet.


think about that, let it sink in

leftist choose weeds over people
they choose weeds over the planet
they want to stop warming, but not enough that they will sacrifice weeds.


they didn't think through, again, on what they forced on us.

solar and wind need, NEED, large areas to produce jack

but dont worry, you will soon be 'mandated' to install wind and solar on your property, you will just have to pay the zoning fines, taxes for animal deaths, etc, etc..

Nailed it --- Right there... Same deal with nuclear. More afraid of that technology than they are of GWarming.

years ago, msn.com posted an article where the leader against nuke power in the 80-90's admitted his basis was in fear and not facts.

A week after I saw the article I couldn't find it again.

Nuke power is the absolute safest and most efficient form of energy.

How do I know? I lived on a nuke sub.

So safe that the insurance companies are just jumping to insure such a safe alternative, correct?

 

[flacaltenn]

When I was a child, the nuclear people were promising us nuclear power so cheap that it would not be metered. And it would be absolutely fail safe. It is very expensive power, and not at all fail safe, and leaves behind nuclear waste that will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

As the cost of wind and solar comes down, and as geothermal comes online, nuclear becomes less and less competitive or desirable. Simple economics.

Not simple economics. MANY studies done showing the original costs of our early existing plants in adjusted dollars. The earliest plants were the cheapest and no more safe or secure. But you can see the RISE in costs as regulation and approval times went thru the roof. What we NEED is PRE-Approved designs that can replicated and duplicated and the costs would be far less.

Anyway -- you COULD have the same issues with Solar/Wind as this thread points out. Because as mature technologies, they are now a valid target for the same type of cost raising regulation and red tape. Siting of early nuke plants sucked and so does some of the early sitings for wind and solar. Welcome to the Inquisition. It's YOUR job now to deal with skyrocketing compliance and regulation for YOUR favorite energy projects. AND IT WILL COME..

 

[flacaltenn]

the panels will create shade, meaning the plants won't grow as much

So they want to protect the weeds! Omg, oh they need a mental hospital.

yes

they want to save sage over the planet.


think about that, let it sink in

leftist choose weeds over people
they choose weeds over the planet
they want to stop warming, but not enough that they will sacrifice weeds.


they didn't think through, again, on what they forced on us.

solar and wind need, NEED, large areas to produce jack

but dont worry, you will soon be 'mandated' to install wind and solar on your property, you will just have to pay the zoning fines, taxes for animal deaths, etc, etc..

Nailed it --- Right there... Same deal with nuclear. More afraid of that technology than they are of GWarming.

years ago, msn.com posted an article where the leader against nuke power in the 80-90's admitted his basis was in fear and not facts.

A week after I saw the article I couldn't find it again.

Nuke power is the absolute safest and most efficient form of energy.

How do I know? I lived on a nuke sub.

So safe that the insurance companies are just jumping to insure such a safe alternative, correct?

What does the US Navy pay in insurance for docking a Nuclear Cruiser in Norfolk??

 

[Two Thumbs]

the panels will create shade, meaning the plants won't grow as much

So they want to protect the weeds! Omg, oh they need a mental hospital.

yes

they want to save sage over the planet.


think about that, let it sink in

leftist choose weeds over people
they choose weeds over the planet
they want to stop warming, but not enough that they will sacrifice weeds.


they didn't think through, again, on what they forced on us.

solar and wind need, NEED, large areas to produce jack

but dont worry, you will soon be 'mandated' to install wind and solar on your property, you will just have to pay the zoning fines, taxes for animal deaths, etc, etc..

Nailed it --- Right there... Same deal with nuclear. More afraid of that technology than they are of GWarming.

years ago, msn.com posted an article where the leader against nuke power in the 80-90's admitted his basis was in fear and not facts.

A week after I saw the article I couldn't find it again.

Nuke power is the absolute safest and most efficient form of energy.

How do I know? I lived on a nuke sub.

So safe that the insurance companies are just jumping to insure such a safe alternative, correct?

It's expensive b/c of lying morons like you

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)


I'm interested in hearing your lies to some how say your lie is actually the truth.

only b/c it's funny and I know you will lie b/c if you admit you lied, you'd die of some leftist deadman switch thing that's in your skull

 

[Two Thumbs]

When I was a child, the nuclear people were promising us nuclear power so cheap that it would not be metered. And it would be absolutely fail safe. It is very expensive power, and not at all fail safe, and leaves behind nuclear waste that will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

As the cost of wind and solar comes down, and as geothermal comes online, nuclear becomes less and less competitive or desirable. Simple economics.

Not simple economics. MANY studies done showing the original costs of our early existing plants in adjusted dollars. The earliest plants were the cheapest and no more safe or secure. But you can see the RISE in costs as regulation and approval times went thru the roof. What we NEED is PRE-Approved designs that can replicated and duplicated and the costs would be far less.

Anyway -- you COULD have the same issues with Solar/Wind as this thread points out. Because as mature technologies, they are now a valid target for the same type of cost raising regulation and red tape. Siting of early nuke plants sucked and so does some of the early sitings for wind and solar. Welcome to the Inquisition. It's YOUR job now to deal with skyrocketing compliance and regulation for YOUR favorite energy projects. AND IT WILL COME..

early nuke plants didn't suck, everyone understood that if something went wrong, it would go very wrong.

They were incredibly safe then but now they just get fearmongered by leftist that want to kill the planet with kindness b/c they know, one day

On the bright side, no more global warming

 

[30 year chrysler mechanic]

Some land needs to be used for energy! That is reality. I prefer 500gw of nuclear, peak out the hydroelectric, 100gw of natural gas, 50-80gw of coal and the rest being wind, solar and wave....

Fuck the purist!

would that nuclear be (molten salt nuclear reactor ) which uses spent fuel from todays reactors and could power USA for next 1000 years.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Some land needs to be used for energy! That is reality. I prefer 500gw of nuclear, peak out the hydroelectric, 100gw of natural gas, 50-80gw of coal and the rest being wind, solar and wave....

Fuck the purist!

would that nuclear be (molten salt nuclear reactor ) which uses spent fuel from todays reactors and could power USA for next 1000 years.

do you have a link to an actual reactor that uses spent rods?
cuz I'd love to read that

 

[mamooth]

Given it's been conservatives telling us solar and wind power are totally unacceptable because of killing birds, this thread is amusing.

That is, the conservatives lost the moral authority to condemn that tactic after they became specialists at using it themselves.

 

[mamooth]

What does the US Navy pay in insurance for docking a Nuclear Cruiser in Norfolk??

'Nuttin, being the last of the nuke cruisers were scrapped around 10 years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Given it's been conservatives telling us solar and wind power are totally unacceptable because of killing birds, this thread is amusing.

That is, the conservatives lost the moral authority to condemn that tactic after they became specialists at using it themselves.

Not gonna be so amusing once the regulations and siting battles kick in..

Have no idea what "tactic" you refer to -- so I can't condemn anything..

 

[Two Thumbs]

Given it's been conservatives telling us solar and wind power are totally unacceptable because of killing birds, this thread is amusing.

That is, the conservatives lost the moral authority to condemn that tactic after they became specialists at using it themselves.

All of a fucking sudden, it's ok to kill birds enmass, it's ok to fuck with their flight patterns.

Like fucking magic, leftist don't give a fuck b/c they got what they wanted forced upon us.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Given it's been conservatives telling us solar and wind power are totally unacceptable because of killing birds, this thread is amusing.

That is, the conservatives lost the moral authority to condemn that tactic after they became specialists at using it themselves.

Not gonna be so amusing once the regulations and siting battles kick in..

Have no idea what "tactic" you refer to -- so I can't condemn anything..

he's crying about polar bears

If we support drilling some where, leftist bitch that a PB might up and leave the area.

the fact that there are more now than before gw got going is meaningless to him.


yes, that chance that something might happen is the same thing as it actually happening to the leftist skull

 

[30 year chrysler mechanic]

www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/
there are 3 meltdown impossible reactors maybe more. ceramic coated fuel pellets , molten salt and thorium no good for making weapons so not used. if the ceramic coated pellets had been in use in japan there would not have been a nuclear melt down. pre 1980 tech.