Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

[elektra]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need. I see the biggest structures in the World that provide us the least amount of power. The greatest investment in the World's history is being forced upon us. The World's most expensive investment. With the least return.

It seems like common sense to me, that using something as big as a Wind Turbine to produce a fraction of energy is wasteful, it literally consumes more Oil. It takes more Oil to build these massive "renewable" forms of energy.

When you run out of oil you can not build more, Solar and Wind need to be built everyday, forever, we can never ever stop.

Wind Turbines consume Oil for maintenance, 5-55 gal drums of high quaility lubricants every year.

Solar Panels need to be cleaned, with purified water. 1,000's of square miles will require billions of gallons of water. The environmental impact statements attest to this fact.

Destroyed is destroyed, do we need to grow cotton in Arizona, their number one cash crop? Or should we grow fresh produce, the climate is good for growing things, and we have plenty of sewage waste for fertilizer.

I like nature, it is a shame that we are destroying it, Nixon had to create the EPA to stop polluters, now the government is taking all we saved and destroying it.

The payoff, Obama will become the richest president in history, paid giving speeches.

The payoff now is to politicians and their political campaigns. Oregon's Governor resigned specifically over receiving bribes from Green Energy lobbyists.

$36 trillion and more of greed and power is what I see.

 

[Syriusly]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

 

[elektra]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

I think she favours 3+ generation nuclear reactors... personally stockpiling nuclare wastes makes me kind of unconfortable , nuclear safety improvements notwithstanding.

Somewhere I saw a TED talk of a scientist promoting nuclear ... he made a rather compelling speech , might be worth searching for it.

Nuclear waste does not scare me, we can recycle it, France does. Thus far we have created a tiny bit of waste. Its all over the USA, I have yet to hear one story about there being a problem with waste.

 

[Syriusly]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

I think she favours 3+ generation nuclear reactors... personally stockpiling nuclare wastes makes me kind of unconfortable , nuclear safety improvements notwithstanding.

Somewhere I saw a TED talk of a scientist promoting nuclear ... he made a rather compelling speech , might be worth searching for it.

Nuclear waste does not scare me, we can recycle it, France does. Thus far we have created a tiny bit of waste. Its all over the USA, I have yet to hear one story about there being a problem with waste.

Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

 

[elektra]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

 

[elektra]

Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

I already started a thread on nuclear power, I do not need another.

We do not need a strategy to store spent nuclear fuel, we have stored spent nuclear fuel for the last 60 years with zero problems. I know, I work in the Nuclear power industry, right now I am inspecting a CANDU reactor. At this particular plant I have stood next to new fuel before being put in the reactor. At other reactors like Three Mile Island I literally stood 20' away from spent nuclear fuel. Looked straight at it, through a pool of boronated, water.

Long term, we should be recycling the spent nuclear fuel, we only use a fraction of its power, we can use more of its power, better reactor design and recycling in breeder reactors.

 

[Andylusion]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

I think she favours 3+ generation nuclear reactors... personally stockpiling nuclare wastes makes me kind of unconfortable , nuclear safety improvements notwithstanding.

Somewhere I saw a TED talk of a scientist promoting nuclear ... he made a rather compelling speech , might be worth searching for it.

Nuclear waste does not scare me, we can recycle it, France does. Thus far we have created a tiny bit of waste. Its all over the USA, I have yet to hear one story about there being a problem with waste.

Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

Government routinely creates problems, and then claims that the problems it created, can't be solved.

Well yes, if YOU are creating a problem, then the problem can't be solved that YOU created.

So nuclear waste.

The government under the original worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter, signed a law that banned the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Dear Jimmy banned reprocessing of nuclear fuel, under the rational that spent nuclear fuel ends up with a small amount of plutonium. Plutonium can be used to make nuclear bombs. Therefore, we can not reprocess fuel rods, because someone could get the plutonium.

At least that's the 'logic' from the government under Carter.

Weapons grade plutonium, is very different from reactor grade plutonium, or even fuel grade plutonium. Nevertheless, is can in fact be used to make a nuclear bomb. Of course all fuel rods in theory could.

Regardless, this ban on reprocessing has created millions of tons of "nuclear waste" that could in fact be used. We could very easily reprocess those fuel rods into perfectly useable fuel, and burn them. But we can't because of some illogical law.

There are a number of highly successful, tested and working, alternative nuclear plant technologies that can use, and burn spent fuel rods. Some of them produce virtually no high level waste at all.

We also could be building power plants that produce no spent fuel rods to begin with. However, both these power plant technologies, and those which burn existing spent fuel rods, both require that reprocessing be legal.

For example Thorium fuel cycle plants, require that a fuel reprocessing system be actually on the site next to the reactor. No reprocessing, no Thorium nuclear power plant. So instead we're stuck with radioactive fuel rod "waste".

Additionally, many of these new Nuclear Technologies require fuel that is enriched much higher than the typical 5% enrichment of conventional plants. Some require 20% enrichment, which is prohibited under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Again, in theory, you could use 20% enriched Uranium to make a bomb.... but you could also use 10% or 5%.

The bottom line is, government has put in place regulations and controls that have created a problem with nuclear waste. Without those controls and regulations, we could easily be making power with those completely usable fuel rods.

Many of these alternative power plant designs are inherently far safer than the conventional power plants typically found here in the US. The only reason we're stuck with out dated 1970s nuclear power, is because are government in a ridiculous fit of fear, passed a bunch of laws that screwed us over for decades now.

There were actually a significant number, if not a dozen or more, projects to make new advanced nuclear power that create very little 'waste' that was safer, and less risky, and could burn 'spent fuel rods' and such. All of them were abandoned because of the regulations passed by government.

Once again, if Governments isn't screwing something up, it is because they haven't done anything yet.

 

[Andylusion]

Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

I already started a thread on nuclear power, I do not need another.

We do not need a strategy to store spent nuclear fuel, we have stored spent nuclear fuel for the last 60 years with zero problems. I know, I work in the Nuclear power industry, right now I am inspecting a CANDU reactor. At this particular plant I have stood next to new fuel before being put in the reactor. At other reactors like Three Mile Island I literally stood 20' away from spent nuclear fuel. Looked straight at it, through a pool of boronated, water.

Long term, we should be recycling the spent nuclear fuel, we only use a fraction of its power, we can use more of its power, better reactor design and recycling in breeder reactors.

Years ago, I read about a reactor they they had built in another country, where the after the reactor was shut off, you could remove the fuel rod by hand in a matter of days.

I can't for the life of me find anything referring to that now. You don't happen to have heard of that anywhere? It was an experimental reactor, not a commercial.

I assume it was a low power core, and they said the rods still emitted low level radiation. They didn't actually remove the rods by hand, but only that you could.

You ever heard of anything like that? I read about it years ago, but I can't find article at all now.

 

[westwall]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

 

[Syriusly]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here.

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar.

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy.

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.

 

[Synthaholic]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

 

[mamooth]

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Such perfect irony.

Global warming is wiping out the Joshua Trees.

Joshua trees losing ground to global warming

yet Westwall uses images of Joshua trees (from areas that nobody proposes building solar fields in) to declare we shouldn't be using solar power.

 

[westwall]

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Such perfect irony.

Global warming is wiping out the Joshua Trees.

Joshua trees losing ground to global warming

yet Westwall uses images of Joshua trees (from areas that nobody proposes building solar fields in) to declare we shouldn't be using solar power.

Ahhhh, yes. trot out the typical alarmist claptrap telling us yet again that the sky is falling. Here's a more balanced look at the issue....

"The California desert's signature tree has gotten a lot of attention lately: the story of this year's record bloom (which I'm proud to say broke right here on KCET.org) has reached a global audience. And the developing narrative is that the unusual bloom can be credited to climate change.

As someone who's warned of the danger of human-created climate change since the early 1970s, you might expect me to be completely on board with this analysis. I'm not."


Joshua Tree Bloom Due To Climate Change Not So Fast The Hidden Desert Revisit KCET

 

[westwall]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?

 

[Andylusion]

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Such perfect irony.

Global warming is wiping out the Joshua Trees.

Joshua trees losing ground to global warming

yet Westwall uses images of Joshua trees (from areas that nobody proposes building solar fields in) to declare we shouldn't be using solar power.

You do realize how limited a time frame they are using to make these alarmist claims, right? 6,000 years of climate change globally, and you look back a massive massive time frame of.... 60 years, and claim that proves the end of the world.... I'm not buying it.

 

[Andylusion]

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here.

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar.

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy.

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.

It isn't comparable.

The highest level of efficient solar generation, only happens in desert areas of high sunlight energy. In those specific areas, solar can make power, and then you could try and compare it to a nuclear, or any conventional power plant.

The problem is, you can't transmit that power over vast distances. Even if, and this is a massive "if", you could build enough solar panels to cover the desert, and generate enough power for the entire country, it doesn't matter. A rough estimate of transmission losses, are about 1.1% per 100 miles. By the time the power reached New York, the power loss over that distance, would be incredible.

Not to mention, without local power supplies, you have 2,000+ miles of power lines to get the power from Arizona to New York, and one problem at any section, and New York is in the dark?

So while the idea of comparing solar to nuclear is a nifty theoretical excessive, it's a practical non-starter. There will always be conventional sources of power providing electricity to the masses. There will never be a time, in which we are not burning coal, gas, and nuclear fuel for power. Never.

Not unless they make some massive scientific break through. I'm skeptical of that though. The entire planet is looking for the holy grail of cheap clean energy, and if it was there to be found, I think someone would have found it by now.

 

[Synthaholic]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?

That is my point - that if we can build energy infrastructure in the desert instead of near people, then people won't be as adversely affected.

Plus, where's a better place to put solar panels?

 

[Old Rocks]

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here.

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar.

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy.

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.

It isn't comparable.

The highest level of efficient solar generation, only happens in desert areas of high sunlight energy. In those specific areas, solar can make power, and then you could try and compare it to a nuclear, or any conventional power plant.

The problem is, you can't transmit that power over vast distances. Even if, and this is a massive "if", you could build enough solar panels to cover the desert, and generate enough power for the entire country, it doesn't matter. A rough estimate of transmission losses, are about 1.1% per 100 miles. By the time the power reached New York, the power loss over that distance, would be incredible.

Not to mention, without local power supplies, you have 2,000+ miles of power lines to get the power from Arizona to New York, and one problem at any section, and New York is in the dark?

So while the idea of comparing solar to nuclear is a nifty theoretical excessive, it's a practical non-starter. There will always be conventional sources of power providing electricity to the masses. There will never be a time, in which we are not burning coal, gas, and nuclear fuel for power. Never.

Not unless they make some massive scientific break through. I'm skeptical of that though. The entire planet is looking for the holy grail of cheap clean energy, and if it was there to be found, I think someone would have found it by now.

This is an odd post. First of all, we transmit power from the dams in north central Washington state to San Diego, via huge DC line. So, we already know ways to tranmit huge amounts of power large distances. Second, we have Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and several other high wind states closer to New York.

The breakthroughs in science are already adaquete for supplying a major portion of our power from renewables. Further breakthroughs will result in supplying all of our power from renewables. And people like you will be screeching it cannot be done all the way as we do it.

 

[Old Rocks]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?

That is my point - that if we can build energy infrastructure in the desert instead of near people, then people won't be as adversely affected.

Plus, where's a better place to put solar panels?

Actually, the best place to put solar panels, as they get cheaper and cheaper, is any surface that has good sunlight exposure that is not being used, and is near to where the energy is being used.

 

[Skull Pilot]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?

That is my point - that if we can build energy infrastructure in the desert instead of near people, then people won't be as adversely affected.

Plus, where's a better place to put solar panels?

Another one who has no idea what a desert ecosystem is

We already have millions of acres of south and southwest facing rooftops in this country.

You want solar panels put them there where the infrastructure to build and maintain them already exists where they will be easy to tie into the grid and where it won't take trillions of tax payer dollars