You can never please the environmental purists.

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2011
67,573
22,953
2,250
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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.
 
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?
 
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?

Far as I can tell man -- these nit-pickers don't want "virgin land" committed to large solar projects. Not even AGRICULTURAL land. They see some sort of enviro disaster by ripping up thousands of acre of scrub brush.

Go figure -- you'd have to ask them why they're picking on Mankind's only Salvation from Global Warming..
:dunno:

Same old shit -- new victims..
 
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?

Far as I can tell man -- these nit-pickers don't want "virgin land" committed to large solar projects. Not even AGRICULTURAL land. They see some sort of enviro disaster by ripping up thousands of acre of scrub brush.

Go figure -- you'd have to ask them why they're picking on Mankind's only Salvation from Global Warming..
:dunno:
So they want to put them in the cities where any punk with a 9mm can knock out power. They will be shooting them faster then they can be fixed.
 
images


What do you get when the government contracts to have a mouse built?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
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?

Far as I can tell man -- these nit-pickers don't want "virgin land" committed to large solar projects. Not even AGRICULTURAL land. They see some sort of enviro disaster by ripping up thousands of acre of scrub brush.

Go figure -- you'd have to ask them why they're picking on Mankind's only Salvation from Global Warming..
:dunno:
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?

Far as I can tell man -- these nit-pickers don't want "virgin land" committed to large solar projects. Not even AGRICULTURAL land. They see some sort of enviro disaster by ripping up thousands of acre of scrub brush.

Go figure -- you'd have to ask them why they're picking on Mankind's only Salvation from Global Warming..
:dunno:

So they want to put them in the cities where any punk with a 9mm can knock out power. They will be shooting them faster then they can be fixed.

Hey -- if you can find enough abandoned drive-in movie sites or road side diners -- I guess you are allowed to put them there. Toxic waste dumps would be good.. Except for the folks that have to come and windex acres of solar panels regularly..
 
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?

Far as I can tell man -- these nit-pickers don't want "virgin land" committed to large solar projects. Not even AGRICULTURAL land. They see some sort of enviro disaster by ripping up thousands of acre of scrub brush.

Go figure -- you'd have to ask them why they're picking on Mankind's only Salvation from Global Warming..
:dunno:
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?

Far as I can tell man -- these nit-pickers don't want "virgin land" committed to large solar projects. Not even AGRICULTURAL land. They see some sort of enviro disaster by ripping up thousands of acre of scrub brush.

Go figure -- you'd have to ask them why they're picking on Mankind's only Salvation from Global Warming..
:dunno:

So they want to put them in the cities where any punk with a 9mm can knock out power. They will be shooting them faster then they can be fixed.

Hey -- if you can find enough abandoned drive-in movie sites or road side diners -- I guess you are allowed to put them there. Toxic waste dumps would be good.. Except for the folks that have to come and windex acres of solar panels regularly..

images


OMG!!!!! You just came up with a great government idea for low wage, low intelligence, needing to have constant man(woman)power replacement jobs.

Best delete this post immediately before some progressive gets hold of it and thinks it's a great idea!

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
You can't please them because they are not authentic.

The only way to fix it is to reduce population, but the environment movement has been hijacked by bloody humanists.
 
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. :rofl:

"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.
every form of energy, that leftist want to force on us, is opposed by other leftist.

they are simply so full of hate, they hate each other.

windmills; you have to dig lines for the wires and that destroys bug habitats. birds get killed flying around them, change migration patterns to avoid them

the list is endless

leftist wont be happy pushing us back to burning wood to keep warm b/c, yaknow, squirrels

but they will, then we all die come winter b/c we all can't move some place warm, b/c yaknow coconut trees need a place to grow.
 
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
 
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. :rofl:

"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.
every form of energy, that leftist want to force on us, is opposed by other leftist.

they are simply so full of hate, they hate each other.

windmills; you have to dig lines for the wires and that destroys bug habitats. birds get killed flying around them, change migration patterns to avoid them

the list is endless

leftist wont be happy pushing us back to burning wood to keep warm b/c, yaknow, squirrels

but they will, then we all die come winter b/c we all can't move some place warm, b/c yaknow coconut trees need a place to grow.

There are (or were) well meaing environmentalists, but i agree, the cultural marxists have so very fully taken over the movement(and dont the greedy conservatives love them!).

The climate change solution seems to have absolutely nothing to do with solving the problem.
 
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. :rofl:

"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.
every form of energy, that leftist want to force on us, is opposed by other leftist.

they are simply so full of hate, they hate each other.

windmills; you have to dig lines for the wires and that destroys bug habitats. birds get killed flying around them, change migration patterns to avoid them

the list is endless

leftist wont be happy pushing us back to burning wood to keep warm b/c, yaknow, squirrels

but they will, then we all die come winter b/c we all can't move some place warm, b/c yaknow coconut trees need a place to grow.

There are (or were) well meaing environmentalists, but i agree, the cultural marxists have so very fully taken over the movement(and dont the greedy conservatives love them!).

The climate change solution seems to have absolutely nothing to do with solving the problem.
I don't understand what you mean by that.

the only people that love the climate loons are the people that are set to profit from their madness.

except they can't, since other loons will sue them for trying to help
 
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.
 
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. :rofl:

"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.
every form of energy, that leftist want to force on us, is opposed by other leftist.

they are simply so full of hate, they hate each other.

windmills; you have to dig lines for the wires and that destroys bug habitats. birds get killed flying around them, change migration patterns to avoid them

the list is endless

leftist wont be happy pushing us back to burning wood to keep warm b/c, yaknow, squirrels

but they will, then we all die come winter b/c we all can't move some place warm, b/c yaknow coconut trees need a place to grow.

There are (or were) well meaing environmentalists, but i agree, the cultural marxists have so very fully taken over the movement(and dont the greedy conservatives love them!).

The climate change solution seems to have absolutely nothing to do with solving the problem.
I don't understand what you mean by that.

the only people that love the climate loons are the people that are set to profit from their madness.

except they can't, since other loons will sue them for trying to help
Nm
 
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..
 

Forum List

Back
Top