Cutting Joshua Trees

[InChrist]

So what do you think of cutting down thousands of Joshua trees for a solar farm?

Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert

A solar energy company will soon begin clearing thousands of protected Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert, including many thought to be a century old.

www.latimes.com

 

[Eddi]

So what do you think of cutting down thousands of Joshua trees for a solar farm?

Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert

A solar energy company will soon begin clearing thousands of protected Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert, including many thought to be a century old.

www.latimes.com

I love trees and solar power is silly as it doesn't work at night and takes up lots of space

So I am against that

Can't wait until fusion power becomes practical

I think geothermal electricity is the best way to go, plenty of heat deep underground!

 

[The Hammer]

I love trees and solar power is silly as it doesn't work at night and takes up lots of space

Uhm power storage man. "Not working" at night is a bad argument. Battery storage, and residual charges last quite some time.

"Myth #1: Solar only works when the sun is shining. I still need power when it’s raining. Actually, solar technology can be leveraged in virtually any condition, including rainy and snowy days, because some sunlight still reaches the earth. Solar panels tend to perform best in cold and sunny climates because heat interferes with the conversion of sunlight into electricity. (Keep in mind that solar panels collect light, not heat.) On top of that, battery storage can be connected to your solar panels and provide energy at night. This is your clean-energy backup, as opposed to conventional backup generators—if the power goes out in your neighborhood, your power will stay on."

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/busted-common-solar-myths-and-misconceptions

 

[Eddi]

Uhm power storage man. "Not working" at night is a bad argument. Battery storage, and residual charges last quite some time.

"Myth #1: Solar only works when the sun is shining. I still need power when it’s raining. Actually, solar technology can be leveraged in virtually any condition, including rainy and snowy days, because some sunlight still reaches the earth. Solar panels tend to perform best in cold and sunny climates because heat interferes with the conversion of sunlight into electricity. (Keep in mind that solar panels collect light, not heat.) On top of that, battery storage can be connected to your solar panels and provide energy at night. This is your clean-energy backup, as opposed to conventional backup generators—if the power goes out in your neighborhood, your power will stay on."

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/busted-common-solar-myths-and-misconceptions

It's still bad to cut down loads of trees to make way for it

 

[The Hammer]

It's still bad to cut down loads of trees to make way for it

Yes. But your initial argument was still a bad one.

And while I am against the mass cutting down of trees. Concessions have to be made in order for renewables to thrive.

 

[Eddi]

Yes. But your initial argument was still a bad one.

And while I am against the mass cutting down of trees. Concessions have to be made in order for renewables to thrive.

Yet fewer consessions have to be made for other renewabls such as tidal and geothermal

Not wind turbines though

Those things blight the landscape, unless they are offshore

 

[The Hammer]

Yet fewer consessions have to be made for other renewabls such as tidal and geothermal

Tidal is still in the early stages and may kill marine life or alter water currenta. Same with geothermal, we don't know enough about it yet. With afaik only one experimental plant running in Iceland. Geothermal needs geologically active areas in order to be efficient.

These sorts of tech won't be deployed evenly in all areas.

Not wind turbines though

Those things blight the landscape, unless they are offshore

Wind turbines are not a big deal imo. I don't mind seeing wind farms. They can even be built above tree lines I bet.

 

[Eddi]

Wind turbines are not a big deal imo. I don't mind seeing wind farms. They can even be built above tree lines I bet.

Where I live a horrible Saudi Arabian corporation wants to build 65 enormous wind turbines on a spot where there is lots of sensitive wildlife

They will be taller than The London Eye, an enormous ****-off ferris wheel by the river Thames in London

Nobody wants them

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See, also:

Solar Project Planned for Mohave Desert Will Destroy Thousands of Joshua Trees and Endangered Tortoise Habitat​

I was raised in Southern California and love its desert. There are reasons for concern, but note that Boron, California, is roughly 125 miles north-west of Joshua Tree National Park, and that the 2,300 acres targeted in Boron doesn't come close to the 795,156 acres covered by this Park.

 

[The Hammer]

Where I live a horrible Saudi Arabian corporation wants to build 65 enormous wind turbines on a spot where there is lots of sensitive wildlife

They will be taller than The London Eye, an enormous ****-off ferris wheel by the river Thames in London

Nobody wants them

Yeah, there are always lots of NIMBY's.

 

[Eddi]

Yeah, there are always lots of NIMBY's.

And lots of dodgy corporations who practice greenwashing to try and force through their horrible for profit designs that bring zero benefits to communities

I mean we are on an island!

Build them offshore!

 

[The Hammer]

And lots of dodgy corporations who practice greenwashing to try and force through their horrible for profit designs that bring zero benefits to communities

I mean we are on an island!

Build them offshore!

Still sounds like a NIMBY comment to me.

"Not in my backyard". Someone who supports green energy/environmentalism. As long as they can't see it and its construction doesn't impact their community.

 

[Eddi]

Still sounds like a NIMBY comment to me.

"Not in my backyard". Someone who supports green energy/environmentalism. As long as they can't see it and its construction doesn't impact their community.

Absolutely it is

There is beautiful countryside they want to build on

They are in it only for the £££££

It has absolutely nothing to do with the environment it is an energy corporation

Don't believe the slick PR greenwashing

All the profits will go to Saudi Arabia

There is plenty of room for offshore windfarms

That would be in nobody's back yard

 

[The Hammer]

Absolutely it is

There is beautiful countryside they want to build on

They are in it only for the £££££

It has absolutely nothing to do with the environment it is an energy corporation

Don't believe the slick PR greenwashing

All the profits will go to Saudi Arabia

There is plenty of room for offshore windfalls

That would be in nobody's back yard

OK *shrug*

It won't ever get done then. There will always be NIMBYs. Those that live on the seaside will protest, as will fishers and boaters. It will disrupt their views and livelihoods.

Same as for those built way in the mountains and deserts (endangered species, peoples sentiments, etc; see the OP for instance)

See what I'm getting at?

Concessions must be made.

 

[Eddi]

Those that live on the seaside will protest, as will fishers and boaters.

The fisheries are out in the North Sea and the North Atlantic, beyond where the windfarms would be and there are oil rigs out there already

I don't care about boaters, those guys are mere hobbiests, I don't care

Concessions must be made.

Like destroying a natural habitat so some ******** in Saudi Arabia can make a few quid?

The project has nothing to do with saving the environment it is a greedy and aggressive energy corporation that cares little for the countryside

Don't fall for the greenwashing they clearly don't give a **** about the environment

It is perfectly possible to have the turbines in nobody's back yard

 

[The Hammer]

I don't care about boaters, those guys are mere hobbiests, I don't care

Yes, but like you, they will protest "not in my backyard".

And say it should go on those ugly fields over yonder near @Eddi .

I'm not falling for any "green washing", as I'm going off of my knowledge of the Cultural Resource Management sector (which is albeit limited).

 

[The Hammer]

It is perfectly possible to have the turbines in nobody's back yard

Without impacting any habitat whatsoever? Doubtful.

What about those animals that live there, or those Joshua trees? That's still someone/things backyard.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't care about boaters, those guys are mere hobbiests, I don't care

Are we to add all hobbyists to your I-don't-care list?

 

[Eddi]

Yes, but like you, they will protest "not in my backyard".

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

You don't seem to care about wildlife and natural beauty

I value those enormously

That windfarm would be a crime against nature and it is totally unnecessary

The project is financially motivated it is a business venture, a private enterprise

 

[The Hammer]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Yes, the Earth is Many, and humans few. That takes precedence.

You don't seem to care about wildlife and natural beauty

Glad you're a mind reader.

I value those enormously

Debatable with your aversion to green energy near you because it vaguely smells of capitalism and is an "eyesore".

That windfarm would be a crime against nature and it is totally unnecessary

Opinion noted

The project is financially motivated it is a business venture, a private enterprise

Speculation that it is purely financially motivated.