this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024

178 points (87.1% liked)

Technology

59148 readers

2260 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

178

Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert (ca.news.yahoo.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/91685

cross-posted from: https://jorts.horse/users/fathermcgruder/statuses/112563861339745778

Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/solar-project-destroy-thousands-joshua-100000768.html

It's crazy to me that a destructive photovoltaic solar project like this one is considered reasonable, but a new nuclear power plant within or adjacent to a city is beyond the pale.

@usa

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 86 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Chopping down Joshua trees is a bit absurd. I live in the mohave desert, there are PLENTY of barren areas to do it, you almost have to be looking for the ancient Joshua trees to decide to do that. And as far as I know they are protected in most places, especially the California side.

But I will say the article seems a bit ragebaity. "To power wealthy people's homes". Unless they are super isolated somehow, that power is going into the grid, just like every other means of electricity production. The dude that wrote the article will be using it to charge his laptop when it's done, just like the rest of us.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

yep. and it's hardly like there are FORESTS of johsua trees, it's one here, another one over there, a few kms down the road another one.... the idea that they're paving over a forest....

also, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they can just build around the fuckers, they're small ass trees to start with.

Edit:

there are totally areas chock fulla Joshua Trees. I stand corrected, see links below.

But still think they can find space for this and other solar all throughout the southwest desert.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Eh. There are legit forests as alien as it may seem. This is on my drive to work: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/10/ae/a1/0e/the-joshua-tree-forest.jpg

This is a random picture off Google, there are denser areas too. But, if you go a mile or two in any direction it is pretty desolate for another 50 miles. Just go anywhere other than the splotch of forest. Pretty simple.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Wow, TIL!

But yeah, the empty areas seem ripe for this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That looks so strange

I'd love to see that in person

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It's on the drive to Grand Canyon West, if you ever plan on seeing that.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 45 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Oh no, there destroying 1000! That must be a lot!

Oh wait, there's 10 million in existence.

Thanks, but I think this is a fine trade.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

If people think solar destroys the environment, wait till they find out about coal and natural gas

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What about all the sunny land that doesn't have Joshua trees? Why are we even trying to build power plants so far away from where the electricity is mostly needed?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Do you think there are no reasons? Would you accept this if there were, or would you just say the reasons were bad?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Build over existing infrastructure. One example is current project to cover water canals with solar. Don't need to acquire land, reduces evaporation saving water, reduces plant growth in canals lowering maintenance costs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Cheap ground cannot be a reason then, OK?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sure it can. Why not?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The issue with ground prices is they fail to account for stuff humans really need like clean air, clean water, biodiversity. So if you stripp all these factors in valuation and then start building while at the same time chopping down trees in need of protection. You are kinda rigging the game, or not?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That doesn't mean it's not a reason. It's just a reason you don't like.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

To me, good reasons would align with the goals of environmental protection and wealth transfer to the working class. How do Aratina-type projects do so better than a nuclear power plant (or concentrated solar or deep-well geothermal) within or nearby to a population center? If they ever do it's just incidental. The real reason for the Aratina development is that this was deal that satisfied the various capital interests involved in it (the land owner, “Avantus, a California company that is mostly owned by KKR, the global private equity firm”, and the bourgeois interests served by the county).

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't care enough about the subject to actually look into this, but the title reads like astroturfing.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

crossposted from /nuclear

Alright then...

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish there would be some trees around.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

These people apparently found the only ones and decided to build a solar farm there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

No, not those shrivelled black things!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Saving the environment by killing trees. Good lord!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I mean, they’re called a tree, but they’re an overgrown cactus. They don’t get very big and don’t have near the carbon capture something like a pine does. But there are plenty of areas of just scrub brush better suited for this project.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I am always really annoyed when perfectly flat space in Austria is wasted with solar panels WHEN there are huge flat roofed buildings around.

I hope they are not also chopping down trees.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I never liked U2 after they got all up themselves anyway.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I love the story of when they played at the Barrow lands in Glasgow, I think. I'm paraphrasing

Bono walks onto the stage and claps really slowly, at 3 second intervals.

After a bit, he says dramatically "Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies"

A bloke in the audience shouts "Stop doing it then you cruel cunt"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Scots take few prisoners, in humour.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Sounds fake

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is why new versions of net metering is a bad idea

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How? What are the differences between the new and old versions of net metering in California that are affecting this situation?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think the new version of net metering pays homeowners less than it did previously, for power that they feed into the grid, disincentivizing rooftop solar.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Yes. Why put solar on rooftops, where people need it, when the utility can bulldoze the desert and make miles of transmission lines and get paid 10% to do so?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: [email protected]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Lemmy.ml no thanks, thank you bot for trying

load more comments