Liberal hypocrisy and solar power plants

There’s a NY Times article about how solar power plants are damaging desert environments.

The same liberals who have apoplectic seizures over the thought of putting up a few oil rigs in the barren tundra of northern Alaska are all in favor of destroying the great American desert with ugly sprawling solar power plants which cause unknown harm to native vegetation and wildlife.

Comments

[miles]

Sigma,

The mirror and oil solar "dishes" are the most efficient solar devices, but as Ive said before, they would be better put on EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE like roofs of individuals homes, and large buildings and in highway medians, and atop billboards, and over overpasses (cover the overpasses), and the like.

Spread them out, and not cut a ten-square-mile-swath of desert out. If one six or seven foot solar-"dish" was put on everybody's roof, and the homeowner got a big break on his e-bill, people wouldn't mind, and the desert would not have to be disturbed.

Solar and wind are do-able, and are do-able in such a way as to not wreck miles of undeveloped land. We have plenty of things to stick them ontop of back here in civilization (telephone polls, roadsides, etc.).

The great thing about solar and wind is this: once they are "up there", they are up there, making electricity without having to mine for anything, having to burn anything, having to pay anyone to operate equipment and insuring them. The wind keeps blowing and the sun keeps shining, so other than oiling and cleaing them every so often, they really would run themselves.

[RottonPickle]

This just goes to show you that "environmental preservation" is based on subjective views of beauty. Objectively, if we're going to protect one ecosystem, then we should install the same safeguards for all ecosystems.

Alternatively, we could implement objective periods of assessment research, as the government has decided to do with our deserts. However, the findings of such may decide that it *is* indeed safe to drill in Alaska with minimal disturbance and total recovery...but that wouldn't do, because that is an affront to the liberal, subjective view of beauty.

I guess this whole "Mother Earth worship" thing that Obama participates in only likes to worship the parts of Mother Earth that are green, snow-capped, and "beautiful" in the common sense. Who gives a shit about the ugly deserts, right?

[AG]

Well, left-wing is conservative for nature and liberal about culture.

Right-wing is liberal for nature and conservative about culture.

Personal opinion of mine: Solar energy is perfect for desert since no crop can grow in desert and energy is wasted on the sand into heat.

[slwerner]

AG - "Solar energy is perfect for desert since no crop can grow in desert and energy is wasted on the sand into heat."

But, that's the way that ecosystem evolved -with the sun beating down on the sands.

Miles is right. These things belong on top of man-made objects in the big urban heat-sinks.

[Steel Horse]

You might find it interesting that liberals recently blocked a large solar installation here in California (in a desert), on the basis that it would harm the habitat of a species of ground squirrel. I'll see if I can locate the article.

[APH]

On a related topic: from time to time I hear the claim that x amount of square miles in the desert covered with solar panels can supply the US (or the world) with all the electricity we need. What's the deal with this?

[AG]

@ slwerner

What good those desert ecosystem is for human development and global enviroment?

My opinion is that sparse life on desert has little impact on global ecosystem. Desert ecosystem is worth less than fertile farm land. Growing corn (solar energy) on fertile land and turning to biofuel are truely wasteful. No only biofuel is inefficient way to use solar energy and also contribute to more poverty and starvation on earth, ie buring food for your car.

On the other hand, desert solar energy is way more efficient since there is little cloudy day in desert. Deser solar energy=electricity=hydrogen feul=car driving with zero carbon emission.

[Ray]

The best place for a solar installation is in orbit. Unfortunately the USA is likely to lag in developing this technology. Let us hope that Japan's efforts in space solar are successful.

[dearieme]

Suppose your sunny garage were charging up a stationary (= cheap) set of batteries during the day, and then at night those batteries charged up the lightweight (= expensive) batteries in your electric car. Any, ahem, mileage in this idea?

[Svigor]

You might find it interesting that liberals recently blocked a large solar installation here in California (in a desert), on the basis that it would harm the habitat of a species of ground squirrel. I'll see if I can locate the article.

Funny how race-realists, white supremacists, whatever, are the bad guys; bee stings are a bigger threat.

But environmental wackos? They cost billions (trillions?) of public and private dollars, keep our borders open, etc., and they're harmless lil' fuzzies.

WTF?

Seriously, environmentalists are a huge threat to America's quality of life.

[Svigor]

And yeah I'm not seeing the problem with destroying the desert ecosystem to replace it with cheap, renewable energy sources. I'd also be cool with destroying it to replace it with farmland or even forest (via solar powered condensers).

[Vim]

The only solution is massive investment in science and scientists because the issue isn't making current technology more efficient (which could be handled by the market) but inventing whole new ways of doing things (some of which are going to cost more before they cost less) ... However, I suspect they are going to put most of the money into corporate welfare and we will get solutions like corn-ethanol that don't make any sense but gives them an excuse to spread the subsidies around.

[anon]

Does anyone realize just how massive the deserts of the southwest are? Must every square mile be "preserved"?

How many square miles of solar panels are we really talking about out of total land area available?

The problem with Earth worshipers is that they lack any sense of balance. We need some land for people (residential/commercial), some for manufacturing, some for infrastructure/energy, and yes, some left "natural".

It doesn't ALL have to be "natural".

[tommy]

This story might amuse some of you: a greenie builds a multi-million dollar home out of a scrapped 747 in the hills of Malibu. The pieces have to be choppered in and the land it's being built upon looks pretty virgin. Might this woman have been a better conservationist by simply buying an existing home? I imagine most of the metal would have been recycled anyway.

[SFG]

I dunno. I have a soft spot for eccentrics, so I actually see this as good old-fashioned American practical creativity that might come in handy in the tough times ahead. I mean, there's gonna be a lot of crap lying around that's built to function with oil that we're not going to know what do with. Whatever you think of environmentalists we are running out, slowly but surely, and we're just making Arabs richer.

[tommy]

I mean, there's gonna be a lot of crap lying around that's built to function with oil that we're not going to know what do with.

Any aluminum, titanium, or steel in the plane can be recycled into products that don't rely upon petroleum.

[anon]

Since U.S. shale resources are sufficient to supply all our domestic oil needs for 100-200 years, I wouldn't worry about building homes out of 747's just yet.

Then again, if Congress never lifts the moratorium on shale...