The Loonie Left strikes again! Solar Power BAD!

[HOZ]

Reuters
A U.S. conversation group has sued the federal government over its approval of a major solar power plant in the California desert!

No Oil because is causes global warming
No Coal because it is dirty
No Hydro-electric because it destroys water ways
No Wind because it kills migratory birds and bats
and now no Solar power!!!

Yes of course the complaint "The complaint said the project's approval process failed to analyze and mitigate the Ivanpah plant's impact on migratory birds, the desert tortoise, which is a threatened species under federal law, desert bighorn sheep, groundwater resources and rare plants."

But isn't this Solar Power plant suppose to stop Climate Change which is killing all those turtles, sheep and rare plants?

Fortunately I saw this coming and stalked up on Japanese Whale Oil. Smells like hell but gives a nice warm glow on the lights and heaters.

Sheesh....

[kirant]

If we can find a system that defies thermodynamics, I think we'll satisfy them...

Any of those yet?

[MrMastodonFarm]

I wish Hoz would quote in the normal messageboard fashion.

[Hack&Lube]

You're not an expert on the subject. A large solar facility may cause disorientation for migrating birds and other desert life. The reasons for their opposition may be legitimate.

I'm not an expert either. I wouldn't know. I don't see why this is so ridiculous for you though.

[Dogbert]

What's a conversation group?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

What's a conversation group?

Don't worry, they're all talk.

[DownInFlames]

The smug cynicism in your threads is really annoying.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

You're not an expert on the subject. A large solar facility may cause disorientation for migrating birds and other desert life. The reasons for their opposition may be legitimate.

I'm not an expert either. I wouldn't know. I don't see why this is so ridiculous for you though.

even so, if the group wants to condemn a solar plant then they should be obligated to provide a better alternative as to how we get our power. unless they all live like the Amish then they're a bunch of whiny activist hypocrites doing nothing more than wasting everyone's time

as far as clean energy goes, it doesn't get much cleaner than solar

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

even so, if the group wants to condemn a solar plant then they should be obligated to provide a better alternative as to how we get our power.

Not really, I think it's fine to raise objections and point out issues without having to provide an alternative. They're a conservation group.

It makes sure that all the things that should be considered are being considered and that the developer isn't ignoring things they shouldn't or overstepping their bounds.

Is there a better area that doesn't have as great an impact? Or if there isn't, then at least the decision is made being fully aware of the potential downsides, maybe mitigation measures can be taken, etc. Power is necessary for our society, if the power is more important than this chunk of desert, then that's the value judgment they'll have to make. Not everyone will agree with what values are more important than others, but you can still make sure all the info is considered.

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

as far as clean energy goes, it doesn't get much cleaner than solar

Solar has its own sets of problems, the area required being one.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

Not really, I think it's fine to raise objections and point out issues without having to provide an alternative. They're a conservation group.

Yes they do NOTHING. They don't create anything, fix anything, improve anything. They neither provide ideas nor provide alternatives to ideas. Facts... smacks. Its not like they have any showing that the grassland-migrating-desert tortoise is in danger, at all. They just have a feeling.

But hey...they're conservationists....why do something worthwhile? Like be a real scientist, engineer or vet?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes they do NOTHING. They don't create anything, fix anything, improve anything. They neither provide ideas nor provide alternatives to ideas. Facts... smacks. Its not like they have any showing that the grassland-migrating-desert tortoise is in danger, at all. They just have a feeling.

But hey...they're conservationists....why do something worthwhile? Like be a real scientist, engineer or vet?

Yes, that is basically the definition. You are correct. Conservationists are real scientists. I don't know why you think otherwise.

I guess it's better that we figure out after we built that nuclear powerplant on a wetland that we drove 10 species into extinction. We can't raise objections prior to that! Let's just exterminate all wildlife and and turn the Acropolis into concrete mix in the name of progress.

A vet doesn't really do anything BTW. He just "conserves" the life of your pet.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes they do NOTHING. They don't create anything, fix anything, improve anything. They neither provide ideas nor provide alternatives to ideas. Facts... smacks. Its not like they have any showing that the grassland-migrating-desert tortoise is in danger, at all. They just have a feeling.

But hey...they're conservationists....why do something worthwhile? Like be a real scientist, engineer or vet?

Such an ignorant post. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

[octothorp]

Jeez HOZ, enough with the straw-man arguments. Nobody ever came close to saying anything like solar power is bad. These conservationists aren't even saying conclusively that this particular solar power plant is bad, rather that environmental reviews were not conducted.

Personally I strongly dislike the Western Watershed's policies and imagine that there's little substance behind this litigation, but there's enough here to discuss without trying to make it sound like the entire left is against solar power.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes they do NOTHING. They don't create anything, fix anything, improve anything. They neither provide ideas nor provide alternatives to ideas. Facts... smacks. Its not like they have any showing that the grassland-migrating-desert tortoise is in danger, at all. They just have a feeling.

But hey...they're conservationists....why do something worthwhile? Like be a real scientist, engineer or vet?

Good God you're one pissy individual. You're probably the poster on CP with the biggest "agenda" -- can you even have an agenda on an internet forum? -- out of anyone here. It's like clockwork.

[Itse]

While I'm a pretty big enviromentalist, I actually happen to agree with the notion that there is such a thing as irrational enviromentalism.

No, there is no way to build anything of any size anywhere that doesn't affect something in nature in a way that could be considered negative. These days when so many specieses are endangered anyway, you're pretty much going to find some of then anywhere you look. And while you could produce energy in a more decentralized way, mostly the inefficiency of that makes it a worse option than building something big that affects only one area.

A lot of so called environmentalists completely ignore that, because they really aren't green, but really just a bunch of nimby conservatists with a convenient front for their selfishness.

But most of what is considered green from the global warming point of view is BS anyway. For example a lot of recycling isn't worth it from an energy efficiency point of view. It's can make sense for other reasons though. And biodegrading plastic bags and cotton bags are typically worse than plastic bags from the point of global warming. (There are other upsides though).

A lot of people on the green side of the political movement (many of whom are btw flaming liberalists and not left at all) are unfortunately just a bunch of homeopathy-believing fact-deniers, who never to bother think their views through, and thus end up doing more harm than good. For example, biofuels. Created from anything other than waste it's generally a terrible idea. That was actually somewhat obvious from the day the idea came up, but a big part of the green movement went along anyway, only to now villify companies like Neste that are developing and producing them.

There are good reasons why a lot of the more reasonable environmentalists have in the recent years quietly abandoned their strong opposition of nuclear energy. Yeah, it's not as cheap as it's propped up to be, nor as clean, but it's still a pretty good way to produce energy while we cut down on worse options.

EDIT: Also, nuclear energy has enough support from non-green people that it can get done, at least here in Finland. And that's a big plus, because environmentalism isn't just an idea, it also about actually getting stuff done.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes they do NOTHING. They don't create anything, fix anything, improve anything. They neither provide ideas nor provide alternatives to ideas. Facts... smacks. Its not like they have any showing that the grassland-migrating-desert tortoise is in danger, at all. They just have a feeling.

But hey...they're conservationists....why do something worthwhile? Like be a real scientist, engineer or vet?

Yeah I agree when people believe something without any facts, but they do "have a feeling" and that is the part of their reasoning, I find it futile to even have a rational conversation with them.

Those conservationists are fools, again I agree with you. They should do something worthwhile and have an occupation that appearantly you repect and become scientists. Now we all know that a scientist will make a person that has "just a feeling" as evidence change their opinion every single time.

[The Goon]

I don't think any conversation can start off well with a mention of the "loonie left". It's possible to discuss the merits of a topic without labelling one group or another by left or right.

[Calgaryborn]

I guess the silver lining in all of this is maybe the project will be stopped. I am very doubtful any solar project will pay for itself before the components will start to have to be replaced.

Being as this project is probably being funded with the government's borrowed money it dying might be a good thing.

[Matata]

Hey, something I'm (becoming) an expert on!

Solar and wind energy are not sources of free energy. They require large amounts of land that will largely be unable to provide any other service, such as wildlife support. If trying to use solar energy as a primary energy source, the amount of land needed is astronomical and there really is no proven way to successfully accommodate the existing, complex, biological systems.

It is a good idea to integrate solar energy systems with existing buildings, that doesn't require the consumption of natural spaces. If you want cheap, clean energy that doesn't require a lot of land space, nuclear power is your only option.

[photon]

Or put the solar collectors in space and beam the energy back to the ground. Somehow