But why don’t we just build them in cities and parking lots especially since they want them within 10 miles of communities? I understand cost but this makes sense to just put them into cities and use the unused land to expand or use for farms and other things vs wasting land to build only solar farms.
Could have some unforseen ecological impacts if we just cover large swaths of desert. They’re still eco systems. Of course if the alternatives are fossil fuels then I’m sure it’s a better option. But if we’re putting this infrastructure in the middle of nowhere why not nuclear? What’s worse for the desert eco system? Covering it with solar or the very very slim chance of a nuclear accident? If it’s far from any populated areas nuclear seems like the obvious best option.
Every decision ever made has a potential for unforseen consequences. You do what you can with what you know though.
I’m a huge fan of nuclear power. Liberals have well and truly screwed us all by taking a strong stance against it.
Yes, I’m not saying don’t do anything, just that given what we do know, nuclear is probably the better ecological option here.
I feel like solar is a lot quicker to set up then nuclear and harder to shut down if political rivals gain power. I’m a big fan of both so either is a win in my book but I’m hoping as well nuclear gains more traction eventually.
A small silver lining; I think I read an article about how solar farms can foster its own biomes by adding vaste amount of shade. It doesn’t make up for the loss but if it can be engineered to sequester more carbon and host fauna, it’s not a net loss.
Thinking about it, maybe we need to rethink our approach to solar farms and put the panels on post higher up and more evenly spaced to have a proper undergrowth