• Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      All of the electricity in a power grid is physically identical, but markets make a distinction between the sources by way of purchase agreements and various types of renewable energy credits. If it seems crazy for the locals to complain that they are losing their forest and not even getting the electricity from this new plant, it’s not because they’re mistaken. It’s because we have a crazy system to try and use market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

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

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

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

        • Vandals_handle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 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.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 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).

  • Vytle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    • invertedspear@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 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.

    • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Wouldn’t be surprised if the local government did it on purpose to fight the jewish woke green agenda…

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Your post was very clear, lemmy has a reading comprehension problem.

            You clearly mean that’s the reason the local government did it, not that you think they’re right.

  • raldone01@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

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

      • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Hello_there@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 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?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, at a certain level of generation, adding more isn’t as valuable since the excess needs to be stored to offset the base need. So it makes absolute sense for the compensation to drop as supply goes up.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert… So Rich People Can Continue Privileged, Unsustainable Lifestyle