• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 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
      ·
      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.

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