←back to thread

177 points belter | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
1. exabrial ◴[] No.43623421[source]
Yeah, no. That picture is disgusting.

Look at all of that natural habitat plowed through will diesel bulldozers, hauled off with giant diesel trucks, displacing animals and plants and insects. The habitat is permanently ruined.

This is dumb and shouldn't be celebrated.

Solar is fine in already disturbed areas. Stop clearing more land for "green" projects.

replies(1): >>43623819 #
2. acc_297 ◴[] No.43623819[source]
I believe that the installation in that picture and a number of other installations in the Taizhou region are built over a river system or some kind of tidal water reservoir I was unable to find the exact area but [1] is a nearby installation.

Land use is a large contributing factor to climate change but this particular image seems to be the best case scenario for large solar installation the ecosystem (marshland?) appears to be relatively undisturbed (also considering it is centrally located in a city of 4 million people solar panels or not it seems pretty lush). And I'll parrot an often cited statistic: "the entire U.S. could be powered by utility-scale solar occupying just 0.6% of the nation’s land mass" this (imo) makes a good case for solar PV as a relatively large chunk of installed grid capacity it just seems like a better compromise than the alternatives.

If utility scale battery storage ever pans out (that or UHV transmission or both) then we could see renewable sources like solar+wind actually work as base-load capacity.

Others also comment on this thread that converted agricultural land (i.e. field to pasture) meshes well with solar PV installation the plants typically do not need full sun. I would guess that a small percentage of installed solar required any kind of land shaping or clearing although it does happen [2].

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-invests-546...

[2] https://www.cmigroupinc.ca/solar-farm-environmental-impact-b...