I think every engineer knows that all things come with trade-offs.
A great engineer, however, is able to readily admit when one option among others has a far, far greater set of costs than another, for the exact same benefit.
And if said engineer can't decide (for claim of ignorance), they mature to learn that the experience and knowledge of others is the best source for understanding the trade-offs involved to make a decision.
I think its pretty clear solar power has trade-offs. I think it's also obvious solar has far less negatives than all other power generating sources.
Interesting that just sharing a link of the trade-offs got a bunch of down votes when I didn't even take a side.
Maybe it was a misunderstanding of my intentions to purely share information based on your reply.
If you don't mind, please help me understand. Did it come across as anti-solar in general? That's how I'm interpreting your reply.
The article, which I wonder if anyone read, argues local environmental concerns based on the giant size of the solar farm. One of those things was mountain sheep that migrate across the lands. This would be creating a wall of sorts. Another was Native American archeology. What I'm ignorant of is if any of these issues were addressed at all & what the impact is.
In a general sense, I'm a huge fan of solar farms. I think they make more sense than using land to plant corn for energy, which funny enough also got me down votes here.
I didn't downvote or anything, but I read the article a few hours ago and felt the information in that article is only political. If we're talking about destruction, ecological or of heritage, your choice not in whether it happens, but how much and where. Consequently, I feel that the stated reasons of political action groups are usually myopic at best. But really, I always suspect they're speaking in bad faith.
If you really care about animals, plants, or archeology, you're probably not a fan of coal or natural gas, which are obviously destructive of geology and habitats, and that's _without_ getting into more nebulous and catastrophic climate stuff.
I tried digging deeper into understanding the opposition's arguments. I do understand my article was light on details & as you stated, fairly politicized arguments.
Based on my research, 1/3 of the land that would have had major construction disturbances effecting plants & archeology. A fair counter argument is that construction crews deal with archeology all the time. I would also assume it should be fairly easy to take rare plants into account & make sure there is an equal amount grown & taken care of after construction is completed. I don't know what plants they are concerned about, but solar farms do improve a lot of vegetation by offering shade & reducing evaporation.
The entire area was to be fenced off which would prevent big horn sheep migration. It seems no pathways were offered to be built to help with migration of animals. This seems like something that could be fairly easy to do though it would add expense of fencing & reduce some solar panels possibly.
"When I didn't even take a side" sea-lioning and worse is so prevalent with regards to solar, wind, and climate change that frankly if you are going to link dump without much of your own input, it's going to be written off as disingenuous.
So many people constantly talk about the costs of solar. If that is all you are contributing to the discussion, you aren't adding much new or interesting, in my opinion.
As an aside, I also just generally hate when commentors link to stuff with nothing else. It feels smug. Start the discussion you want to spark with honesty and earnest thoughts. Those who "just ask questions" engage in this same tactic to derail topics and pretend like they didn't take any side. Just "linking to useful information". What's useful about it? Highlight something to start discussion.
I am not claiming you are doing these things. But surely you are aware of and can appreciate the tactics of those that spread misinformation.
That's fair & I get your point. Thank you. The parent link was really light on details. My link gave some opposition reasons but I could have summed them up or dug into them better. Since it's a very local issue, I assumed getting real info would be challenging without digging into local government minutes.
While I was just trying to help understand some opposing reasons, you're right that it didn't add much to the overall discussion.
I do not have a side as I don't know enough.