Thousands of endangered Joshua trees to be destroyed to put up solar panels

[easyrider]

Nuclear power is extremely concrete intensive which is to my understanding very CO2 intensive. It's also kind of the most expensive electricity from everything I've seen. What I don't understand is why we would need to cut down trees that anyone cares about to do solar - we have so much "empty" land around this country...

The destruction of the Joshua Trees provides a mitigation fund that will turn unprotected range land into a conservation area. Kern County benefits as this project creates jobs and tax revenue for Kern County. The project developer Aratina benefits because the location is near other energy projects in Kern County and the power grid.

I agree with you that the project should be built on empty land but the project site borders Edwards AFB and is close enough to the other projects like the worlds largest solar panel and energy storage facility E&S also on the border of Edwards AFB so I get why.

Bill

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

The best place to locate new modular Nuclear plants is at shut down coal fired energy plants
The power lines are in place
Roads, etc. are designed to deal with traffic
They are usually not in high population areas
Upgrading power lines to carry more power along the same routes can be done
So no need for new major power links to be built
Upgrading power lines to carry more power is becoming a topic of interest in our energy planning

One of the biggest factors in siting a generating station is availability of cooling water for the condensers. Since coal-fired generating stations also require cooling water, old coal-fired stations have that advantage as well.

 

[emeryjre]

One of the biggest factors in siting a generating station is availability of cooling water for the condensers. Since coal-fired generating stations also require cooling water, old coal-fired stations have that advantage as well.

Good Point

 

["Roger"]

Boiling Point: Why razing Joshua trees for solar farms isn't always crazy

There's no greater threat to many beloved plants and animals — or humans — than the climate crisis.

www.latimes.com

There’s no greater threat to Joshua trees — or humans — than carbon pollution building up in the atmosphere, spurring constant temperature records, drier droughts and more destructive fires that have conspired to decimate Joshua tree forests across the Southwest. The York fire alone may have burned more than 1 million Joshua trees last summer in and around Mojave National Preserve. Long term, scientists estimate that Joshua trees could lose upwards of 90% of their current range.

 

[Carolinian]

Nuclear power is extremely concrete intensive which is to my understanding very CO2 intensive. It's also kind of the most expensive electricity from everything I've seen. What I don't understand is why we would need to cut down trees that anyone cares about to do solar - we have so much "empty" land around this country...

Nuclear is actually much cheaper and more dependable than intermittant wind and solar. Germany, which went hog wild on wind and solar with Merkel's Energiewende, for example, has the most expensive electric rates in Europe and essentially the world. Electric rates in next door nuclear powered France and coal powered Poland are about half of what they are in Germany. Finland put a big new nuclear plant online a year ago, and electric rates dropped by more than half. Finland previously had the second highest power prices in Europe and dropped to the second lowest, thanks to nuclear power. Faced with EU penalties on its coal plants, Poland has signed several contracts for new nuclear plants while France has embarked on a new construction plan for new nuclear plants.

Nuclear plants, like coal, gas, and hydro are on all the time and not subject to going offline for weather like wind and solar. That makes for dependable baseload, so the grid does not crash.

The new modular nuclear plants that Bill Gates in promoting (again someone I am not generally a fan of, but he is right on this) offer some exciting new options for nuclear power.

Here us an example in Australia of trees being chopped down for wind turbines, in this case an avenue of trees planted a century ago to honor fallen Australian World War I soldiers:

 

[gln60]

Madness

 

[Talent312]

I'd be in favor of fusion power.
I know that some people say it'll never happen.

But you can buy a "home energy reactor" model
for $51 on Amazon (source: Back to the Future)...

 

[geist1223]

It always amazes me how much current and future damage certain groups are willing to do to the Environment in the name of "Green."

 

[Tia]

I'm waiting for EV airliners , maybe too heavy to fly tho

 

[jp10558]

Nuclear is actually much cheaper and more dependable than intermittant wind and solar. Germany, which went hog wild on wind and solar with Merkel's Energiewende, for example, has the most expensive electric rates in Europe and essentially the world. Electric rates in next door nuclear powered France and coal powered Poland are about half of what they are in Germany. Finland put a big new nuclear plant online a year ago, and electric rates dropped by more than half. Finland previously had the second highest power prices in Europe and dropped to the second lowest, thanks to nuclear power. Faced with EU penalties on its coal plants, Poland has signed several contracts for new nuclear plants while France has embarked on a new construction plan for new nuclear plants.

Nuclear plants, like coal, gas, and hydro are on all the time and not subject to going offline for weather like wind and solar. That makes for dependable baseload, so the grid does not crash.

The new modular nuclear plants that Bill Gates in promoting (again someone I am not generally a fan of, but he is right on this) offer some exciting new options for nuclear power.

Here us an example in Australia of trees being chopped down for wind turbines, in this case an avenue of trees planted a century ago to honor fallen Australian World War I soldiers:

I've been told that Nuclear is cheaper, but every time I see someone show the numbers in the US, it's about the most expensive. See Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J/

or Sabine Hossfeneter

There is some places we could subsidize Nuclear or have less onerous regulations, but as it stands today it seems like Nuclear isn't cost competitive. I'm not sure that even going Soviet style slapdash regulation would bring the cost down enough to catch solar etc, and I'd never recommend that.

It's not that I'm against Nuclear, it's that at least in the US the cost is way more, so there's little economic incentive, and hence little political incentive, and lots of NIMBY on Nuclear that there isn't for solar or wind out in the empty parts of the US.

 

[emeryjre]

The path to inexpensive nuclear is to reuse the same design over and over
The “modular” concept
The most recent nuclear complex in Georgia was way over budget and electricity is costing way more than projected
I am not sure how the new nuclear age will settle out
Many competing interests
Billions of dollars to be spent
Not a combination that has produced the lowest costs in past projects

 

[Carolinian]

The path to inexpensive nuclear is to reuse the same design over and over
The “modular” concept
The most recent nuclear complex in Georgia was way over budget and electricity is costing way more than projected
I am not sure how the new nuclear age will settle out
Many competing interests
Billions of dollars to be spent
Not a combination that has produced the lowest costs in past projects

How is it that Europe can get nuclear right, then? Nuclear power gives France some of the lowest electricity costs in Europe, and they are building more. And, unlike wind and solar, it does not crap out due to weather. Indeed, when the wind isn't blowing in Germany, they tap into France's nuclear power to keep Germany's lights on.

 

[emeryjre]

France used one basic design for all of their nuclear plants
It kept the cost of construction way down

You can do the honors of breaking down the costs for the new Georgia nuclear plants, the cost overruns, the battles over who will pay these costs
It is all available to research

 

[amycurl]

Do the cost estimates include the ongoing costs of waste storage/security? What does France do with their nuclear waste?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[davidvel]

How is it that Europe can get nuclear right, then? Nuclear power gives France some of the lowest electricity costs in Europe, and they are building more. And, unlike wind and solar, it does not crap out due to weather. Indeed, when the wind isn't blosing in Germany, they tap into France's nuclear power to keep Germany's lights on.

Where are you getting your "facts" that they are the lowest electricity costs? Not saying they are not, I'm just a bit suspect given the history of blurring opinion and fact. Also, while the cost being charged per kWh may be lower, are the plants and disposal subsidized by the government, so those expenses are noy passed to consumers? I am sure they spend exponentially lower than the U.S. does building a plant, but hard to accept your contention on blind faith without some reasonably definitive source.

 

[geist1223]

Considering the cost to develop and maintain nuclear waste storage I have always wondered why "cheap" Rockets to fire nuclear waste at the Sun are not developed.

 

[emeryjre]

The French government owns the nuclear plants
The decision to build nuclear power plants was made after the oil crisis of the 70's
The French government decided going nuclear was the only way to gain a degree of independence from imported oil
They unique element of the nuclear program was all plants were essentially the same
They initially built too many plants and the plants were operated at low capacity
As the plants have aged, there has not been sufficient maintenance
There has been a period where plants have been shut down for repairs on a rolling basis
There also has been issues with where to dispose of nuclear waste and the costs associated with disposal
As Europe has been buffeted by political winds, the power plants have been saviors to surrounding countries.
The plants have provided electricity when other sources were unavailable
The true cost of the electricity generated will probably never be known
The availability of electricity from these plants in the face of Russian aggression is invaluable
Nuclear power certainly has advantages
It also has disadvantages
So it goes

 

[Carolinian]

Wind and solar also produce lots of toxic waste. As to expense, the worst is offshore wind.

Costs Are Up 57% on Already Super Expensive Offshore Wind Projects

When government decides to buy something, cost increases are sure to follow. One reason is that people are generally less cost-conscious when they’re spending other people’s money. Government decision-makers are people spending revenues collected from other people. Another reason is that, when...

www.johnlocke.org

 

[geist1223]

Not surprised.

 

[Superchief]

The worst thing about the 'green energy' wind and solar power conversions are that 70% of the materials are produced in China. These are produced in a country with very few pollution reduction policies and that has the highest carbon emissions in the world. How is this helping the world 'climate' situation.

 

[emeryjre]

The production of power is out of synch with the consumption of power

Electricity prices in France turn negative as renewable energy floods the grid

French day-ahead power fell to -€5.76 a megawatt-hour, the lowest in four years, in an auction on Epex Spot.

fortune.com

 

[billymach4]

I'm impressed by this thread. Should be edited. How Joshua Tree went Nuclear.

 

[Carolinian]

The worst thing about the 'green energy' wind and solar power conversions are that 70% of the materials are produced in China. These are produced in a country with very few pollution reduction policies and that has the highest carbon emissions in the world. How is this helping the world 'climate' situation.

Also, as bad as it is to be dependant on the Middle East for energy, it is more dangerous to be dependant on China, which makes most of the solar panels and wind turbines, and whose rare earths are necessary to build them.

 

[Carolinian]

The production of power is out of synch with the consumption of power

Electricity prices in France turn negative as renewable energy floods the grid

French day-ahead power fell to -€5.76 a megawatt-hour, the lowest in four years, in an auction on Epex Spot.

fortune.com

Wind and solar are feast or famine intermittant sources that are highly weather-dependant and thus unsuitable for grid stability. When it comes to renewables, geothermal is a much more reliable source, right up there with conventional energy.

 

[emeryjre]

Solar is very predictable
Sun comes up
Electricity is produced at x rate
Sun comes up and it is cloudy
Electricity is produced at y rate
The solar planners take all of this in to account

Wind is more variable
But still has a probable rate of production

Geothermal requires certain below ground conditions
In areas where the conditions are right
It is a great way to go
Not all areas have the proper conditions

Renewables variable production will be handled through the use of energy storage systems
Currently we are using Lithium batteries
This is not the long term solution because of cost and other problems
Alternatives are coming on line and soon will supplement lithium solutions
Our energy goals of Carbon reduction are over time
The goal is to close the "dirtiest" energy production first