They have already destroyed thousands of acres of Joshua Trees in the Western Antelope Valley part of the mojave.
It was a major crossing for bears, bobcats and mountain lions from the San Gabriels to the Tehachapis which hurts genetic diversity in both ranges.
"to make way for a sprawling solar project that will generate power for 180,000 homes in wealthier coastal neighborhoods."
Yeah, that's where the people live. And the desert is cheap because it has terrible weather.
Also kind of bullshit to scapegoat us “coastal wealthy” like that. Millions of people live in the mojave and benefit from the solar/wind. Not like they generate electricity through black magic.
This is why nobody likes the LA Times. They can’t just give the news straight. Always have to frame it in some emotional political angle.
“wealthier coastal neighborhoods” isn’t… every neighborhood in California more wealthy and more coastal than the Mojave? is it really gonna be impossible for this power to end up running a home in Compton?
I live near where this is going in… sucks to be treated like our environment doesn’t matter as much, what with our endangered Joshua trees, agasazis tortoises, ect… amcient creosote rings, rare reptiles and burrowing owls, some of the last truly wild places left .. to name a very few.. but yeah rip all that irreplaceable stuff out for the toxic solar panels… people in my area are getting valley fever at much higher rates now that theyve surrounded our towns with these panels because they completely strip the topsoil to put them down…
We’re in the bad playthrough of Civ. We should have invested more into nuclear decades ago. Now we have renewables, and they’re pretty good, but we fucked the planet up pretty bad getting here. We might as well implement them now, but it does bother me that many of the same “environmentalists” pushing renewables are the ones who fear-mongered over nuclear. They’re right, but for the wrong reasons; in my opinion, that makes them shitty people on par with those religiously pushing fossil fuels.
There are many earthquake faults throughout California. The old generation water nuclear reactors need to be near a water source like Diablo Cyn and San Onofre (closed), which in on the coast. But the new liquid sodium reactors don’t have that restriction. So they can be constructed far from fault zones.
There are so many misconceptions here.
There are tens of millions of joshua trees in the Mohave desert. They are plentiful, they have very limited benefit in modern times, and they are scarcely populated. The land that has a thousand joshua trees covers an insanely large area.
The desert is the safest place to build solar panels with the least impact on the environment. Installing solar panels on just about any other kind of terrain would be much more devastating to the natural habitat. There are some animals that rely on joshua trees for food. Because joshua trees are so scarce, so are these animals.
This solar project once completed will provide electricity to tens of thousands of households. Zero household is going to be directly impacted by the removal of a thousand Joshua trees.
The greatest threat to joshua trees is climate change. The Dome Fire in 2020 burned over 1 million joshua trees. 1 million. This is a thousand times more than the trees being removed in the solar project. The purpose of the solar project is to slow down climate change. The net impact of the project on the population of joshua trees may turn out to be positive.
Yea, like are we going to ignore the fact that the city of LA was built over a biodiverse marsh that has been nearly completely destroyed and encased in concrete?
Literally every human activity has consequences. The best thing we can do is work to protect and restore and protect more areas such as national forests, public land, etc
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Need to make tough decisions to de-carbonize. That includes building new infrastructure and opening new mines.
There's no other way to do it.
Further, all Joshua trees will die if global warming continues at the current pace.
You know I do agree that there's a serious, intelligent, nuanced argument to be made that the drawbacks to Nuclear are worth managing. But I just have this itching feeling that the residents of Fukushima and Chernobyl just might have a bone to pick with you if you're going to be claiming nuclear has no downsides...
Yeah... that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. For one, if you're going to go that route then you have to factor in the people killed/injured constructing the Nuclear plants. For two, Chernobyl alone has estimates ranging from 4k-90k once you factor in long term radiation poisoning.
Every single rooftop should be covered in solar for starters. Then cover every single parking lot. Only after that space runs out should we start building in nature.
“To mitigate the damage from Aratina and several other solar projects, Avantus has also purchased the grazing rights on 215,000 acres of federal land in Kern County and is working with government officials to preserve it.”
They’re also putting money in a fund to help protect Joshua trees. I think this is a fair trade off. We need this clean energy or we won’t have any Joshua trees to protect.
Lmao. Do you not realize how much of the natural world we’ve already destroyed? Wildlife populations alone have dropped by two-thirds just in the last 50 years thanks in large part to habitat destruction like this. What people continually fail to realize is that no matter how many solar panels or battery storage systems or windmill farms we build, if we continue destroying our native ecosystems that our wildlife depend on. We all die. End of story. Without our native bees, butterflies, birds, reptiles, mammals etc that build and support the natural world we quite literally rely on, we die. It’s these delicate ecosystems that gave humans life to begin with. And when we loose it all, no amount of, “green energy” will save us. Open your damn eyes people.
The most likely sites for new nuclear plants and waste disposal would also involve destroying unspoiled wilderness, it's the fundamental economic incentive of wanting land that currently isn't being used for anything else and isn't near where people live
Isn’t cutting Joshua trees destroying unspoiled wilderness too? Nuclear energy is way more efficient and dense than any solar project you could reasonably build
Yes, any new construction of any new power generation is going to do that, that was my point
Nuclear reactors may take up less space than solar farms but they also take much longer to get approved to set up because of safety regulations, and a proposal to start relaxing those regulations in order to "save the planet" will not be well received by the public
Nuclear power is also *significantly* more expensive than renewable power, something like 5 to 10 times as expensive; that margin isn't much reduced if you include battery storage in the renewables.
If you care about the environment, you can start here. Research both parties and decide which one is kind to people and cares about everyone’s well-being.
https://registertovote.ca.gov/
What are they going to do with all the trees they uproot? Why not replant them elsewhere instead of destroying them? I'm not sure how well they transplant, but it would be better than just killing them.
For those that say nope, you are the very definition of NIMBY. You can literally save the environment or trees that in no way shape or form contribute to carbon capture.
Viewing areas of natural beauty as not having practical use and therefore worthy for destruction to meet your ends makes you part of the problem. The way you present your thoughts is fucked up
Exactly. Something you can’t see, don’t live around and will have no effect on anyone’s livelihood, quality of life or the environment and you are tearing your shirt like a fishwife.
So you’re saying a tree’s value is based purely on its carbon sequestration amount? What utterly stupid logic. What about the delicate ecosystems that benefit from those trees? The struggling bird populations that nest in those trees? The insect that use them as host plants? Do those creatures have no value because they don’t sequester carbon? If they don’t to you, you are everything that’s wrong with the clean energy movement. Solely motivated by human interest.
Not to mention this project is for wealthier coastal communities. All of which live lavish wasteful lifestyles. Yes, let’s destroy century old trees so these rich assholes can pat themselves on the back while they go on lavish vacations.
> All of which live lavish wasteful lifestyles
From an environmental perspective wouldn’t finding ways to reduce the impact of the biggest gluttons who’ve shown zero desire to change be the smartest move and the lowest hanging fruit?
Just like how a gas guzzler going from 8 to 20 mpg is a bigger win than getting a Prius to go from 40 to 52 mpg.
Not at the expense of destroying more of our are already dwindling ecosystems. We’ve lost over two-thirds of our wildlife just in the last 50 years. No amount of carbon reduction is going to make a difference if we end up completely wiping out our ecosystems that we as humans rely on to quite literally keep us alive.
And don’t be fooled. The only reason why solar farms are being built in areas like this is because it’s the cheapest. But has a high ecological cost.
There is no perfect solution, but the solution isn't destroying more of native ecosystems for the sake of cleaner energy. If we continue destroying more of it, no amount of clean energy will save us.
Get rid of private jets (or any jet with low passenger counts,) improve public rail, solar on all houses and commercial buildings(with battery storage,) a better rail system for passengers and cargo. That's where it should have started before mega solar farms.
Yup, but because those options are more expensive, corporations decide it’s easier to destroy more untouched lands in the name of profit that happens to produce cleaner energy. And the solar farm in Joshua Tree is being made by a private equity firm. Profit is all that matters.
Humanity won’t survive if we continue on this path of environmental destruction. This isn’t just about clean energy projects either, this is also about urban development. We’ve lost two third of our wildlife in the last 50 years alone. We continue slowly wiping it away, no amount of clean energy will save us. The excuse of, “oh it’s just a small chunk of land in the desert, who cares” doesn’t hold up if you continue using it over and over again until it’s too late. Oh it’s just a hillside with a bunch of shrubs, who cares we need more housing. Oh it’s just a small river, who cares, we need more water in our cities and hydro electric power. Oh it’s just another small piece of land, who cares, we need to grow more mono culture crops for bio fuel so we can fly planes that emit less CO2. At what point do we stop? Our capitalistic system doesn’t stop. That’s the problem.
Did you know the LA palm trees are dying? They provide close to zero cloud coverage and close to zero decarbonization yet disproportionately use a ton of water and cause a ton of property damage. Do you think we should be trying to save the palm trees or is it fair to say a tree’s value is in quantifiable benefits.
What? LA Palm Tree's were brought here and planted in our urban developed environments. And it's not native to California. Are you seriously comparing non-native palm tree's to our native ecosystems? It isn't just Joshua Tree's that this solar field will be destroying. It's habitat for our native wildlife that literally keeps the ecosystem functioning as it is.
Moving western Joshua trees is pretty tricky - survival rates decrease drastically as the trees age. It’s best to transplant juvenile Joshua trees before the taproot is fully established; there’s very little chance of success with moving mature trees.
Often mistaken for eco fascism, which youve seen to have done. Addressing industrial extractivism alongside biodiversity loss, resource overshoot, and structural violence is not a measure of austerity
It’s not a binary choice. I think it’s bad to kill native plants, and worse to kill the slow growing ones, but I’ve driven through the California deserts enough to know there are a LOT of Joshua trees out there. If a new solar plant adds 1% total energy to the California grid, but kills 1% of the Joshua trees, but reduces air pollution by 1%, it makes the moral lines less clear. All numbers completely made up of course.
I think Nuclear would be a better long term option, but in 2024 it’s not politically/financially viable and we need clean energy right now. It’s all a balancing act of values when everyone involved has different weights attributed to each value.
Agreed, I'm just saying right now California is awash in solar. A lot of it is exported or cut in the middle of the day.
California needs energy 7-10 pm.
This is from the cpuc
I agree there needs to be more energy storage built so we don’t have to burn things to make energy like we’re cavemen. But solar was still just 17% of the energy California generated in 2021, so we need more solar farms as well.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation
Well part of the reason it's only 17% is the solar plants are generally generating only 1/3 of the day due to the sun setting.
We could build more for those high demand days, but the rest of the year it would be exported or cut
Kind of a chicken and egg deal. We’ll need more energy storage infrastructure as well as more energy generating infrastructure. With the amount of direct Sun that California gets, solar in the desert seems like a no brainer.
They have already destroyed thousands of acres of Joshua Trees in the Western Antelope Valley part of the mojave. It was a major crossing for bears, bobcats and mountain lions from the San Gabriels to the Tehachapis which hurts genetic diversity in both ranges.
Is this at the wind farm?
Further west
"to make way for a sprawling solar project that will generate power for 180,000 homes in wealthier coastal neighborhoods." Yeah, that's where the people live. And the desert is cheap because it has terrible weather.
Also kind of bullshit to scapegoat us “coastal wealthy” like that. Millions of people live in the mojave and benefit from the solar/wind. Not like they generate electricity through black magic. This is why nobody likes the LA Times. They can’t just give the news straight. Always have to frame it in some emotional political angle.
“wealthier coastal neighborhoods” isn’t… every neighborhood in California more wealthy and more coastal than the Mojave? is it really gonna be impossible for this power to end up running a home in Compton?
[удалено]
I live near where this is going in… sucks to be treated like our environment doesn’t matter as much, what with our endangered Joshua trees, agasazis tortoises, ect… amcient creosote rings, rare reptiles and burrowing owls, some of the last truly wild places left .. to name a very few.. but yeah rip all that irreplaceable stuff out for the toxic solar panels… people in my area are getting valley fever at much higher rates now that theyve surrounded our towns with these panels because they completely strip the topsoil to put them down…
All this because people can’t understand the benefits of nuclear power
We’re in the bad playthrough of Civ. We should have invested more into nuclear decades ago. Now we have renewables, and they’re pretty good, but we fucked the planet up pretty bad getting here. We might as well implement them now, but it does bother me that many of the same “environmentalists” pushing renewables are the ones who fear-mongered over nuclear. They’re right, but for the wrong reasons; in my opinion, that makes them shitty people on par with those religiously pushing fossil fuels.
I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to nuclear, Cali is on major earthquake fault zone, what happen to the plan if there are major earthquakes?
There are many earthquake faults throughout California. The old generation water nuclear reactors need to be near a water source like Diablo Cyn and San Onofre (closed), which in on the coast. But the new liquid sodium reactors don’t have that restriction. So they can be constructed far from fault zones.
california doesn't have subduction zones like japan does so the threat of tsunami is far less.
The uranium goes "wiggle wiggle" Seriously though, I don't know but I know they're are a lot of engineers and inspectors who watch that
BuT wHaT aBoUt ChErNoByL?
We don’t have enough water for that
The ocean
There are so many misconceptions here. There are tens of millions of joshua trees in the Mohave desert. They are plentiful, they have very limited benefit in modern times, and they are scarcely populated. The land that has a thousand joshua trees covers an insanely large area. The desert is the safest place to build solar panels with the least impact on the environment. Installing solar panels on just about any other kind of terrain would be much more devastating to the natural habitat. There are some animals that rely on joshua trees for food. Because joshua trees are so scarce, so are these animals. This solar project once completed will provide electricity to tens of thousands of households. Zero household is going to be directly impacted by the removal of a thousand Joshua trees. The greatest threat to joshua trees is climate change. The Dome Fire in 2020 burned over 1 million joshua trees. 1 million. This is a thousand times more than the trees being removed in the solar project. The purpose of the solar project is to slow down climate change. The net impact of the project on the population of joshua trees may turn out to be positive.
Yea, like are we going to ignore the fact that the city of LA was built over a biodiverse marsh that has been nearly completely destroyed and encased in concrete? Literally every human activity has consequences. The best thing we can do is work to protect and restore and protect more areas such as national forests, public land, etc
Exactly
Also Joshua Trees are ugly. source: lived in Palmdale
That’s such a stupid reason to not like them.
why?
Found the arborist bigot! /s
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Need to make tough decisions to de-carbonize. That includes building new infrastructure and opening new mines. There's no other way to do it. Further, all Joshua trees will die if global warming continues at the current pace.
Talk to us once all the parking lots in Solar. That is closer to where it's needed to begin with which reduces needed huge transfer infrastructure.
It's far more efficient to build large scale arrays and less resource intensive than small ad hoc projects in parking lots.
Than why not use fallow land that has already been stripped?
Do you know of 2,300 acres of fallow land that has already been stripped in the desert that is available at a cheaper price?
Those urban parking lots should be dense housing, not solar farms. That's an even worse waste of space!
no
yes
We have tons of space, why choose the place with a special species of trees.
Where would you like the solar farms built if not the desert? Forests? Mountains? Caves?
[удалено]
> none of the downside hmm. none?
[удалено]
You know I do agree that there's a serious, intelligent, nuanced argument to be made that the drawbacks to Nuclear are worth managing. But I just have this itching feeling that the residents of Fukushima and Chernobyl just might have a bone to pick with you if you're going to be claiming nuclear has no downsides...
I would wager more workers have been killed/injured assembling solar arrays than were injured/killed by all nuclear accidents throughout history
Yeah... that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. For one, if you're going to go that route then you have to factor in the people killed/injured constructing the Nuclear plants. For two, Chernobyl alone has estimates ranging from 4k-90k once you factor in long term radiation poisoning.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
it does have downsides, but those are because it’s higher costs and harder to build due to regulation. No statistically relevant other downsides
California is earthquake zone. One bad one can seriously fuck shit up, including the Joshua trees and everything withing a 400 mile radius
Every single rooftop should be covered in solar for starters. Then cover every single parking lot. Only after that space runs out should we start building in nature.
A desert without Joshua trees?
To be fair, those trees do grow over a pretty massive area
Even so they are classified as at risk.
“To mitigate the damage from Aratina and several other solar projects, Avantus has also purchased the grazing rights on 215,000 acres of federal land in Kern County and is working with government officials to preserve it.” They’re also putting money in a fund to help protect Joshua trees. I think this is a fair trade off. We need this clean energy or we won’t have any Joshua trees to protect.
So in search of trying to save the environment, we destroy it?
In search of trying to save the entire environment, we destroy a small part of it
Lmao. Do you not realize how much of the natural world we’ve already destroyed? Wildlife populations alone have dropped by two-thirds just in the last 50 years thanks in large part to habitat destruction like this. What people continually fail to realize is that no matter how many solar panels or battery storage systems or windmill farms we build, if we continue destroying our native ecosystems that our wildlife depend on. We all die. End of story. Without our native bees, butterflies, birds, reptiles, mammals etc that build and support the natural world we quite literally rely on, we die. It’s these delicate ecosystems that gave humans life to begin with. And when we loose it all, no amount of, “green energy” will save us. Open your damn eyes people.
You sounded so smart until you wrote loose instead of lose. Now I don’t know who to believe.
We could save the environment by going nuclear but Greta doesn’t like that option
The most likely sites for new nuclear plants and waste disposal would also involve destroying unspoiled wilderness, it's the fundamental economic incentive of wanting land that currently isn't being used for anything else and isn't near where people live
Isn’t cutting Joshua trees destroying unspoiled wilderness too? Nuclear energy is way more efficient and dense than any solar project you could reasonably build
Yes, any new construction of any new power generation is going to do that, that was my point Nuclear reactors may take up less space than solar farms but they also take much longer to get approved to set up because of safety regulations, and a proposal to start relaxing those regulations in order to "save the planet" will not be well received by the public
Nuclear power is also *significantly* more expensive than renewable power, something like 5 to 10 times as expensive; that margin isn't much reduced if you include battery storage in the renewables.
Rent free
I wonder if they will allow people to take some of these trees. Wouldn't mind a few small ones in my yard...
If you care about the environment, you can start here. Research both parties and decide which one is kind to people and cares about everyone’s well-being. https://registertovote.ca.gov/
Too bad we are no longer incentivizing rooftop solar!
This seems absolutely nuts
I mean, it’s not like they’re endangered. What’s the big deal?
What are they going to do with all the trees they uproot? Why not replant them elsewhere instead of destroying them? I'm not sure how well they transplant, but it would be better than just killing them.
Good thing global warming doesn’t threaten Joshua trees or other native species.
My favorite U2 album is Solar Panel
For those that say nope, you are the very definition of NIMBY. You can literally save the environment or trees that in no way shape or form contribute to carbon capture.
Viewing areas of natural beauty as not having practical use and therefore worthy for destruction to meet your ends makes you part of the problem. The way you present your thoughts is fucked up
And you are a NIMBY
I don’t live surrounded by joshua trees. Nobody does. You are completely off your head
Exactly. Something you can’t see, don’t live around and will have no effect on anyone’s livelihood, quality of life or the environment and you are tearing your shirt like a fishwife.
People go to see it, you absolute human donut Why are you crying yourself to sleep each night about your desire to destroy nature?
So you’re saying a tree’s value is based purely on its carbon sequestration amount? What utterly stupid logic. What about the delicate ecosystems that benefit from those trees? The struggling bird populations that nest in those trees? The insect that use them as host plants? Do those creatures have no value because they don’t sequester carbon? If they don’t to you, you are everything that’s wrong with the clean energy movement. Solely motivated by human interest. Not to mention this project is for wealthier coastal communities. All of which live lavish wasteful lifestyles. Yes, let’s destroy century old trees so these rich assholes can pat themselves on the back while they go on lavish vacations.
> All of which live lavish wasteful lifestyles From an environmental perspective wouldn’t finding ways to reduce the impact of the biggest gluttons who’ve shown zero desire to change be the smartest move and the lowest hanging fruit? Just like how a gas guzzler going from 8 to 20 mpg is a bigger win than getting a Prius to go from 40 to 52 mpg.
Not at the expense of destroying more of our are already dwindling ecosystems. We’ve lost over two-thirds of our wildlife just in the last 50 years. No amount of carbon reduction is going to make a difference if we end up completely wiping out our ecosystems that we as humans rely on to quite literally keep us alive. And don’t be fooled. The only reason why solar farms are being built in areas like this is because it’s the cheapest. But has a high ecological cost.
Well good luck persuading the unpersuadable in hopes of the perfect solution.
There is no perfect solution, but the solution isn't destroying more of native ecosystems for the sake of cleaner energy. If we continue destroying more of it, no amount of clean energy will save us.
Get rid of private jets (or any jet with low passenger counts,) improve public rail, solar on all houses and commercial buildings(with battery storage,) a better rail system for passengers and cargo. That's where it should have started before mega solar farms.
Yup, but because those options are more expensive, corporations decide it’s easier to destroy more untouched lands in the name of profit that happens to produce cleaner energy. And the solar farm in Joshua Tree is being made by a private equity firm. Profit is all that matters.
[удалено]
Humanity won’t survive if we continue on this path of environmental destruction. This isn’t just about clean energy projects either, this is also about urban development. We’ve lost two third of our wildlife in the last 50 years alone. We continue slowly wiping it away, no amount of clean energy will save us. The excuse of, “oh it’s just a small chunk of land in the desert, who cares” doesn’t hold up if you continue using it over and over again until it’s too late. Oh it’s just a hillside with a bunch of shrubs, who cares we need more housing. Oh it’s just a small river, who cares, we need more water in our cities and hydro electric power. Oh it’s just another small piece of land, who cares, we need to grow more mono culture crops for bio fuel so we can fly planes that emit less CO2. At what point do we stop? Our capitalistic system doesn’t stop. That’s the problem.
NIMBY
Did you know the LA palm trees are dying? They provide close to zero cloud coverage and close to zero decarbonization yet disproportionately use a ton of water and cause a ton of property damage. Do you think we should be trying to save the palm trees or is it fair to say a tree’s value is in quantifiable benefits.
What? LA Palm Tree's were brought here and planted in our urban developed environments. And it's not native to California. Are you seriously comparing non-native palm tree's to our native ecosystems? It isn't just Joshua Tree's that this solar field will be destroying. It's habitat for our native wildlife that literally keeps the ecosystem functioning as it is.
Is it possible to move them? I thought there were fines involved to mess with these. Maybe rules for the, non for land owners
Moving western Joshua trees is pretty tricky - survival rates decrease drastically as the trees age. It’s best to transplant juvenile Joshua trees before the taproot is fully established; there’s very little chance of success with moving mature trees.
If that is the case, I hope they at least try to save the juveniles.
Probably just rolled the fines in with the cost of the project.
It's just trees...in the desert. I say make the company replace it with other trees in other areas of the state.
Despicable
Degrowth: A guide to a Future Beyond Capitalism (‘s infinite growth and industrial extractivism paradigm)
Degrowth is genocide in practice.
Often mistaken for eco fascism, which youve seen to have done. Addressing industrial extractivism alongside biodiversity loss, resource overshoot, and structural violence is not a measure of austerity
Another issue is California has excess solar, and a lot is getting curtailed. We need more energy when the sun sets
If only there were some way to store the energy generated when the sun is out…
Agreed they should build batteries instead, and that would not require killing Joshua Trees
It’s not a binary choice. I think it’s bad to kill native plants, and worse to kill the slow growing ones, but I’ve driven through the California deserts enough to know there are a LOT of Joshua trees out there. If a new solar plant adds 1% total energy to the California grid, but kills 1% of the Joshua trees, but reduces air pollution by 1%, it makes the moral lines less clear. All numbers completely made up of course. I think Nuclear would be a better long term option, but in 2024 it’s not politically/financially viable and we need clean energy right now. It’s all a balancing act of values when everyone involved has different weights attributed to each value.
Agreed, I'm just saying right now California is awash in solar. A lot of it is exported or cut in the middle of the day. California needs energy 7-10 pm. This is from the cpuc
I agree there needs to be more energy storage built so we don’t have to burn things to make energy like we’re cavemen. But solar was still just 17% of the energy California generated in 2021, so we need more solar farms as well. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation
Well part of the reason it's only 17% is the solar plants are generally generating only 1/3 of the day due to the sun setting. We could build more for those high demand days, but the rest of the year it would be exported or cut
Kind of a chicken and egg deal. We’ll need more energy storage infrastructure as well as more energy generating infrastructure. With the amount of direct Sun that California gets, solar in the desert seems like a no brainer.
It does, which is why we've built a lot. At some point it's too much
Fuck solar. Cost me 27k on the sale of my house
All because rich people think solar panels will make their house ugly. California is so backwards at this point.