• CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    What about all the sunny land that doesn’t have Joshua trees? Why are we even trying to build power plants so far away from where the electricity is mostly needed?

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 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
        ·
        7 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.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            The issue with ground prices is they fail to account for stuff humans really need like clean air, clean water, biodiversity. So if you stripp all these factors in valuation and then start building while at the same time chopping down trees in need of protection. You are kinda rigging the game, or not?

              • Vandals_handle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The land is only cheap when you pretend those externalized environmental costs do not exist. They still have to be paid, usually by the public at large. I think the saying goes; socialize the cost and privatize the gains.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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).