Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One, there's still plenty of desert out there. Two, it hasn't been established that this interferes with the local fauna. And even if it does, to bad. The entire city of Las Vegas was carved out of that desert. So be it.
You live in New York City? If you do, then of course you have your anthropocentric viewpoint. Las Vegas is a mirage; it shouldn’t be there.
Electricity is fungible. If they didn't sell it to MGM, they'd just sell it on the grid. The flip side is that the electricity MGM is buying from them frees up other generated electricity to go out on the grid.
Really all the electricity is going on the grid. This is only a financing deal. MGM locks in their cost (and gets to virtue signal their green-ness.) The solar company can show guaranteed income, which lets them borrow the money needed to finance the construction. It's a win-win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
You want to save the planet, by destroying it?? For a casino??
I've been to Vegas several times. It's pretty much my designated escape from New York destination. I can guarantee you, it's quite a real city. IIRC there are 2,000,000+ people living there and growing. It's not going anywhere. And it will deal with it's infrastructure issues, very much including electricity.
Generally I'm pretty skeptical about green energy. But if there's one place in the US that screams for solar development it's Vegas. Perfect weather for it, and all that empty desert. If they ever really make storage viable, it might take over out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xPlorer48
You live in New York City? If you do, then of course you have your anthropocentric viewpoint. Las Vegas is a mirage; it shouldn’t be there.
I lived in the Las Vegas area in the mid-1970's. It was a nice town in those days. Not so much today. At least, I know how to by-pass the city of Las Vegas these days in my travels.
Vegas does NOT have perfect weather for solar....perfect weather for solar is SUNNY and COLD.
Again, the quote about empty desert.
Ok, I get it...your from New York City. I understand you don't have an education in ecology.
But trust those of us, that do. Desert ecosystems are important. Ecosystems do not have to be pretty to be important.
Put those solar panels on parking garages and roofs of buildings. Don't destroy PUBLIC LANDS owned by the people of the United States to supply power to casino's!!
Sorry, the ship has sailed. They've been building huge solar farms in the desert around Vegas for years now, and they're not likely to stop. Google map the area around Boulder City, or out northeast along I15. Every time they update the satellite view, the solar farms have gotten bigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
I lived in the Las Vegas area in the mid-1970's. It was a nice town in those days. Not so much today. At least, I know how to by-pass the city of Las Vegas these days in my travels.
Vegas does NOT have perfect weather for solar....perfect weather for solar is SUNNY and COLD.
Again, the quote about empty desert.
Ok, I get it...your from New York City. I understand you don't have an education in ecology.
But trust those of us, that do. Desert ecosystems are important. Ecosystems do not have to be pretty to be important.
Put those solar panels on parking garages and roofs of buildings. Don't destroy PUBLIC LANDS owned by the people of the United States to supply power to casino's!!
Industrial Wind Areas require roads the size of most state highways to access the turbines. That means gravel pits, etc.
Besides the high density of BIG ROADS, the pads, there are also the lines to access the "grid" from the turbine site.
The ecosystems become totally fragmented and non-functional. They become the equivalent of a vacant lot in a city.
How much habitat on vacant lots in urban areas?
On flat ground like the mid-west, on private ground, they are fine as long as the neighbors (counties) approve. Property values drop significantly in wind areas. Here in Washington state the Governor overrules EVERY wind project denied by the counties.
He uses a law that was suppose to PROTECT the environment to destroy it.
For a person to be truly environmentally conscious they must first be geographically cognizant. Many Americans are not - so as long as the 'solution' is not in their back yard, their world, their view, it's not a problem, it's someone else's.
The atmosphere scientists and the biologists need to get together more. What good is it to stabilize temperatures if it means ruining habitat to achieve that goal? Rising temps may or may not be bad for the flora and fauna, they still can't decidedly say it is bad, but habitat loss is assuredly bad.
Wind and solar simply put are not energy dense enough to be a long term solution to a humanity which requires more and more energy to progress.
The amount of land needed to get X amount of energy. So, biomass aka trees and corn require a LOT of a land to get 1 barrel of oils worth of energy. Renewables require less than these, fossil fuels require less than those, and nuclear is the most dense of them all.
The problem with low density solutions is as energy needs climb, land allocation for energy increases, so if you have less CO2 but rip up more habitat, it's not clear if it was a win win situation. Depends on if you're the atmospheric scientist of the wildlife biologist...
The amount of land needed to get X amount of energy. So, biomass aka trees and corn require a LOT of a land to get 1 barrel of oils worth of energy. Renewables require less than these, fossil fuels require less than those, and nuclear is the most dense of them all.
The problem with low density solutions is as energy needs climb, land allocation for energy increases, so if you have less CO2 but rip up more habitat, it's not clear if it was a win win situation. Depends on if you're the atmospheric scientist of the wildlife biologist...
You may not understand the math?
Solar PV can be placed over already existing "Manmade Impervious Surface" (that is a fancy name for Roofs, Parking Lots, etc.). Generally at or near the site of use. We can power the entire US in this fashion -- including ALL Electric Vehicles. This means ZERO Land use.
Next is Wind Turbines -- uses very little actual land space. Typically 3000 sq ft per 2MW to 5MW tower.
Meanwhile Nukes use about 1 square mile per Reactor. That works to about 2X to 3X as much land MORE than Wind Turbines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
