The Biden administration has updated the roadmap for solar development to 22 million acres of federal lands in the US West.

The US government opens 22 million acres of federal lands to solar::The Biden administration has updated the roadmap for solar development to 22 million acres of federal lands in the US West.

  • BronzedBonobo@midwest.socialEnglish
    722·
    10 months ago

    So I guess we’re not going to do the smart thing, going nuclear, and instead landscape more of the country.

    • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
      154·
      10 months ago

      The ideal of nuclear has a lot going for it but the reality is much more expensive than any other power generation. We need to let it go: revisit if research points to an order of magnitude cost reduction or if fusion becomes practical

      • BronzedBonobo@midwest.socialEnglish
        85·
        10 months ago

        Can we define “expense”? I consider the loss of public lands extremely expensive. As well as the care and feeding of the carbon based plants required to operate so the base load is maintained. I don’t know numbers, but wouldn’t such an expanse of new solar install demand huge maintenace costs - in areas increasingly prone to natural disaster?

        • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          10 months ago

          Doubt it. Solar has no moving parts, nothing has to feed it. It just works. Given the massive repetition, when something breaks, it should usually have very little impact, very little administrative overhead, no risk of making the land unusable, and the repair person should be much less expensive than someone working nuclear

          The article doesn’t say much about the land except “away from sensitive areas” and a fraction of that used by oil and gas.

    • angelsomething@lemmy.oneEnglish
      83·
      10 months ago

      Nuclear would be best I agree, but it takes 20+year to build a station and by the time it’s online, it’s already obsolete. Plus the whole nuclear waste issue. I’ve been hearing about thorium rectors for the past 25yrs and they’re still not building them. The biggest concern with renewables right now is grid integration.

      • BronzedBonobo@midwest.socialEnglish
        44·
        10 months ago

        Sorry, but I’m curious about a few statements here. In what way is a reactor obsolete? And how does whatever degree of obsolescence compare with solar grids that are still undergoing massive innovation- isn’t anything we build today obsolete tomorrow? Do SMRs really take 20+ years to build?

        Nuclear waste “issue” must be compared to electronic waste “issue” - with total cost of ownership calcs of rare earth mining and discarding batteries on a regular basis.

        And yes, of that doesn’t address the main concern which is grid integration and base load sustainment.

      • HorseWithNoName@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        10 months ago

        There’s a station in Orange County they just shut down after it sat there unused for however many years. They already bury nuclear waste in the Arizona desert, they can’t act like that’s somehow off limits when they’re willing to destroy the rest of the desert with solar panels, wind farms, and lithium mines. It’s bullshit that the American desert is viewed as being empty and without value, unless it’s pretty enough to charge tourists and entry fee. There’s zero excuse for destroying what little we have left of our open land in the US. It will be completely gone before we even have time to realize it.

        Why are these solar panels not going on top of buildings? On parking lots and parking garages? We never seem to have a problem finding more room for those? I know the answer is that it will cost more and they would need some kind of rights from the property owners. That’s still not an excuse to destroy the land, the ecosystems, and the species that live there. It’s fucking disgusting, soulless, and short sighted. Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave.