oh Lord I grew up around there; those woodlands are really important to the local ecosystem.
(the never turned on nuclear plant itself was a debacle of the 11th magnitude)
Destroy nature to save it :rolleyes:
I vote for the trees.
"Solar is very important to fight global warming and beyond, but I’m afraid we’re making false choices when you destroy portions of nature and the environment to accomplish that end.
Everything human life does uses land and interferes with nature, going back to the first cave people’s fire!
What this movement really wants is disingenuous IMO: they want to force everybody back to subsistence level so that Gaia can be happy.
The sooner they are shouted down the better. IMNAAHO.
It seems to make so much more sense to throw solar cells on rooftops - especially those of big box stores, office buildings, and malls. Distributing the cells around the community means less power loss to transmission than having one central site, not to mention the wasted land of solar fields.
It would also seem that the area is too far north and too cloudy for good ROI.
This was my first thought. I’m in PA and solar panels up here in the north barely produce enough juice to pay for themselves. If I remember correctly a system in our area would take like 15 years to get your money back out of it in savings. That doesn’t include the cost of any maintenance or the loss of interest on the initial money if you invested it somewhere else.
I would say let them go ahead and cut the trees, but in return they have to give up the government subsidizes. Which is basically the only money they plan on making to begin with.
If you want electricity … AND you don’t want to clear cut hundreds of acres of trees … then you need to go with a nuclear reactor.
The problem is that in many locations, the LAW mandates the use of solar and wind power.
So, you MUST cut down the trees.
You COULD use a gas turbine, which many communities are doing.
BUT, for that you would need large amounts of natural gas. And for natural gas, you need to use fracking.
OR, you could use coal … to generate steam … to run through a steam turbine.
And lots of communities have coal to sell.
Or, you could use oil to heat water to make steam. But oil needs to be refined first. And to refine oil requires a complex refinery.
OR, you could use a wind turbine. If you have the right wind conditions.
OR, you could use hydro … but most of those sites are already being used.
So, is it trees or no trees.
Seriously, study nuclear power. It has the highest energy density. And doesn’t generate carbon dioxide. Politically incorrect.
As with any energy source, you need to learn how it works.
Shoreham plant (the site they wish to use) is a nuclear plant; it never got turned on. :rolleyes:
The proposed location for the solar project is at the “former” Shoreham nuclear power plant. It was built at a cost of $6 billion, but the governor of New York decided it was too risky and refused to allow it to operate. So before it generated any electricity, it was shut down and disassembled.
So now some people want to cut down 350 acres of trees at the Shoreham location and use solar to generate 72 megawatts of electricity.
If the Shoreham nuclear plant had been allowed to operate, it would have generated 820 megawatts, with NO cutting of trees.
So, they gave in to fear.
That was Governor Cuomo … the father of the present Governor Cuomo.
The electricity was already paid for.
This video is worth a look. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) released the following footage showing flying birds and insects incinerated by the intense heat near the solar towers of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Facility.
Ivanpah killed 6,185 birds in 2015, including about 1,145 that were burned up in the solar flux.
Ivanpah has also been known to blind airline pilots flying over Southern California’s desert.
Bad design, to not anticipate a focal point in the flight lanes.
I didn’t know the USGS kept track of birds?
The design of the Ivanpah solar facility is very unusual, and the question of wildlife mortality needs to be taken into account before such a design is approved more widely. However, I do not see how it is relevant to the discussion of a solar plant at the Shoreham since the design of the solar plant is not the same.