US: County by county, solar panels face pushback

[rcjordan]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/county-county-solar-panels-face-pushback-rcna16233

[ergophobe]

>>scenic views

Often when people say they love "nature" they mean "scenery." Many don't know the difference. And sometimes there is a sort of trolley problem choice.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2020/01/03/solar-surges-california-desert-environment-trump/2665799001/

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/san-bernardino-county-bans-large-scale-solar-wind-in-some-areas/

Some of this is legitimate concern for sensitive habitat. Some of it is sensible - put panels closer to the point of use on roofs, parking lots, canals and reservoirs.

But some of it is just NIMBY - I'd rather have someone in Montana or WV live by a strip mine than have to live by a solar plant myself.

"Everyone here is in favour of green energy," O'Brien said. But that support has its limits. When he learned of plans to build a giant solar farm next door to his property — the kind of project that would help meet the state's clean energy goals — O'Brien decided he had to fight it. It was exactly the sort of thing that would spoil the rural landscape that he says should be protected by a local anti-development measure. "It would be a sea of glass," said O'Brien. "It disturbs the environment."

"Anyone who understands the scale of the climate crisis knowns we need to go faster and we need to build at a much larger scale," said Carlo De La Cruz, a deputy regional director for the Sierra Club, which supports the Aramis project.

On the third hand (same article)

To meet its goal of a carbon-neutral grid by 2045, California will need to triple its annual solar and wind installations, according to a recent state study. That means the state may need to develop as much as 3.1 million acres — almost as large as the state of Connecticut — for solar and wind projects by the middle of the century, according to a different report by the Nature Conservancy.

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/renewables/california-nimbys-threaten-bidens-clean-energy-goals

[ergophobe]

One irony here, by the way, is that San Bernardino has the worst air quality in all of California

http://www.seecalifornia.com/counties/california-counties-ozone-levels.html

They have more red and purple days than anywhere else and the highest weighted average. 135 days per year, their air is considered Unhealthy or Very Unhealthy. A whopping 236 days per year their air is "Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups" or worse.**

That's sort of what I meant about the trolley problem and nature vs scenery. They *see* the solar plant, but the *breathe* the air. The solar plant that allows LA residents to drive more electric cars will increase the health and lifespan of people in San Bernardino.


**One further irony - the reason I know how to find these numbers is because when we have fires and the air here is USG, we often have people from the LA/Riverside/San Bernardino area who want to cancel their trips because of the smoke. I say, "Well, you have 236 days per year this bad at home." They are typically unswayed. One person said, "Yes, but we stay indoors when it's like that." There's some serious cognitive dissonance.