[h0l0cube]

> Putting solar panels in the desert is good for the environment

Instead of altering unique grassland and desert ecosystems, and displacing nomadic tribes, the better option for 'the environment' and its peoples would be to build nuclear power plants.

[desro]

You're not wrong, and I'm as pro-nuclear as it gets (would love to see moonshot-scale projects to fully nuclearize as much of the globe as possible), but... we can have both.

If large scale solar deployments in the sunniest, most hostile parts of the planet are available sooner than our nuclear dreams could come true, then I say hurrah.

[h0l0cube]

> most hostile parts of the planet

It seems like you missed the point of my comment, and maybe didn’t read the article very closely. Whether one leans towards conservation of culture and ecology or not, it’s fair to say that reducing land use is important for said conservation. Even if you don’t hold such concerns, that doesn’t change the validity of the argument.

[konfusinomicon]

nuclearize the moon! Tether it with a giant space cable, made of sustainable materials of course. then watch all the pro mooninite folks come out of the woodwork and defend the hunting grounds of the moon master and his inalienable(pun intended) rights to all things moon.

[unity1001]

Deserts and nomadism are romantic in literature and movies only.

In real life, deserts grow.

https://www.google.com/search?q=desertification&oq=desertifi...

Desertification destroys formerly fertile ecosystems. People die. The few extra-adapted species and the few people that remain are not an argument for protecting deserts.

[h0l0cube]

> Deserts and nomadism are romantic in literature and movies only

The inhabitants of the land defend their way of life, which is more an existential concern for their culture, not so much romanticism. From TFA:

> Salime says “8,000 villagers lost their access to collective pastures,” as well as sources of water, firewood, and traditional herbal medicines. There was “widespread disappointment” at the community benefits from the project, concluded Boris Schinke at Germanwatch, a Bonn-based nonprofit watchdog on environment and development issues.

> One is near Chbika, a small coastal resort close to the city of Tan-Tan, where the submarine cables from the U.K. will reach land. This is not empty desert. The area is inhabited by Regeibat and Tekna nomads who traditionally range across wide areas of the Sahara seeking pastures for their sheep and camels.

> Atman Aoui, president of the Moroccan Association for Mediation, an NGO, sees large renewable projects such as the Noor solar park as part of a wider attempt to take control of desert regions that have previously been the domain of tribal groups.

As for deserts, they aren't all lifeless places. They have ecosystems and endemic species of there own. Once again, from TFA:

> Tunisia is developing two schemes – the TuNur and Elmed projects — that aim to send power to Malta and Italy from solar complexes near the oasis town of Rjim Maatoug in southwest Tunisia. The area to be annexed is rich in salt-tolerant desert shrubs such as traganum and ephedra and is close to the largest salt pan in the Sahara, the Chott el Jerid.

Of course, whether you (or anyone else in particular) cares or not is a matter of subjectivity. But from a conservation stand-point (ecologically and culturally) these don't seem like good outcomes.

[unity1001]

> The inhabitants of the land defend their way of life

There always are people who defend their existing way of life, regardless of anything. Even slavers defended their way of life. There being people sticking to their nomadic way of life of scarcity and hardship in the desert does not justify having millions of people regularly die on the other end of the desertification caused by that desert.

[h0l0cube]

> millions of people regularly die on the other end of the desertification caused by that desert

This is speculation, not argument. Regardless, also in the article you’ll find how solar farms are cordoned off areas, razed clear of vegetation, and impassable by anyone, while using up water reserves used by inhabitants. Even by some consequentialist end-justify-the-means argument, the ends don’t look good for the people living off that land. Once again, you might not care about that, but that’s not my point

[ajsnigrutin]

> would be to build nuclear power plants.

...which also give power at night, which is a must!

...but: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/500/574/f4e...

edit: I know that this is some political compass meme, but i know way too many real-life people who are into green everything, but are afraid of nuclear.

[h0l0cube]

It's a little unfair categorization of why people are averse to nuclear energy. It really doesn't help that both government controlled and commercial operations have traded-off costs for safety leading to high-profile incidents. Nuclear energy has robust and passive fail-safes, like MSR designs, but it has a branding issue, and that's thanks to misincentives for cost-cutting on critical systems. New nuclear has to provide better assurances to the public, and how it does that, I'm not so sure.

[mohamedattahri]

Nuclear power plants are great, but you need to maintain an energy mix that doesn't make you dependent on a single source.

Consider the French nuclear infrastructure; by Sept 22, 32 of 56 reactors were off for maintenance or technical problems. Several reactors were affected by a welding issue that created cracks and made them inoperable.

Edit: typo.

[hkt]

There's also the small matter of fuel. France sources most of its uranium from Niger. You can bet nobody is getting French standards of pay, healthcare, holiday, or pensions in those mines.

[yodsanklai]

This argument applies to pretty much all sources of energy. Resources needed to build solar panels also don't come from France. And good luck to build those without relying on fossil fuel.

Regarding nuclear, the next generation of power plants could operate with uranium-238 which is very abundant.