[rurp]

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

This is categorically false. Solar panels actually increase the ambient temperature in the area [0]. Directly under a panel will be cooler, but those areas are 1. Heavily disturbed, with most the native plants an animals destroyed on installation and 2. Small compared to the total affected area.

Solar fields take up a large amount of space and installing a new one involves damaging a lot of native landscape.

Despite the drawbacks I think that solar is usually quite a bit better on net than the energy it's replacing, but we should still be clear about the costs and drawbacks.

[0]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070

[barathr]

In this case the ecosystem in question has even less in the way of native plants and animals (to my understanding) than the semi-arid American Southwest landscapes usually examined in research papers on the topic. But yes the general point holds that a cost-benefit analysis is worthwhile, though here it likely is quite net-good.

[rurp]

I happen to spend a lot of time in desert areas that have seen a lot of solar development in recent years and the places I am familiar with are anything but desolate; generally they are teeming with native flora and fauna. Unfortunately solar development has been harmful to these regions.

That said, developing solar has significant benefits to other regions. Mining and burning more coal or other legacy power source does even greater damage to different areas so I get it, solar isn't something we should block reflexively. But there are still costs and tradeoffs to consider, and plenty of room to improve as we transition off of fossil fuels.