The recent demolishing of another Solar Farm, this time in Texas, means the meteorological community, if they had a lick of objectivity, should be pushing for temperature sensors as a requirement for the solar farms. This illustration:
From a Twitter handle, True Science illustrates precisely the concern: We are creating a version of Heat Island on steroids with absolutely no regard for the impact. Have studies been done? They can’t be complete since the sample size has been so small. Yet it makes sense that if you want to replace the natural environment with an artificial one, there are going to be consequences.
It is akin to rushing forward with a vax with no long-term study or proof. There are going to be unintended (or perhaps, in this case, intended, since these things increase warming) consequences. See yet another COVID/ Climate link.
I propose that it be REQUIRED that weather stations be established at a height of 6 feet above the paneling to find out exactly what is going on with these. In an effort to “save the environment”, it is entirely possible such large farms are harming it, or at the very least, the area that was once likely home to some form of vegetation and wildlife, if not an entire field of crops is being disrupted if not destroyed.
I recently went by car to Kansas City for the NCAA wrestling tournament and was alarmed at the number of open spaces paved over with panels. Why not just plant trees, given that each tree gets rid of 50 lbs of CO2? Trees have a cooling, not warming, effect. It’s the opposite of what these large farms do.
I don’t care what your stance on CO2 is, paving over large areas of what was open land subject to whatever nature had to provide and replacing it with what are urban heat islands on steroids IN RURAL AREAS is not being a good steward of the environment. It contributes extra warmth and is likely a magnet for enhanced severe weather. And I have to wonder if that is an intentional side effect. Of course, severe weather chasers may be dancing in the streets, but one has to wonder what is going to happen if insurance companies pick up on what might go on, that the very thing they are insuring these places from acts to increase the frequency of that occurrence.
One place we should never put these solar farms is anywhere near airports, given how they can impact the area. Airports with all their concrete now do so, but changing vertical velocity patterns on runway approaches is an invitation for problems.
Has anyone even done an environmental impact study on all this? If so, why is the lack of sensors and data-gathering instruments on these farms, not a major issue?
As if we don’t have enough problems, we have people creating ways to fix a problem that isn’t there and, by doing so, creating problems. Where have we seen that before?
I am not anti anti-solar panel. I like the idea of putting them on houses, for instance, as it empowers the individual to use that source of energy and cut down on his bills. And if you want to say you are lowering your carbon footprint, have at it.
But it’s another case, like my whole geothermal argument, where there is an avoidance of gathering data needed to see exactly what is going on. By ignoring that, it gives them a way to plausibly deny (where have we heard that?) the source region of the real problem. And it is all because of a phony climate war.