Reducing algae growth makes sense for canals. Would this be a desirable outcome if we were placing panels on, say, a body of water behind a dam (at a safe distance, and contained). Are there ecological impacts of reducing algae growth?
Unfortunately I suspect this idea is somewhat dead-on-arrival… anti-renewable people will fight it for obvious reasons, while environmentalists will fight it due to concerns over shading the waterways.
What's the fallacy called where you oppose something based on the fact that it has impact on something, not realising that the alternative is is even worse?
I see people talk about how ugly solar panels make mountainsides, but when I ask "would you prefer a coal factory there instead?" nobody would.
> The Nexus project, a 1.6 MW solar installation on the canals of the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) in California, is now complete and operational. The $20 million state-funded pilot is presented as a model for agricultural regions affected by water stress.
It's the web, follow the links to related pages and you usually find more information.
I see people talk about how ugly solar panels make mountainsides, but when I ask "would you prefer a coal factory there instead?" nobody would.
It's the web, follow the links to related pages and you usually find more information.