Desert land in India to host renewable energy park 5 times bigger than Paris

So the birds get chopped up by the wind turbines and land on the solar panels to get cooked?

Khavda Fried Chicken?

You guys are hilarious. Adani is one of the world's biggest crooks. He's also trying to decimate large swathes of Queensland in Australia for a eco-destroying coalmine. He is under investigation for a lot of crimes. This is just another BS scheme from the Indian equivalent of Musk.

kiwigraeme said:

Does anyone think Musk or Bezos really care.

Click to expand...

Evolution tells us we need to move forward. Thats exactly what Musk is doing. Building rockets to habitat another planet before we bust this one we're living on right now.

Either way - left or right - a solution for the ever growing human population has to come.

VaRmeNsI said:

So the birds get chopped up by the wind turbines and land on the solar panels to get cooked?

Khavda Fried Chicken?

Click to expand...

If it comes with curry spice, I will take it

"....cranking out enough juice to keep 16 million Indian homes switched on."

Click to expand...

Until the sun goes down.

Vanderlinde said:

Thats exactly what Musk is doing. Building rockets to habitat another planet before we bust this one we're living on ... a solution for the ever growing human population has to come.

Click to expand...

As much as I applaud Musk's space efforts, the fact remains that we could build every family on Earth a 4,000 sq. ft. two-story home, and site them all within the state of Texas, leaving the entire rest of the planet fully depopulated. As for "busting the planet", our food production has increased every year in the last 150, and looks to continue to do so for the foreseeable future; per-capita deaths for natural disasters are at the lowest point in human history. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Yet now, the same conglomerate is staking its future on sustainables through this unprecedented solar and wind installation.

Click to expand...

Because they have to; every energy company sees the writing on the wall, and knows they have to start backing renewables or they will be replaced over the next decade.

Endymio said:

As much as I applaud Musk's space efforts, the fact remains that we could build every family on Earth a 4,000 sq. ft. two-story home, and site them all within the state of Texas, leaving the entire rest of the planet fully depopulated. As for "busting the planet", our food production has increased every year in the last 150, and looks to continue to do so for the foreseeable future; per-capita deaths for natural disasters are at the lowest point in human history. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Click to expand...

Except you still have hundreds of millions who can't *afford* food. Nevermind the distribution side problems.

In addition, there are significant long-term issues that are going to pop up in the coming decades. For example: American farmland is starting to fail due in large part to the aquifers that feed them starting to come up empty; no one has a great way to replace that water. Indian farmland is suffering from significant overuse. And so on.

gamerk2 said:

For example: American farmland is starting to fail due in large part to the aquifers that feed them starting to come up empty; no one has a great way to replace that water. Indian farmland is suffering from significant overuse. And so on.

Click to expand...

This just isn't true at all. Food production in both the US and India continues to increase every year: more than 90% of the rain that falls on North America simply flows back into the ocean unused, and modern fertilizers made the entire concept of "overuse" of farmland a quaint 19th-century concept. And this is all without even considering techniques such as the 30+ desalination plants that Saudi Arabia operates.

I believe I first read the "farmland is starting to fail" trope in the late 1960s, though of course one can read similar reports from the '30s and '40s. In the 1960s, newspapers, magazines, even films were rife with predictions that "we'd all be starving to death" within 30 to 40 years. Yet today our largest health problem is obesity from overeating, and most industrial nations are facing severe problems with population decline, not growth.

Endymio said:

This just isn't true at all. Food production in both the US and India continues to increase every year: more than 90% of the rain that falls on North America simply flows back into the ocean unused, and modern fertilizers made the entire concept of "overuse" of farmland a quaint 19th-century concept. And this is all without even considering techniques such as the 30+ desalination plants that Saudi Arabia operates.

Click to expand...

You ignored the point entirely:

Most of the farmland in the midwest/south draws water primarily from aquifers. Those aquifers are provably starting to come up dry in some regions, which at least for now is only affecting smaller farms that can not afford to build access to alternative water sources, but it is a growing problem that is not getting better on the timespan of a few centuries. And increasing production only makes the problem worse.

gamerk2 said:

Most of the farmland in the midwest/south draws water primarily from aquifers. Those aquifers are provably starting to come up dry in some regions.

Click to expand...

a) If water scarcity was a problem, it would be affecting US crop production. Yet that production continues to rise each year.

b) Most farms use air-sprayed groundwater because it's cheap and convenient, even though that method wastes up to 2/3 of the water consumed. Simply switching to trickle-irrigation can triple the efficiency, even without considering alternate water sources such as canal irrigation.

c) On a per-food calorie produced basis, the US today grows food using 25% of the land and 60% of the water as it did in 1910. Increased food production does not necessitate increased water use. And despite our population more than tripling over that period, we actually use LESS land today for farming than we did then.

d) While some areas are experiencing less rainfall and aquifer shortfalls, others are seeing a net *increase*. Farmers can easily adapt to these changes by altering which crops they choose to grow. Currently, some water-scarce areas in California desert are growing high-water use crops such as sorghum, sugarcane, and even rice. Rice! Simply switching to crops that require little to no irrigation is an incredibly simple solution.

Vanderlinde said:

Evolution tells us we need to move forward. Thats exactly what Musk is doing. Building rockets to habitat another planet before we bust this one we're living on right now.

Either way - left or right - a solution for the ever growing human population has to come.

Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't say nothing, it's just a result.- Obviously if does say things, but it doesn't say we need to move forward, it's an abstract artifact of our reasoning.
Humans have only been around for a short time. Many living things out there that have been around for nearly 500 million years, pretty much unchanged.

Mars is FN way off, might as well built huge domes on earth one billion times more easier

Is far easier to keep earth clean , to lower CO2 , to build solar sun shades etc.
Terraforming Mars is 10000 year project at least

Even the most redneck farmer knows to look after the soil and water on their farm, they don't crap in their bed and move to Uranus to F that up.

You want to look after the earth;- educate women, reduce poverty, give women ownership of their sexual lives.

Whenever countries improve, birth-rates go down. Many westerns countries have declining birth-rates, only propped up by immigration.

Without a middle-class with autonomy you don't have security and happiness.

Rich people are getting terrified for their safety , their kids. Is that a win

Adani group may be THE biggest coal importer in the country but have you bifurcated the types between coking coal that is required in the steel industry and the other that is used by the power plants? At one time practically the entire lot of textile mills in Mumbai and Ahmedabad operated on in house coal fired boilers such that both the cities were blanketed by the low level coal dust clouds. FYI one of the group's power distribution utility Adani Electricity has its coal fired plant in Palghar. I pass by it in train at least 2 - 3 times every month. Not once have I seen any kind of pollution cloud or even black smoke emanating from the smoke stack. Mr Gautam Adani certainly is a visionary and moving in the right direction. BTW we have huge network or railway. 10 years ago majority of them were used with diesel locomotives. Now almost 100% of the tracks are electrified. That requires massive amounts of electrical power. Unlike the f00l Biden we won't just move to EVs. Certainly not until we have developed sufficient capacity via the renewable route.

Our aim is to curtail use of imported oil that requires or rather required "petro-dollars" to pay for and US always dictated terms or certainly tried in ALL other areas by threats of sanctions. We want to get impervious to US$ and sanction threats and if possible completely move away from oil. Adani group is massively working in that direction.

pmshah said:

Adani group may be THE biggest coal importer in the country but have you bifurcated the types between coking coal that is required in the steel industry and the other that is used by the power plants? At one time practically the entire lot of textile mills in Mumbai and Ahmedabad operated on in house coal fired boilers such that both the cities were blanketed by the low level coal dust clouds. FYI one of the group's power distribution utility Adani Electricity has its coal fired plant in Palghar. I pass by it in train at least 2 - 3 times every month. Not once have I seen any kind of pollution cloud or even black smoke emanating from the smoke stack. Mr Gautam Adani certainly is a visionary and moving in the right direction. BTW we have huge network or railway. 10 years ago majority of them were used with diesel locomotives. Now almost 100% of the tracks are electrified. That requires massive amounts of electrical power. Unlike the f00l Biden we won't just move to EVs. Certainly not until we have developed sufficient capacity via the renewable route.

Our aim is to curtail use of imported oil that requires or rather required "petro-dollars" to pay for and US always dictated terms or certainly tried in ALL other areas by threats of sanctions. We want to get impervious to US$ and sanction threats and if possible completely move away from oil. Adani group is massively working in that direction.

Click to expand...

Yes definitely with high grade coal, and huge stacks/scrubbers/filters you can burn pretty clean.
Same as households using dry wood and lasted wood burners.

Gas fired is cleaner again, considering it was a waste product at oilfields to flare off.

Obviously we need to still lower the CO2 from combustion/oxidation . There are trials to directly limit this in such coal/gas power stations - eg finding porous materials that can store and hold CO2, or ways to separate it and pump into maybe the right type of underground rocks

So improving pollution is good, I think people forget how much crap old cars, buses, trucks, fires pumped out. You are better of smoking than living in some parts of Beijing for cost to life expectancy.

New renewables , new battery/capacitor tech will ramp up, they aren't perfect , we will overshoot what we need to keep under, but I think thereafter we can really get to removing the huge amount of CO2 that we need to over the next century . Trees take quite a while. algae, kelp farms quicker , but also with tech

kiwigraeme said:

Yes definitely with high grade coal, and huge stacks/scrubbers/filters you can burn pretty clean.
Same as households using dry wood and lasted wood burners.

Gas fired is cleaner again, considering it was a waste product at oilfields to flare off.

Obviously we need to still lower the CO2 from combustion/oxidation . There are trials to directly limit this in such coal/gas power stations - eg finding porous materials that can store and hold CO2, or ways to separate it and pump into maybe the right type of underground rocks

So improving pollution is good, I think people forget how much crap old cars, buses, trucks, fires pumped out. You are better of smoking than living in some parts of Beijing for cost to life expectancy.

New renewables , new battery/capacitor tech will ramp up, they aren't perfect , we will overshoot what we need to keep under, but I think thereafter we can really get to removing the huge amount of CO2 that we need to over the next century . Trees take quite a while. algae, kelp farms quicker , but also with tech

Click to expand...

The issue is also with the media. They always have an agenda they want to push. Do watch the recent BBC interview of the Guyanese PM. Guyana has tropical rain forest that is larger than the entire UK. In fact the forest cover actually needs CO2 for its sustenance to take carbon from it and N from the atmosphere in presence of sunlight.. I winder if they teach this in the US. The entire area that makes up NJ in the US was thick forest razed to turn into farms. If we continue to destroy the nature and god given automatic system to convert CO2 into O2 then who is to blame? There is finite amount of free oxygen in the environment. If we keep absorbing and burying all the CO2 generated from burning fossil fuel the humanity itself will choke to death due to disappearance of O2.

pmshah said:

If we continue to destroy the nature and god given automatic system to convert CO2 into O2 then who is to blame?

Click to expand...

Fun Fact. The US today is more heavily forested than it was a century ago (800M acres today vs. 721M in 1920). And, if one ignores just the two nations of Brazil and Indonesia, the world's forested area is increasing as well.

kiwigraeme said:

Is far easier to keep earth clean , to lower CO2 ... Even the most redneck farmer knows to look after the soil and water on their farm

Click to expand...

Post-industrial CO2 rise has, by even conservative estimates, increased world farm production by 15% -- some crops by 20%+. Current atmospheric CO2 levels stand at 400ppm, yet commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 to 1200ppm or more, to allow plants to grow better. Even "the most redneck farmers" understand what plants require to grow. The earth's total biomass -- the sum of all plants and animals alive -- has been on an upward swing for all of the last 150 years. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Endymio said:

Fun Fact. The US today is more heavily forested than it was a century ago (800M acres today vs. 721M in 1920). And, if one ignores just the two nations of Brazil and Indonesia, the world's forested area is increasing as well.


Post-industrial CO2 rise has, by even conservative estimates, increased world farm production by 15% -- some crops by 20%+. Current atmospheric CO2 levels stand at 400ppm, yet commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 to 1200ppm or more, to allow plants to grow better. Even "the most redneck farmers" understand what plants require to grow. The earth's total biomass -- the sum of all plants and animals alive -- has been on an upward swing for all of the last 150 years. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Click to expand...

Your usual cherry picked comments from dirty big business etc

Really dishonest cherry picking a few things, while ignoring what we see right now around us. Do you have any self respect , do you actually do any real research to check what you read?

Greenhouse plants, breed in a very kind environment is not the world.
Great to grow things that grow fast and pump out as much fruit as possible in a short term

Engage your brain, what grows the fastest, that's right weeds we all know that- yet you think we are dumb.

What temp does the leaves in the Amazon start dying - think from memory 47 degrees Celsius - they have lived in a very stable biome for a long time, with if's intricate canopies and water cycles

Increased CO2 s only great for certain plants, you generally get lower quality as a result, you want strong wood, it doesn't grow quick . All this is low level high school science. Again you think we are stupid on a tech site.

More forest coverage from 100 years ago, the usual big oil BS by selecting a low ebb start date . Remember when you and your ilk BS about the hockey stick warming , by cherry picking a start date . Remember with dishonest and dumb people claim it was all a lie the world 's getting warmer, and climate scientist were lying and massaging the data.

Remember not one of those useful *****s apologised they were lying spouting nonsense , now they are just like you now, spouting new crap

What is the quality of those "forests" are they counting monoculture plantations that don't support a diverse biome as well?

Again engage for brain, you talk about crop production. If crops loved heat the hottest parts of the world will be growing all the stables like tubers, wheat, corn, rice , beans etc

Go and learn some science , before spouting nonsense on a tech site , treating us like we are dumb . Really mate it's so cringey and embarrassing

There are stories every month how grapes ,apples. wheat , fruit are being phased out of certain climes and into others more south/north if possible.
That ignores unique biomes on places' like Kilimanjaro , that can't move when it hits the top

People like you don't want the facts , you just want to lead your comfortable live, with no sacrifices , for plants , animals, your grandchildren , or other people in the world.

MAGA whining about migrants at the moment , wait to climate change really kicks in in say Africa.
heat and cold use to kill about evenly , now heat will take over big time, more insects , more disease, more floods, more droughts - Floods kill crops 100% and take top soil , and better not hope for high tides with salinity.

How do you think babies and the old handle the death zone , temps over 50 degrees Celsius , or 40 with 100% humidity

Oh CO2 is great for highly selected plants in a protected greenhouse , with all the nutrients and water they need . CO2 is great for greening the earth with fast growing weeds

Wow great news big coal keep on spewing out CO2 then , we don't need thick arctic ice , and my child would love some mammoth bones found in the taiga permafrost

Back on topic please and quit the personal comments. Thank you.

To bring this back around to renewable energy, I'll note one of the great environmental ironies of the past half-century: the success of the radical environmentalist movement in killing off clean, abundant, renewable, carbon-free nuclear power. By nearly wiping out the nuclear industry, environmentalists assured another 60+ years of coal-fired power, a source that not only emits by far the largest amount of CO2 per KW-hr, but actually releases *more* radioactivity into the atmosphere than do nuclear plants.

Lord Marshall of Goring, head of the UK's Central Electric Generating Board, once gave a press conference where he announced that the day before, one of Britain's power plants had released two kg of radioactive uranium into the air, and in fact had been releasing that same amount daily for many years. When the shocked audience demanded to know which plant was involved, he named Drax Power Station: the nation's largest coal-fired plant. The uranium was that found naturally in the coal.

Endymio said:

To bring this back around to renewable energy, I'll note one of the great environmental ironies of the past half-century: the success of the radical environmentalist movement in killing off clean, abundant, renewable, carbon-free nuclear power. By nearly wiping out the nuclear industry, environmentalists assured another 60+ years of coal-fired power, a source that not only emits by far the largest amount of CO2 per KW-hr, but actually releases *more* radioactivity into the atmosphere than do nuclear plants.

Lord Marshall of Goring, head of the UK's Central Electric Generating Board, once gave a press conference where he announced that the day before, one of Britain's power plants had released two kg of radioactive uranium into the air, and in fact had been releasing that same amount daily for many years. When the shocked audience demanded to know which plant was involved, he named Drax Power Station: the nation's largest coal-fired plant. The uranium was that found naturally in the coal.

Click to expand...

Yes and radiation is in the ocean , it's always been around . Interesting facts, But that didn't stop huge leaks from lots of nuclear power stations in accidents , including many in the former USSR , that were covered up . There is radiation and radiation , not all is equal , that from watches that glow in the dark ( radium ? ) vs some isotope of plutonium- Iran is not going to make dirty bomb from coal . Coal has had greater problems than that as alluded to above.


If we started down more the nuclear road in 1960s when climate change was known about, Nixon was told , we would be better off.

Nuclear Fission is not a short term answer, unless some of the newer tech comes on line.
Ie the energy to build a new nuclear power station is enormous creating a lot of CO2 . huge amounts of concrete etc . also the take a long time to build. Not sure how the new one in the States is going, but came on line last year? after massive costs overruns .

As stated we need renewables, but that is only one prong , we have had not so trivial 1.5 degree warming since the industrial age , that has caused huge spikes and variations around the world . New records are happening all the time.

I would like to see investment in small nuclear facilities with the new designs , but we need to do effective taxing on conspicuous consumption ,not carbon tax on basic foods, people need and a punishment on the poor

We need more govt regulations, as easy gains to be made eg slowing shipping speeds by 10%
We need active tech to remove CO2 as well was more traditional like trees.

We need less energy in the production chain - this happens already as a profit motive , ege less energy used , heat recapture etc

Plus countries need to up their infrastructure to mitigate floods and drought etc

Plus more R&D in renewables of all types

Most of us will be dead in 50 years , but we can help this green/blue planet and those who come after us .

Most of the change is at the govt level.

We are already benefitting , with cleaner city air , from better ICE cars and EVs etc

VaRmeNsI said:

So the birds get chopped up by the wind turbines and land on the solar panels to get cooked?

Khavda Fried Chicken?

Click to expand...

Modern wind turbines have gigantic blades much too long/big for any bird on earth.

vincentyu said:

Modern wind turbines have gigantic blades much too long/big for any bird on earth.

Click to expand...

Eh? There's no maximum size at which point turbine blades become magically immune to bird strikes. Per MW-hr generated, larger turbines kill fewer birds than smaller ones, but still several hundred thousand birds are killed annually.

Endymio said:

Eh? There's no maximum size at which point turbine blades become magically immune to bird strikes. Per MW-hr generated, larger turbines kill fewer birds than smaller ones, but still several hundred thousand birds are killed annually.

Click to expand...

This isn't great, but much less that building strikes
Birds can tolerate heat, quite well,but in the last few years many dying in heat strokes


So anything to reduce CO2 emissions is a net plus for birds, wild dogs, coral, fish etc