I begin to see the picture better. Large solar farms can greatly impact the location. Residential rooftops are a much better route to go. For my own home I would have to chop the top off of a mighty tall Pine tree growing in the back yard, in order to get any reasonable amount of sunlight to hit the roof. I am in a city and their are very few big trees in my neighbourhood. This would impact the mini-forest environment I have created in the back yard.
Please, NIMBY hits pretty close to home for me.
It's got me thinking.

Neotoma wrote: "Deserts are defined by their amount of rainfall, not species."

Cute platitude. What else is new?

Neotoma wrote: "A rare desert species can be far more delicate than a rainforest species just based on its recovery time."

Cute platitude. What else is new?

I gave a SPECIFIC example of an Australian tropical rainforest species, the Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat, which is endangered by a non-native plant species that's crowding out the native 'ice cream' species. I want to be crystal-clear about what I'm asking. I have played the NAME-ONE CARD with respect to a SPECIFIC example of an Outback species that would be endangered by the construction and operation of ONE solar-thermal facility in a reasonable location. I've even given a specific example of an UNreasonable location. I'm NOT talking about paving over the entire Simpson Desert. You have not answered my question.

Neotoma wrote: "The cliche that deserts are wastelands reflects a cultural bias that is not ethical or scientific IMO..."

Since that line is in response to something that I've written, I'm counting it as a straw man argument. That's not what I said, or even suggested. Putting words into the mouths of those with whom you disagree is neither ethical nor scientific IMO...

I wrote: "Can any participant in this discussion thread name even one species that would be endangered by the construction and use of one solar-thermal facility in a reasonable location in Australia's huge Outback?"

Neotoma wrote: "Again, why does this have to be the deciding factor? If there is a better way, why destroy any habitat? Just because a species won't go extinct from a large project, does that make it ethical to destroy 5,000 acres and kill many individual native plants and animals just because it does not eradicate the whole species? The better ways are always there. (Old agricultural fields, rooftops,etc. etc. we've all covered that)."

Neotoma's response is short on specifics. In Neotoma's non-context, "habitat" is essentially a buzzword that has precious little meaning. We've found life in almost every imaginable place on or near the Earth's surface: deep within granite, and even in nuclear reactor coolant water (the bacterium, radiodurans). All of these things are "habitats". Here's another: The human armpit is prime "habitat" for certain microscopic beasties.

According to Neotoma's logic, it may be unethical to quarry granite, to decommission an old nuclear reactor, or even to bathe. Why? Because such actions would destroy "habitat".

The "Old agricultural fields" that Neotoma mentions are also "habitats", because they are usually teeming with weeds and other life forms. Don't you dare put your solar-thermal facility there!

My point? Not all "habitats" are created equal. We want to protect some "habitats", for several reasons. First because they are essential to certain endangered species that aren't found anywhere else. Example. The Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat that I mentioned earlier is currently limited to less than 2 square miles of real habitat in a tropical rainforest in Queensland. That would be an extremely poor location to put most types of infrastructure projects.

A second type of "habitat" has special scenic beauty. Neotoma likes deserts; I like Alpine timberline country. The decisions about which scenic "habitats" to lock up in national parks and wilderness areas are political in nature.

A third category of "habitat" that's worth preserving has nothing to do with endangered species on the verge of extinction, and little to do with unique scenery. I'm talking about the fish and game "habitats" that are relished by hunters and fishermen. If you want a real taste of Nature, kill it and grill it!

The fourth through sixth categories of "habitat" are farm land, range land, and generic forest land. We want to protect these categories from erosion and from invasive non-native weeds, among other things.

A seventh category of "habitat" is one that has a NEGATIVE value to society. In order to protect ourselves from certain infectious diseases carried by mosquitoes, we need to destroy some mosquito habitats near urban areas. We're not the least bit apologetic about that. And how about termite "habitats" in older houses?

We're big boys and girls now. We as a society need to make grown-up decisions about land use. Labeling a piece of land as "habitat" adds zilch to the discussions. Why? Because ALL land is "habitat". Some "habitats" will be altered as a consequence of land-use decisions. That will usually be displeasing to some people, and pleasing to others. That's life.

While we're at it, we should remember the old Vulcan saying: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In particular, land-use decisions should NOT be determined by the developer who 'donates' the most money to political campaigns, or by the local Neanderthal who screams the loudest.

Typical. If you don't agree with Larry, you are a shill for the coal industry. This is right out of T-Boone Pickens propaganda.

Which group is funded by the coal industry? VERY ignorant!