It's mentioned in the article:

>In a 2020 study, researchers found that implausibly large solar farms, taking up more than 1 million square kilometers in the Sahara desert, could boost local rainfall and cause vegetation to flourish. But the bounty would come with a cost, the researchers found: By altering wind patterns, the solar farms would push tropical rain bands north. “If you push those northward, that’s not good news for the Amazon,” says Zhengyao Lu, a climate scientist at Lund University and lead author of the 2020 study.

I wondered if that would be the case. If rain is falling in the desert where it previously didn't, that means rain is not falling elsewhere it previously did.

Presumably if you can divert rainfall at sea to be rainfall on land then that's better?

As the planet warms, don't we get more rain? (Because there's more evaporation?)

I'll bet there's some reason that'd be bad too.

I was thinking the water eventually, mostly, makes it to the sea in any case. But, it probably reduces oxygenation of surface water (?) and maybe increases levels of chemical transfer from land to sea? I wouldn't expect either of those to be significant though.

Any thoughts on other possible effects, or is it just a general 'it's probably shit in a way we don't realise' feeling?

Why would you assume this must be a good thing and couldn't possibly have any negative effects?

Really it is the environmentalists who will use the environmental impact study process as an opportunity to sue, and stop everything. This is what's halted many green energy projects.

Easy: it would make the desert a little bit less inhospitable, and it would make the average person a little bit less in shame of the environmental havoc they cause. Both things would beget more humans on the planet, which would be bad for the (the part of the) environment (not directly connected to humans).