3 ms·

Really though solar is not being used anywhere near its potential. And I don’t think there is any serious-omg-danger being posed by someone pointing that out on

by natch 8y ago

Really though solar is not being used anywhere near its potential. And I don’t think there is any serious-omg-danger being posed by someone pointing that out on an internet discussion board. It seems to me they were just opining that a great solution already exists. For there to be an actual opportunity cost, the entire world would have to take that one comment as gospel. There’s really no danger of that. The marketplace will ensure that plenty of solutions compete, including some bogus ones with real problems alongside the good ones.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
It’s potential isn’t really relevant at all, because there’s better ROI in just about any other form of renewable. The argument put forth in the parent comment already has been very damaging, and can’t simply be dismissed. It’s a fact that many governments around the world have wasted a lot of money on subsidising personal solar installations, money that could have been better spend on just about any other renewable initiative. It’s another fact that many environmentalists are against, and some lobby very firmly against, nuclear energy (there are even those environmentalists who are against wind), a position very strongly bolstered by ideas like solar is “more than enough”. If you put your energy into promoting a bad solution, the best case outcome is that you get a bad solution. You also can’t rely on market forces here because of how regulated energy markets are, and how much politics plays into it. There’s plenty of political will behind solar, and plenty against nuclear. Market forces aren’t going to influence that.
- natch 8y ago
  You use a lot of words, but solar is simply not a “bad solution” as you suggest. It’s working great for a lot of cases. And nobody is saying it has to be the only solution.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    >nobody is saying it has to be the only solution. As long as the alternatives aren’t wind, or hydro, or geothermal, or nuclear. Because all of those are supposedly bad for the environment in one way or another. The original commenter outright said that solar was “more than enough” to meet energy demands, as a way of dismissing consideration for nuclear (a solution which actually can). Environmentalists do a terrible job of marketing their message, to a public that is already largely apathetic. The original commenter would rather you not consider realistic solutions, because you can achieve the same outcome with a massive capital outlay, and a major lifestyle adjustment. How out of touch do you have to be to expect that this is a solution that would be acceptable to the average consumer? And you can’t say that ‘nobody is saying’ that, because that’s exactly what the parent comment said.
    - natch 8y ago
      >How out of touch do you have to be to expect OK, this is not a constructive dialog.
- taneq 8y ago
  > there’s better ROI in just about any other form of renewable What? There really isn't. Solar power is less than $1/watt, basically maintenance free, can be directly used or stored in batteries, and (if you're using rooftop solar) requires almost no additional infrastructure or land usage. What other renewables are better than this?
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    As you can see from my comment history I'm pretty bullish on solar. I think he's right about personal (rooftop) solar. Utility scale solar is about $1/watt, installed, in the US. Residential rooftop is more than $3/watt, installed, for retrofits. Up until now most rooftop systems have been retrofitted instead of built with the house. Retrofit or not, rooftop systems can't use sun trackers like utility scale systems. Rooftops also tend to be less optimized for insolation than solar fields. So the annual-energy-per dollar gap is even wider than the installed-watts-per-dollar gap. If I had to decide how to allocate a billion dollars between utility-scale and rooftop solar systems, I'd put 100% into utility-scale. I'll be more optimistic about rooftop systems if the US can get installed costs down. Not requiring any additional land is nice. But the US has too much open space and too high costs for rooftop installation for rooftop PV to be a cost-effective decarbonization method at present.

by natch 8y ago

AmericanChopper 8y ago

It’s potential isn’t really relevant at all, because there’s better ROI in just about any other form of renewable. The argument put forth in the parent comment already has been very damaging, and can’t simply be dismissed. It’s a fact that many governments around the world have wasted a lot of money on subsidising personal solar installations, money that could have been better spend on just about any other renewable initiative. It’s another fact that many environmentalists are against, and some lobby very firmly against, nuclear energy (there are even those environmentalists who are against wind), a position very strongly bolstered by ideas like solar is “more than enough”. If you put your energy into promoting a bad solution, the best case outcome is that you get a bad solution. You also can’t rely on market forces here because of how regulated energy markets are, and how much politics plays into it. There’s plenty of political will behind solar, and plenty against nuclear. Market forces aren’t going to influence that.

natch 8y ago
You use a lot of words, but solar is simply not a “bad solution” as you suggest. It’s working great for a lot of cases. And nobody is saying it has to be the only solution.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  >nobody is saying it has to be the only solution. As long as the alternatives aren’t wind, or hydro, or geothermal, or nuclear. Because all of those are supposedly bad for the environment in one way or another. The original commenter outright said that solar was “more than enough” to meet energy demands, as a way of dismissing consideration for nuclear (a solution which actually can). Environmentalists do a terrible job of marketing their message, to a public that is already largely apathetic. The original commenter would rather you not consider realistic solutions, because you can achieve the same outcome with a massive capital outlay, and a major lifestyle adjustment. How out of touch do you have to be to expect that this is a solution that would be acceptable to the average consumer? And you can’t say that ‘nobody is saying’ that, because that’s exactly what the parent comment said.
  - natch 8y ago
    >How out of touch do you have to be to expect OK, this is not a constructive dialog.
taneq 8y ago
> there’s better ROI in just about any other form of renewable What? There really isn't. Solar power is less than $1/watt, basically maintenance free, can be directly used or stored in batteries, and (if you're using rooftop solar) requires almost no additional infrastructure or land usage. What other renewables are better than this?
- philipkglass 8y ago
  As you can see from my comment history I'm pretty bullish on solar. I think he's right about personal (rooftop) solar. Utility scale solar is about $1/watt, installed, in the US. Residential rooftop is more than $3/watt, installed, for retrofits. Up until now most rooftop systems have been retrofitted instead of built with the house. Retrofit or not, rooftop systems can't use sun trackers like utility scale systems. Rooftops also tend to be less optimized for insolation than solar fields. So the annual-energy-per dollar gap is even wider than the installed-watts-per-dollar gap. If I had to decide how to allocate a billion dollars between utility-scale and rooftop solar systems, I'd put 100% into utility-scale. I'll be more optimistic about rooftop systems if the US can get installed costs down. Not requiring any additional land is nice. But the US has too much open space and too high costs for rooftop installation for rooftop PV to be a cost-effective decarbonization method at present.