4 ms·

In a big fan of solar energy, the idea that I can power my whole life with sunlight is great. But I do wonder, is anyone championing solar as a solution to env

In a big fan of solar energy, the idea that I can power my whole life with sunlight is great. But I do wonder, is anyone championing solar as a solution to environmental damage actually taking stock of the impact? With oil and gas, you drill a little hole in the ground. Once it is burned, it is in the air, mostly short lived pollutants, besides carbon dioxide, which can be sequestered and even turned into food by plants. With solar (and the batteries needed to store energy), you've got pit mines, heavy metals in local water, all sorts of toxic byproducts of production, and then the production is dependent on surface area. I do think climate change has sucked all the air out of the room with regard to the environmental movement and not enough is being done to fight all these other negative impacting behaviors, and I wonder if we aren't in at least as bad a boat with solar and batteries.

satya71 5y ago
You can’t just burn the oil. You have to build the engines, turbines, exhaust. It’s not clear cursorily that mining for making panels and batteries is worse than fossil power.
perl4ever 5y ago
Global problems are more of a priority than local problems. Electronics are and will be produced anyway, even if we didn't pursue solar.
dieortin 5y ago
Unless you cut those plants that sequestered CO2 and bury them very deep, the CO2 will eventually be released again. We introduced a ton of extra carbon to the cycle, and taking it out isn’t easy.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Well, it gets sequestered into the process and spends most of it's time as biomass. Keep in mind, every ounce of that carbon was once part of the carbon cycle on earth that was sequestered due to tectonic forces.
nine_k 5y ago
Oil would run out within decades. We can safely assume the presence of solar energy for the next million years. Solar panels take land. But there is a lot of desert and semi-desert land which has perfect insolation, like 350 days of unrestricted sunshine per year. The energy produced there could be used to produce freshwater from nearby seas. The shadow afforded by the panels could help host some sustainable vegetation. The dangerous chemicals can be, with the help of plentiful energy, transformed to more benign chemicals, or recycled. As long as solar panels and wind turbines produce significantly more energy in their lifetime than it takes to construct them, they can pay off their own externalities.
ericd 5y ago
Cost/energy efficient carbon sequestration is extremely far from a solved problem.
adrianN 5y ago
With oil you have the occasional catastrophe where you poison a whole gulf, and leaky pipelines. Not to mention the massive damage caused by the extraction from tar sands. With coal you have open pit mining for lignite like here in Germany, with runoff poisoning rivers, Mercury pollution from burning it, and for bituminous coal which is mined underground you have to keep the mines clear of the groundwater literally forever or risk poisoning the local water supply.

satya71 5y ago

You can’t just burn the oil. You have to build the engines, turbines, exhaust. It’s not clear cursorily that mining for making panels and batteries is worse than fossil power.

perl4ever 5y ago

Global problems are more of a priority than local problems. Electronics are and will be produced anyway, even if we didn't pursue solar.

dieortin 5y ago

Unless you cut those plants that sequestered CO2 and bury them very deep, the CO2 will eventually be released again. We introduced a ton of extra carbon to the cycle, and taking it out isn’t easy.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Well, it gets sequestered into the process and spends most of it's time as biomass. Keep in mind, every ounce of that carbon was once part of the carbon cycle on earth that was sequestered due to tectonic forces.

nine_k 5y ago

Oil would run out within decades. We can safely assume the presence of solar energy for the next million years. Solar panels take land. But there is a lot of desert and semi-desert land which has perfect insolation, like 350 days of unrestricted sunshine per year. The energy produced there could be used to produce freshwater from nearby seas. The shadow afforded by the panels could help host some sustainable vegetation. The dangerous chemicals can be, with the help of plentiful energy, transformed to more benign chemicals, or recycled. As long as solar panels and wind turbines produce significantly more energy in their lifetime than it takes to construct them, they can pay off their own externalities.

ericd 5y ago

Cost/energy efficient carbon sequestration is extremely far from a solved problem.

adrianN 5y ago

With oil you have the occasional catastrophe where you poison a whole gulf, and leaky pipelines. Not to mention the massive damage caused by the extraction from tar sands. With coal you have open pit mining for lignite like here in Germany, with runoff poisoning rivers, Mercury pollution from burning it, and for bituminous coal which is mined underground you have to keep the mines clear of the groundwater literally forever or risk poisoning the local water supply.