3 ms·

I made this point today, but it was summarily dismissed as "not a problem". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248 https://news.ycombinator

I made this point today, but it was summarily dismissed as "not a problem". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248

margalabargala 4y ago
Account names don't match so not sure which alt account is "you", but: The reason what you said was dismissed/started an argument is the reason a lot of arguments start: using terms whose definitions have been overloaded. People can both be talking about "green" energy but mean entirely different things and get frustrated talking past one another, as happened here. Specifically, for many people right now, the pressing reason for "green" energy is climate change. Ergo "green" energy is energy which does not release significant amounts of CO2 when used. Solar panels are "green" energy in that they help solve a chronic environmental problem. At the same time, as was pointed out, solar panels require some incredibly toxic chemicals to be created, and to the extent they are recyclable, that recycling process also involves, creates, and produces as waste even more horrific chemicals. Therefore solar panels are not "green" energy in that they directly contribute to an acute environmental problem. The root of the issue is picking some abstract label, "green energy", and then each person argues whether something meets their own personal definition of that abstract label. A more useful question may be "in which ways are solar panels good for the environment, in which ways are they harmful, and does one obviously outweigh the other?" A supporter of solar would probably say "solar panels breakeven for co2 in just 3 years, a fraction of their lifespan, so they spend most of their life replacing fossil fuels which is good. While toxic chemicals are a byproduct of their creation, and those toxic chemicals would be harmful if released into the environment, they can be contained, stored, and disposed of in a way that localizes all harm to the point that there is no widespread environmental impact from their manufacture".
- ratsmack 4y ago
  That's odd, I used that link several times from that comment, but now it's changed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248
  - margalabargala 4y ago
    That's weird! HN links are usually pretty stable- maybe backend tweaks were made. At any rate- I think that it's likely far easier to deal with waste that can be put in a barrel and placed somewhere, rather than waste that diffuses into the atmosphere and stays there permanently. An ideal waste disposal site would probably be a landfill in some unpopulated endorheic basin somewhere, so that there is no risk of contamination of waterways.

I made this point today, but it was summarily dismissed as "not a problem". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248

margalabargala 4y ago

Account names don't match so not sure which alt account is "you", but: The reason what you said was dismissed/started an argument is the reason a lot of arguments start: using terms whose definitions have been overloaded. People can both be talking about "green" energy but mean entirely different things and get frustrated talking past one another, as happened here. Specifically, for many people right now, the pressing reason for "green" energy is climate change. Ergo "green" energy is energy which does not release significant amounts of CO2 when used. Solar panels are "green" energy in that they help solve a chronic environmental problem. At the same time, as was pointed out, solar panels require some incredibly toxic chemicals to be created, and to the extent they are recyclable, that recycling process also involves, creates, and produces as waste even more horrific chemicals. Therefore solar panels are not "green" energy in that they directly contribute to an acute environmental problem. The root of the issue is picking some abstract label, "green energy", and then each person argues whether something meets their own personal definition of that abstract label. A more useful question may be "in which ways are solar panels good for the environment, in which ways are they harmful, and does one obviously outweigh the other?" A supporter of solar would probably say "solar panels breakeven for co2 in just 3 years, a fraction of their lifespan, so they spend most of their life replacing fossil fuels which is good. While toxic chemicals are a byproduct of their creation, and those toxic chemicals would be harmful if released into the environment, they can be contained, stored, and disposed of in a way that localizes all harm to the point that there is no widespread environmental impact from their manufacture".

ratsmack 4y ago
That's odd, I used that link several times from that comment, but now it's changed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248
- margalabargala 4y ago
  That's weird! HN links are usually pretty stable- maybe backend tweaks were made. At any rate- I think that it's likely far easier to deal with waste that can be put in a barrel and placed somewhere, rather than waste that diffuses into the atmosphere and stays there permanently. An ideal waste disposal site would probably be a landfill in some unpopulated endorheic basin somewhere, so that there is no risk of contamination of waterways.