4 ms·

So essentially you are saying we should destroy the environment because it appears to be cheaper in the short term? Sounds like a classic 20th century trapping

So essentially you are saying we should destroy the environment because it appears to be cheaper in the short term? Sounds like a classic 20th century trapping that might not age so well when the externalities come back and demand repayment. I wouldn't underestimate the power of distributed arrays either. There are estimates that if every house had rooftop solar, it would generate 30-40% of total power demand [0], and that is just residential. Perhaps we cannot replace all power using brownfield PV but we shouldn't just disregard the desert or other pristine ecosystems without also utilizing other alternatives to minimize our impact. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.computerworld.com/article/3053882/solar-on-all-us-roofs-would-supply-39-of-power.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.computerworld.com/article/3...

the8472 4y ago
> So essentially you are saying we should destroy the environment because it appears to be cheaper in the short term? "Destroy the environment" is not a binary variable. Decentralized installations could also result in more emissions from transportation to reach all the places, it could eat up more resources (steel) for the support structures. No action you take (or don't take) will have zero side-effects. So, I'm saying pick the most lifeless places you can find that are still reasonably close to some power distribution infrastructure and put it there. But of course also put it on rooftops and industrial ruins where reasonable. It's not an either/or thing. > but we shouldn't just disregard the desert or other pristine ecosystems without also utilizing other alternatives to minimize our impact. It's not disregarding them, it's making tradeoffs. If we need some cheap, flat, unobstructed land to get PV deployed then some marginal desert can be a better choice than cutting down forests, draining swamps or covering arable land.

the8472 4y ago

> So essentially you are saying we should destroy the environment because it appears to be cheaper in the short term? "Destroy the environment" is not a binary variable. Decentralized installations could also result in more emissions from transportation to reach all the places, it could eat up more resources (steel) for the support structures. No action you take (or don't take) will have zero side-effects. So, I'm saying pick the most lifeless places you can find that are still reasonably close to some power distribution infrastructure and put it there. But of course also put it on rooftops and industrial ruins where reasonable. It's not an either/or thing. > but we shouldn't just disregard the desert or other pristine ecosystems without also utilizing other alternatives to minimize our impact. It's not disregarding them, it's making tradeoffs. If we need some cheap, flat, unobstructed land to get PV deployed then some marginal desert can be a better choice than cutting down forests, draining swamps or covering arable land.