2 ms·

I always hear it's so expensive, but compared to what? Just continuing to burn fossil fuels? Costs I see to solar and wind that I rarely see anyone mention ar

by krupan 3y ago

I always hear it's so expensive, but compared to what? Just continuing to burn fossil fuels? Costs I see to solar and wind that I rarely see anyone mention are: What happens when you cover large deaths of land with solar and windmills? What does that do to the micro climates of those areas and what affects will that have on the global climate? What does that do to the wildlife (both plant and animal) long term? What are the true costs of the mines and manufacturing and transportation needed to build and maintain all of that? I grew up near hydroelectric dams and when I was young they were hailed as free renewable energy. By the time I hit highschool they were demonized for forever changing the river's ecosystem and nearly driving certain fish species to extinction. How does wind and solar not end up the same?

otherme123 3y ago
In fact, I've seen the "solar and wind cover lots of land" in every single post about energy that comes on HN or Reddit. The answer the "compared to what?" is everything. It is clean, continuous, it's compact and other benefits. But it's expensive. You need over 30 years (being optimist) to break even. You need government financial support because no bank would finance that. That's the reason only countries like France or China build them: the costs are partially hidden in the country budgets or public owned corporations balances. About hydro, that was a "unknown unknown" paraprhasing Rumsfeld. You can't avoid what currently seems our best bet to our current knowledge (wind and solar) because maybe there's an unknown unknown that could bit us hard in 40 years.
7952 3y ago
The science of understanding environmental impact has improved hugely. We can actually know pretty well the answer to those kind of questions. And often the impact will be less damaging to the environment than what it is replacing (such as farmland).

by krupan 3y ago

otherme123 3y ago

In fact, I've seen the "solar and wind cover lots of land" in every single post about energy that comes on HN or Reddit. The answer the "compared to what?" is everything. It is clean, continuous, it's compact and other benefits. But it's expensive. You need over 30 years (being optimist) to break even. You need government financial support because no bank would finance that. That's the reason only countries like France or China build them: the costs are partially hidden in the country budgets or public owned corporations balances. About hydro, that was a "unknown unknown" paraprhasing Rumsfeld. You can't avoid what currently seems our best bet to our current knowledge (wind and solar) because maybe there's an unknown unknown that could bit us hard in 40 years.

7952 3y ago

The science of understanding environmental impact has improved hugely. We can actually know pretty well the answer to those kind of questions. And often the impact will be less damaging to the environment than what it is replacing (such as farmland).