15 ms·
If my optimistic math is right you need around a dozen solar pannels per person. If a third of energy is supposes to come from solar around a billion sollar pan
by constantcrying 3y ago
If my optimistic math is right you need around a dozen solar pannels per person. If a third of energy is supposes to come from solar around a billion sollar pannels are needed. If you don't think longevity and recyclability matters on that scale, I think you should reconsider what "sustainable" means.
- pfdietz 3y agoMy point is that it's not an argument against renewables per se. If industrial society powered by nuclear (or unicorn farts) is sustainable, it implies recycling is either unnecessary or solvable.
- constantcrying 3y agoI think environmental impact by producing billions of pannels of landfill is actually an argument against solar. I am not against solar, by the way, but it is obviously an important consideration.
- pfdietz 3y agoYou are selective in your concern. Is industrial society as a whole ok? It will produce much more waste that needs recycling that solar/wind will. If it is ok, then why would solar/wind not be? This smells of bad faith argumentation.
- constantcrying 3y ago>You are selective in your concern. No. > It will produce much more waste that needs recycling that solar/wind will. And that is bad. > it is ok, then why would solar/wind not be? Not at all the question. Two things can be bad at the same time.
- pfdietz 3y agoSo, you're objecting to industrial society itself? Ok, we're done here. Back to your cave.