3 ms·

I'm not against rooftop solar. My parents have, what was, at the time of installation, the largest residential install in the state of CA. But rooftop solar is

I'm not against rooftop solar. My parents have, what was, at the time of installation, the largest residential install in the state of CA. But rooftop solar is not a good use of resources for fighting climate change, which is what I was responding to.

colordrops 3y ago
I don't follow. How does it not help in the fight against climate change? It may be less effecient than central power but it still reduces emissions compared to fossil fuels, and it's not a zero sum game as it does not take away capacity from central power.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  It's inferior on a CO2 avoided per $ spent basis compared to utility scale solar installs. This is not difficult to understand. What's your roadblock here?
  - colordrops 3y ago
    There is a disconnect for sure here - I said I agree that it may be inferior efficiency-wise. I also said that, nevertheless, it's still far better than fossil fuels. Both statements are true, and are not contradictory. It moves the needle in a positive direction on climate change which was my original statement. I never said anything about it being the best possible of all solutions. If you want to be pedantic, not using any power at all, and going back to an agrarian lifestyle is more efficient that centralized solar. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. There's no way that our governments are going to put all possible resources into a centralized renewable grid, so we should also incentivize private individuals to invest while we are waiting for our politicians and power companies to get on board.
  - ed25519FUUU 3y ago
    It’s superior $ for utilities though? Didn’t the public pay $0 for it?
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      I mean, if you want to waste your money, fine. The question is whether encouraging residential PV is good policy. I don't think it is in most cases (maybe if it allows homes to be totally disconnected from the grid, saving the cost of running lines out to them?)

colordrops 3y ago

I don't follow. How does it not help in the fight against climate change? It may be less effecient than central power but it still reduces emissions compared to fossil fuels, and it's not a zero sum game as it does not take away capacity from central power.

pfdietz 3y ago
It's inferior on a CO2 avoided per $ spent basis compared to utility scale solar installs. This is not difficult to understand. What's your roadblock here?
- colordrops 3y ago
  There is a disconnect for sure here - I said I agree that it may be inferior efficiency-wise. I also said that, nevertheless, it's still far better than fossil fuels. Both statements are true, and are not contradictory. It moves the needle in a positive direction on climate change which was my original statement. I never said anything about it being the best possible of all solutions. If you want to be pedantic, not using any power at all, and going back to an agrarian lifestyle is more efficient that centralized solar. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. There's no way that our governments are going to put all possible resources into a centralized renewable grid, so we should also incentivize private individuals to invest while we are waiting for our politicians and power companies to get on board.
- ed25519FUUU 3y ago
  It’s superior $ for utilities though? Didn’t the public pay $0 for it?
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    I mean, if you want to waste your money, fine. The question is whether encouraging residential PV is good policy. I don't think it is in most cases (maybe if it allows homes to be totally disconnected from the grid, saving the cost of running lines out to them?)