3 ms·

Is it the only article saying this? I'm happy to keep Googling for you guys, but seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. Is solar best suited for ALL envir

Is it the only article saying this? I'm happy to keep Googling for you guys, but seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. Is solar best suited for ALL environments? Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Surely you don't think so?!

sunshinesnacks 3y ago
> seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. I assumed your main point was something along the lines of any claims that solar is clean are lies, > Best to keep quiet and pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean We could probably go back and forth citing articles and search results, but I’ll say that I agree with this recent ~peer reviewed article~ [comment] in a decent journal and leave it there: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 As to your last 3 questions, they seem hyperbolic and/or inflammatory. I don’t think solar is the best solution everywhere. I don’t think we should clear huge portions of the rainforest for solar. And I never said or implied those things. Edit: looks like the article I linked maybe was not peer reviewed. Still a good article, though.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  Claims that solar has a negative carbon footprint in high sun low cloud environments are founded. Most other claims about solar are indeed lies at worst, and hyped at best. The article you linked to; the reviewers and authors are one and the same and they all work for the same company. It's a perfect example of my point. These are blatant marketing materials. I could link to any number of posts on HN that cover bribery in science journalism.
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
    Good catch on the article. Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”. But there are certainly editors involved, but that’s maybe no different from the editorial you posted. But calling it “blatant marketing materials” seems hyperbolic. Similar to implying that I advocate for cutting down vast areas of rainforest. And are you suggesting that the authors of that article bribed the editors? They didn’t even pay an open access fee (likely were not allowed to due to US DOE funding). Can you even point out lies or hype in the article?
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      It's beside the point. The point is that corporations are pedaling a "gas bad solar good" blanket statement where anyone that asks for critical thinking on the issue is immediately downvoted, like I have been. Meanwhile my forest is being leveled for solar. It's not a win for anyone but the moneymakers.
thelastgallon 3y ago
> Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Where are rainforests being cleared for solar? You are just making up stuff. 40 million acres in US are used for Ethanol (with subsidies!!) just for a small fraction of the transportation energy. Solar can go on rooftops on all kinds of buildings, there is at least 10x parking area if not building. They can go on top of lakes and conserve water from evaporation. Vertical panels work perfectly with farming with zero land use. They can go next to highways[1]. They can go on landfills, superfund sites, deserts and so on.. [1]https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-beside-highways-is-a-no-brainer/ https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-besi...
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  10 miles from my home vast swathes of state owned forest are being cleared for solar. Have you considered that you might be unintentionally helping rich people destroy the environment?

sunshinesnacks 3y ago

> seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. I assumed your main point was something along the lines of any claims that solar is clean are lies, > Best to keep quiet and pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean We could probably go back and forth citing articles and search results, but I’ll say that I agree with this recent ~peer reviewed article~ [comment] in a decent journal and leave it there: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 As to your last 3 questions, they seem hyperbolic and/or inflammatory. I don’t think solar is the best solution everywhere. I don’t think we should clear huge portions of the rainforest for solar. And I never said or implied those things. Edit: looks like the article I linked maybe was not peer reviewed. Still a good article, though.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
Claims that solar has a negative carbon footprint in high sun low cloud environments are founded. Most other claims about solar are indeed lies at worst, and hyped at best. The article you linked to; the reviewers and authors are one and the same and they all work for the same company. It's a perfect example of my point. These are blatant marketing materials. I could link to any number of posts on HN that cover bribery in science journalism.
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago
  Good catch on the article. Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”. But there are certainly editors involved, but that’s maybe no different from the editorial you posted. But calling it “blatant marketing materials” seems hyperbolic. Similar to implying that I advocate for cutting down vast areas of rainforest. And are you suggesting that the authors of that article bribed the editors? They didn’t even pay an open access fee (likely were not allowed to due to US DOE funding). Can you even point out lies or hype in the article?
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    It's beside the point. The point is that corporations are pedaling a "gas bad solar good" blanket statement where anyone that asks for critical thinking on the issue is immediately downvoted, like I have been. Meanwhile my forest is being leveled for solar. It's not a win for anyone but the moneymakers.

thelastgallon 3y ago

> Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Where are rainforests being cleared for solar? You are just making up stuff. 40 million acres in US are used for Ethanol (with subsidies!!) just for a small fraction of the transportation energy. Solar can go on rooftops on all kinds of buildings, there is at least 10x parking area if not building. They can go on top of lakes and conserve water from evaporation. Vertical panels work perfectly with farming with zero land use. They can go next to highways[1]. They can go on landfills, superfund sites, deserts and so on.. [1]https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-beside-highways-is-a-no-brainer/ https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-besi...

trimethylpurine 3y ago
10 miles from my home vast swathes of state owned forest are being cleared for solar. Have you considered that you might be unintentionally helping rich people destroy the environment?