3 ms·

> 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 ke

> 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 Edit: looks like the article I linked maybe was not peer reviewed.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 Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”.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.

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.