5 ms·

So they're worried about (easily removable) solar eating up farm land, but not (impossible to remove) suburbs. OK.

UncleMeat 1y ago
They are not actually worried about that. They just think that solar and wind is woke shit that liberals like and since they hate liberals they need to hate solar and wind.
- thomascountz 1y ago
  It's not that either. It's money.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    We'd see different behavior if they were motivated by money.
    - Supermancho 1y ago
      They are motivated by people with money today, who plan on continuing to make money tomorrow, without competing with new technologies. Money is the motivation for everyone in the chain that is alive today, not worrying about those that live in a far tomorrow.
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        Agreed. There are a lot of people who would rather be a big fish in a small polluted pond than a small or middle-sized fish in a more competitive one. A lot of the objection 'globalism', 'green new scam', 'woke mind virus' is just atavistic dislike of outsiders manifesting as a desire for autarchy.
- nico 1y ago
  It was pretty shocking to me, learning that the White House had solar panels in the 70s!, and Reagan removed them when he came into office
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    While this is true, it's also true that they were pretty awful early thermal solar panels and Reagan removed them not to own the libs but because the roof was leaking. I doubt that this was politically motivated by Reagan, or that Reagan was generally cognizant of anything in 1986.
    - nico 1y ago
      While that’s technically correct, they could have put them back This is what Google says when asked about why the panels were removed: “President Ronald Reagan had the White House solar panels removed in 1986 as part of his administration's broader opposition to government involvement in renewable energy and a belief that the free market, not the government, should drive energy policy. While the administration cited cost as a reason for not reinstalling them during roof repairs, the decision reflected Reagan's philosophy and his administration's cuts to renewable energy funding” Not sure about the sources though. So I guess it’s debatable Still interesting to realize that the US govt can zigzag so much, and that it’s not necessarily progressing in a specific direction
      - jeffbee 1y ago
        If I ran this board I would instantly and permanently ban people for quoting a discount robot. Why would you expect someone to engage in a conversation by proxy with Google AI Mode search results?
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      The symbolic impact of removing but not replacing them was nationally, even internationally, significant. The "economics" of a particular roof repair are simply irrelevant in this context.
- metalman 1y ago
  truth. I have been off grid for a long time, my motivation to do so was founded in a grade school science project with the wreckage of a camera light meter, conclusion sunlight=electricity, blink, blink, blink! and one day after getting my first decent silcone pv panel leaned up against my no power hook up farm house, a guy pulls in on his harley, and after a bit starts raving about banning solar about 15 years ago, and now I have a realy visible array, and there is solar everywhere you care to look they tryin to turn back the tide, and have zero chance with that. the first pannel still runs and cost me more than $2.50 /watt, current prices hover around $0.20/watt......retail also that first panel provided minimum lights and water for a house, then was installed on.the hood of a truck that got destroyed by bieng rear ended, and is now moumted on.another building providing lighting and power for small tools, chargers, etc. ie: the stuff is tough
astrange 1y ago
Solar doesn't eat up land anyway; it improves it. You can put things under the panels, you can use solar panels as fencing, you can put it over water to reduce its evaporation, etc. Farmland doesn't need burning hot direct sunlight.
thinkcontext 1y ago
The land argument is terrible. 40% of US corn acreage is already used for a form of solar energy, ethanol. Its over 20x less efficient than PV, so it's a huge waste of land. Wind power on farmland only results in a tiny drop in acreage. And a hot area of study is mixing solar PV with various ag uses. In some cases yield is improved. Finally, farmland that is used for solar is almost always not the best yielding land. Maybe the farmer is facing a water shortage or is just not that competitive. Solar could be a lifeline in situations like that.

They are not actually worried about that. They just think that solar and wind is woke shit that liberals like and since they hate liberals they need to hate solar and wind.

thomascountz 1y ago
It's not that either. It's money.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  We'd see different behavior if they were motivated by money.
  - Supermancho 1y ago
    They are motivated by people with money today, who plan on continuing to make money tomorrow, without competing with new technologies. Money is the motivation for everyone in the chain that is alive today, not worrying about those that live in a far tomorrow.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      Agreed. There are a lot of people who would rather be a big fish in a small polluted pond than a small or middle-sized fish in a more competitive one. A lot of the objection 'globalism', 'green new scam', 'woke mind virus' is just atavistic dislike of outsiders manifesting as a desire for autarchy.
nico 1y ago
It was pretty shocking to me, learning that the White House had solar panels in the 70s!, and Reagan removed them when he came into office
- jeffbee 1y ago
  While this is true, it's also true that they were pretty awful early thermal solar panels and Reagan removed them not to own the libs but because the roof was leaking. I doubt that this was politically motivated by Reagan, or that Reagan was generally cognizant of anything in 1986.
  - nico 1y ago
    While that’s technically correct, they could have put them back This is what Google says when asked about why the panels were removed: “President Ronald Reagan had the White House solar panels removed in 1986 as part of his administration's broader opposition to government involvement in renewable energy and a belief that the free market, not the government, should drive energy policy. While the administration cited cost as a reason for not reinstalling them during roof repairs, the decision reflected Reagan's philosophy and his administration's cuts to renewable energy funding” Not sure about the sources though. So I guess it’s debatable Still interesting to realize that the US govt can zigzag so much, and that it’s not necessarily progressing in a specific direction
    - jeffbee 1y ago
      If I ran this board I would instantly and permanently ban people for quoting a discount robot. Why would you expect someone to engage in a conversation by proxy with Google AI Mode search results?
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    The symbolic impact of removing but not replacing them was nationally, even internationally, significant. The "economics" of a particular roof repair are simply irrelevant in this context.
metalman 1y ago
truth. I have been off grid for a long time, my motivation to do so was founded in a grade school science project with the wreckage of a camera light meter, conclusion sunlight=electricity, blink, blink, blink! and one day after getting my first decent silcone pv panel leaned up against my no power hook up farm house, a guy pulls in on his harley, and after a bit starts raving about banning solar about 15 years ago, and now I have a realy visible array, and there is solar everywhere you care to look they tryin to turn back the tide, and have zero chance with that. the first pannel still runs and cost me more than $2.50 /watt, current prices hover around $0.20/watt......retail also that first panel provided minimum lights and water for a house, then was installed on.the hood of a truck that got destroyed by bieng rear ended, and is now moumted on.another building providing lighting and power for small tools, chargers, etc. ie: the stuff is tough

astrange 1y ago

Solar doesn't eat up land anyway; it improves it. You can put things under the panels, you can use solar panels as fencing, you can put it over water to reduce its evaporation, etc. Farmland doesn't need burning hot direct sunlight.

thinkcontext 1y ago

The land argument is terrible. 40% of US corn acreage is already used for a form of solar energy, ethanol. Its over 20x less efficient than PV, so it's a huge waste of land. Wind power on farmland only results in a tiny drop in acreage. And a hot area of study is mixing solar PV with various ag uses. In some cases yield is improved. Finally, farmland that is used for solar is almost always not the best yielding land. Maybe the farmer is facing a water shortage or is just not that competitive. Solar could be a lifeline in situations like that.