4 ms·

Land is also spoiled and occupied for fossil fuel extraction, refinement, and distribution. And at least you can be within the near vicinity of solar panels wit

Land is also spoiled and occupied for fossil fuel extraction, refinement, and distribution. And at least you can be within the near vicinity of solar panels without experiencing significant health issues, so we need to tabulate the very real public health costs too when comparing. I highly doubt there is a solar equivalent of “Cancer Alley” in the US. Another consideration is that we can slap solar panels on top of existing structures, which you cannot do with fossil fuel at any stage. I don’t doubt that the costs are considerable but if we’re going to go down that path we need to make sure it’s applied across the board here and I imagine the gap is not as bad as you’re implying. I’m going off my gut though so I could be entirely wrong.

prepend 1y ago
Land and exploration costs are definitely included in fossil fuel costs. I think most major solar projects include land and infrastructure so only comparing the costs of the panels is like comparing hydro only based on operating the dam, not building it.
- hvb2 1y ago
  > Land and exploration costs are definitely included in fossil fuel costs. I think most major solar projects include land and infrastructure so only comparing the costs of the panels is like comparing hydro only based on operating the dam, not building it. Fossil the way we're running it now is only priced out based on burning it not dealing with its externalities either.
  - prepend 1y ago
    That’s true, but GP was talking about land and other direct costs, not externalities. Comparing solar cells without other direct costs is not sufficient for decision making.
- ragequittah 1y ago
  What about the trillions of dollars per year in damages, health costs, etc. due to emissions?
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    Exactly my point. People always want to be nit picky about solar and wind costs, which I agree we should be, but the same scrutiny hardly gets applied to the fossil fuel industry.
  - prepend 1y ago
    What about them? Include them in cost comparisons. The answer to this problem is more precise and complete comparisons, not fewer.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      > Include them in cost comparisons. Our point is that they aren't. Find a single study the fossil fuel industry funds, hell even accepts, that includes the longterm environmental and health costs. They’ll never agree it’s accurate. This ripples out to their proponents. We have a US president touting “clean coal” in 2025. What else is there to say? > Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinvigorating-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry-and-amending-executive-order-14241/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein...
epistasis 1y ago
You're very right to bring up how much land is needed for fossil fuel extraction and refinement. Take all that land that's currently used for fossil fuels, and replace its use with solar, and you're replacing pretty much 100% of the world's total energy demand, not just fossil fuel demand. (I need to find that citation again...)

prepend 1y ago

Land and exploration costs are definitely included in fossil fuel costs. I think most major solar projects include land and infrastructure so only comparing the costs of the panels is like comparing hydro only based on operating the dam, not building it.

hvb2 1y ago
> Land and exploration costs are definitely included in fossil fuel costs. I think most major solar projects include land and infrastructure so only comparing the costs of the panels is like comparing hydro only based on operating the dam, not building it. Fossil the way we're running it now is only priced out based on burning it not dealing with its externalities either.
- prepend 1y ago
  That’s true, but GP was talking about land and other direct costs, not externalities. Comparing solar cells without other direct costs is not sufficient for decision making.
ragequittah 1y ago
What about the trillions of dollars per year in damages, health costs, etc. due to emissions?
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  Exactly my point. People always want to be nit picky about solar and wind costs, which I agree we should be, but the same scrutiny hardly gets applied to the fossil fuel industry.
- prepend 1y ago
  What about them? Include them in cost comparisons. The answer to this problem is more precise and complete comparisons, not fewer.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    > Include them in cost comparisons. Our point is that they aren't. Find a single study the fossil fuel industry funds, hell even accepts, that includes the longterm environmental and health costs. They’ll never agree it’s accurate. This ripples out to their proponents. We have a US president touting “clean coal” in 2025. What else is there to say? > Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinvigorating-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry-and-amending-executive-order-14241/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein...

epistasis 1y ago

You're very right to bring up how much land is needed for fossil fuel extraction and refinement. Take all that land that's currently used for fossil fuels, and replace its use with solar, and you're replacing pretty much 100% of the world's total energy demand, not just fossil fuel demand. (I need to find that citation again...)