4 ms·
> Non-renewable energy is simply inferior, and will only become more so. you simply can't say this. despite the lobby against it, solar and wind energy have li
by luqtas 10mo ago
> Non-renewable energy is simply inferior, and will only become more so.
you simply can't say this. despite the lobby against it, solar and wind energy have lifespans of around 20 years and afterwards, it's a freaking mess to deal with recycling and often times, garbage we don't know what to do. not even counting the amount of NASTY chemicals going into the production of solar panels. these are sometimes permanent and will have a great long term impact on ecology if we just start destroying plants to substitute with "green" alternatives mindlessly
one can also make a point that despite wind generators metals and batteries being almost to 100% recyclable, it's heck expensive to do and we don't have infrastructure. a comparison cosidering everything involved may show that hydroelectrics, nuclear, geo-thermal and heck even gas may have a similar or better impact depending on location
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 10mo ago> it's a freaking mess to deal with recycling and often times, garbage we don't know what to do I love that this is followed by “so go nuclear!”
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- luqtas 10mo agoi recommend you starting with something easy to digest like this: https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-David-Pimentel-Ph-D/dp/1420046675 https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-David-Pimentel-Ph-D/dp... then you can move on and judge what't the panorama of closed/paywalled science found out there (Nature) that evaluates impacts of solar panel not even considering numbers of last batches of thrash from ~ 2010 (which still have 10-15 years till they start filling the world with chemicals like lead)... then may dive into electricity security and distribution and recycling technology to bring up a single ignorant phrase comment downsizing nuclear generation, despite it being safer and ecological on the long-term compared to photovoltaics in LOTS of places, for example
- toss1 10mo agoSure, and none of that amounts to even close to the damage from stripping vast areas of the earth to dig up coal, grinding and transporting it to power plants, then setting it on fire, and releasing tons of CO2, and then disposing of tons of unburnt waste full of NASTY chemicals. And having to do all that continuously, every day, for the life of the plant. In every single solution you can point out problems. Complaining that "X isn't perfect" is the easiest and laziest thing in the world to do. Assessing the ACTUAL costs and damages IN PROPORTION is more difficult, but actually yields good results.
- JoeAltmaier 10mo agoIt can be viewed as stripping vast areas of the earth, to put them in the shadow of a solar farm. That utterly disrupts the ecosystem underneath, though in a different way. That's usually hand-waved away.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoTurns out you can basically hand-wave it away. https://apnews.com/article/sheep-solar-texas-climate-333e72167bcf24047257e1be352ce1a9 https://apnews.com/article/sheep-solar-texas-climate-333e721... https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/features/2025/solar-panels-give-edge-to-tomatoes-grown-underneath https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/features/2025/solar-panels-... Certainly more so than, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine.
- toss1 10mo agoIf you actually read any of the reports of current research, you would find that combining solar with agriculture improves both the health of the flock and/or crops being produced, and increases output. More shade for the fauna, and better moisture profile for the flora, for starters. Similar effects can also be created in currently wild areas that does NOT disrupt the ecosystem, but augments it. For starters, in very dry areas which are ideal for solar deployment, the typical constraint on the ecosystem is lack of shade and moisture preservation, which is mitigated by solar deployment There are also VAST areas of already populated or in-use areas that are ripe for deployment of solar panels, rooftops, parking areas, canals, reservoirs, and more, and ALL of them are a net improvement with solar panels So, nobody is stripping anything from the earth, and there is no continuous transportation of materials to set them on fire. The fact that it is already CHEAPER to produce electricity by tearing down a coal plant and installing the same solar capacity shows how crazy it is. Just because something was the best way we had to do something three technology generations ago does not mean it is still best, or even viable or recommended. Stunning to see such unscientific backwards attitudes on a site focused on science and technology.
- RealityVoid 10mo agoAs opposed to coal that pump out NASTY chemicals right now?
- luqtas 10mo agoi'm not defending coal. i'm just saying that solution to energy is much more broad than the OP seems to pass on "being cheaper to destroy a coal plant and substitute with batteries and solar". i wouldn't be surprised trey sightread titles and didn't realized that it may be economical to re-use an OLD coal plant to produce solar energy but well... my last comment on this thread has it all, great book
- thinkcontext 10mo agoIts fair to do an accounting of externalities. However, I generally find those raising externality issues with solar and wind wildly overestimate their impact and wildly underestimate the externalities of fossil fuels. You mention the 20 year lifespan, this is a huge benefit compared to fossil fuels. The externalities of oil and gas add up for every second they are used.
- dalyons 10mo agoWho cares if we never figure out how to recycle them? bury them in a landfill, and we’ll still be so far ahead on the pollution front than any other alternative. This is such a non issue