←back to thread

131 points mg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
briga ◴[] No.26597549[source]
This is good to hear. I assume location must play a large part in this? Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska.

I sometimes wonder if the widespread adoption of solar is going to have an environmental impact that isn't immediately apparent. Every solar panel you put on the ground is going to take up solar energy that could otherwise be absorbed by a plant, which in turn means that plant can't absorb carbon from the atmosphere. So unless we just limit ourselves to rooftop solar panels there's sure to be some sort of environmental impact if we just switch all our energy to solar.

replies(8): >>26597576 #>>26597593 #>>26597642 #>>26597844 #>>26597847 #>>26597971 #>>26598152 #>>26598678 #
zizee ◴[] No.26598152[source]
> Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska.

I don't think this was your intention, but this reminded me of something I see in so many of these conversations.

In discussions about solar (and electric cars) there are always people who say "well this won't work in situation X", with an unsaid implication of "this is not the solution".

It is unlikely that we will find a single solution that will be a good fit for all situations. Instead we will have many tools in our belt and apply accordingly.

I know that you used alaska as an extreme, perhaps they will never get off fossil fuels. But alaska is a tiny population overall. Its the main population centers that we need to worry about, not the extremes that are hand picked to be difficult.

replies(1): >>26598482 #
1. someperson ◴[] No.26598482[source]
You may be interested in the video The LED Traffic Light and the Danger of "But Sometimes!" by Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYO1TObNz8