| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago |
| I don’t know how you can be against solar unless you’ve been given some uninformed talking points. Are they against solar subsidies or other policy provisions? It’s hard to understand someone who is against passive energy collection. |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Are they against solar subsidies or other policy provisions? They're mainlining paid propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. Same dynamic that made people defend cigarettes into the late 90s. |
|
| ▲ | anukin 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The argument I have generally heard is consistent power output and grid availability 24x7 with solar is harder. So they augment with gas turbines.
IMO augmenting it with nuclear is better. |
|
| ▲ | Kon5ole 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >I don’t know how you can be against solar unless you’ve been given some uninformed talking points. One understandable (not saying it's good, just understandable) reason is if your business is selling electricity from a source more expensive than solar. Which is just about every source. I think power producers will eventually have to combine power generation with activities that generate money separately from selling electricity. Like heavy industry, datacenters etc. |
|
| ▲ | fp64 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not against solar, my primary issue is that in northern Europe there's not much sun at some times. Energy storage and "smart grid" are not there yet, in my view, but maybe should have come first. Hydrogen (electrolysis) sounds a bit wild and impractical to me. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Finland: > The net result: Pornainen fulfilled all of its municipal climate targets with a single installation. Oil use dropped 100 percent, emissions fell 70 percent, and woodchip combustion was cut by 60 percent. According to the Mayor of the Municipality of Pornainen, Antti Kuusela, the municipality now heats all its public buildings, including a new sports arena opening in September 2026, entirely through this district heating network. https://interestingengineering.com/energy/sand-battery-polar... | | |
| ▲ | fp64 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's for 5000 people. And only covers heat. Happy if it can scale and move from prototype to long-term deployment at a reasonable cost, serving heavy industry in manufacturing. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's for 5000 people. And it's quite compact. > And only covers heat. Is that not useful? | | |
| ▲ | fp64 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Don't get me wrong, this is cool. We just have some stricter requirements on a country/state/union level that while this might help with parts, I don't see how it can easily scale up and generalize |
|
| |
| ▲ | engineer_22 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are buying electricity and storing it as heat and time-arbitrage it to when the heat is needed, they make no mention of the electric power source. In any case, during the depth of winter, when it's needed most, they're still burning carbon. Previous paragraph to your quote: >During the coldest, most expensive stretch, the wood chip boiler became the primary unit, and the sand battery supplemented it. Remarkably: heat is pointed to as "wasted energy" when doing EROEI analysis and discounted, this is done to strengthen the case for Solar vs Gas. Finland's energy mix is ~6% solar [1]... maybe it's not a larger portion of the grid supply because Finns realize it doesn't work in the winter? [1] https://www.iea.org/countries/finland/energy-mix | | |
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | going from burning fuel 12 months of the year to 3 is still a 75% cut in fuel costs and emissions |
|
| |
| ▲ | cycomanic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That doesn't really make sense, you need the ability for significant overproduction before you start thinking about storage. The other way around is just wasting money. We are just starting to get there, but still have significant fossil fuels that we can replace even by just building out solar more and just having more over production. |
|
|
| ▲ | ozim 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can be when you are living in an apartment building and you hear how people who have a house get 0 electric bill or get negative electric bill. Some people just want the world to burn… |
|
| ▲ | 8note 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| solar heating isnt as passive, and requires that the fluid keeps flowing, and all thr plumbing maintenance that goes with that. a lot of opinions were made about solar when solar heating was the primary approach, vs today's chinese PVs |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's a lot of selective concern. They'll be outraged about the environmental damage from mining and manufacturing needed for panels, but ignore the orders of magnitude worse damage from burning fossil fuels. My favorite is outrage over wind turbines killing birds. Cats kill a thousand times more birds but nobody cares about that. |
| |
| ▲ | PyWoody 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They'll be outraged about the environmental damage from mining and manufacturing needed for panels, but ignore the orders of magnitude worse damage from burning fossil fuels. I always try to point out that, after all of the "environmental damage" done to create the solar panels, the panels will exist for 30 years before they can be recycled into new panels. Whereas, after all of the environmental damage done to produce gas and coal, it will lead to a one time use only energy output that has to be repeated until the end of time. It makes zero sense environmentally or cost-wise to prefer fossil fuels. | | | |
| ▲ | triceratops an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > My favorite is outrage over wind turbines killing birds I've coined the phrase True Bird Lover. Someone who's never seen a picture of a bird covered in an oil slick from the Exxon Valdez and wants to tell everyone how bad windmills are. |
|
|
| ▲ | dimitrios1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I am against it for one reason only, but it's very solvable, IMO, and it's the amount of space they take up. I live next to 200+ acres of solar farms. A part of me cries a little when I see so much beautiful land and trees cut down and these lifeless panels taking up so much space. We have so many buildings, and structures already (think parking decks, tops of apartments, homes, offices, even parking lots) that we could put these, but instead we cut down acres of trees or use up perfectly usable farmland. |
| |
| ▲ | beambot an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You need to read about agrivoltaics. This is being used to huge effect elsewhere in the world to improve farming & soil. Here's an example from China: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The standard alternative to a solar farm is a monoculture corn farm producing ethanol. That monoculture corn farm regularly gets sprayed, plowed and harvested, each time decimating its animal population. Your solar farm is probably filled with a diverse selection of grass and weeds, supporting a far higher animal population than that corn farm. | |
| ▲ | mjamesaustin 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Technology Connections did the math on this and found that if you ONLY replaced fields used for ethanol production with solar panels, the amount of space would be enough solar panels to power the entire power grid in the US. | |
| ▲ | rcxdude an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I cry more when I think about the amount of farmland being used for bioethanol, something which is barely energy positive. If the US would switch the subsidies and regulations propping that up to propping up solar, it would easily free up a huge amount of land. | |
| ▲ | 8note 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | on that easy fix - the land under solar panels can still be used for farming or ranching | |
| ▲ | tootie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure but compare that to the amount of land used for oil and gas extraction. The difference is that mines and drills can only go where there's stuff to extract and solar panels can go anywhere. Including near residential areas. That's also due to the fact that they are so environmentally neutral. | | |
| ▲ | baby_souffle an hour ago | parent [-] | | And you can do some agriculture near and under the panels. That's not the case with an oil well. | | |
| ▲ | enoint 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Or under the plume of heavy metals from coal. That land, near the transmission infrastructure of a coal plant, is only good for solar farms. |
|
|
|