Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

[KilroyJC]

I don't mind solar panels, there have been times that I would rather stare at them than the noisy neighbors.
If it isn't, their ATVs, loud music, party's, or fighting..... I would swap them for solar panels any day, and they live 100 yds away!

I don’t mind solar panels. I would gladly replace the contiguous lot owners (they do not to be dignified with the appellation “neighbors”).

last year, we even installed a small solar power system at our house.

HOWEVER…

I do mind the preachy pseudo-religious fervor with which some worship them.

Green Wrecking Ball: Germany Clearing “Undisturbed” 1000-Year Old Forest, Make Way For Massive Wind Park

Germany’s government has not only taken a wrecking ball to the nation in terms of COVID, but also to its biodiversity in its self-deluded bid to protect the climate.

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[Hay Dude]

I don’t mind solar panels. I would gladly replace the contiguous lot owners (they do not to be dignified with the appellation “neighbors”).

last year, we even installed a small solar power system at our house.

HOWEVER…

I do mind the preachy pseudo-religious fervor with which some worship them.

Green Wrecking Ball: Germany Clearing “Undisturbed” 1000-Year Old Forest, Make Way For Massive Wind Park

Germany’s government has not only taken a wrecking ball to the nation in terms of COVID, but also to its biodiversity in its self-deluded bid to protect the climate.

wattsupwiththat.com

View attachment 798465

Now we will have auto salvage yards and solar panel salvage yards.

COOL!

Maybe we can have a few million more undocumented workers come over the border to disassemble & recycle them.

 

[KilroyJC]

Now we will have auto salvage yards and solar panel salvage yards.

COOL!

Maybe we can have a few million more undocumented workers come over the border to disassemble & recycle them.

They can put the solar junkyards right next to where they bury all those Windmill blades…

 

[Hay Dude]

Global climate agenda aside, is there any doubt that the local pollution would be reduced with the reduction of burning hydrocarbons for power?

Probably not, but if it only contributes a minimal amount of pollution, is it worth spending trillion on for subsidies and increasing everyone’s energy costs?

Nukes is much better solution since it produces zero carbon emissions and the technology is very well known. Or spend more to scrub NG emissions.

We are already 32 trillion in debt. Now spend trillions more on solar panels? They are very dirty to make and dirty to recycle.

 

[walhondingMF]

That was almost 40 years ago. We have done a lot to clean up our water & air since then.

Because the Environmentalists raised hell about it!!!! You can cherry pick all the details you want and use some simple math to show how much CO2 there really is in the atmosphere. The climatologists that have dedicated their lives and careers to studying and understanding how the system all works say things are changing, and have been outside of the natural systems. Yes, the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. It's not hard to measure and understand that, but it's also not hard to understand that it's happening at an extremely faster rate than it should. You can give facts about how little of the atmosphere is actually greenhouse gases. It doesn't matter if humans are only putting a fraction of a percentage of CO2 or methane in the atmosphere. If it's more than there is supposed to be, THEN IT'S TO MUCH! It's normal for your body to have cancer cells in it. But what happens if you have just a few too many or natural systems in your body can keep it from spreading? YOU GET CANCER! It doesn't take much.
97% of climate scientists are settled on the fact that man made climate change is a real thing and is happening. They can all debate the details and make their best predictions, but will always agree on the main overlying fact. Science rarely fully settles on the details. Those ideas are called laws. However, there are also these things in science called theories that carry massive amounts of data and information to support them. They also carry a great deal of support from experts in their fields. The theory of climate change is one of the most widely, globally accepted theories by those experts that understand it. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you had cancer and 3 said you didn't, which ones are you going to believe?

 

[Hay Dude]

Because the Environmentalists raised hell about it!!!! You can cherry pick all the details you want and use some simple math to show how much CO2 there really is in the atmosphere. The climatologists that have dedicated their lives and careers to studying and understanding how the system all works say things are changing, and have been outside of the natural systems. Yes, the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. It's not hard to measure and understand that, but it's also not hard to understand that it's happening at an extremely faster rate than it should. You can give facts about how little of the atmosphere is actually greenhouse gases. It doesn't matter if humans are only putting a fraction of a percentage of CO2 or methane in the atmosphere. If it's more than there is supposed to be, THEN IT'S TO MUCH! It's normal for your body to have cancer cells in it. But what happens if you have just a few too many or natural systems in your body can keep it from spreading? YOU GET CANCER! It doesn't take much.
97% of climate scientists are settled on the fact that man made climate change is a real thing and is happening. They can all debate the details and make their best predictions, but will always agree on the main overlying fact. Science rarely fully settles on the details. Those ideas are called laws. However, there are also these things in science called theories that carry massive amounts of data and information to support them. They also carry a great deal of support from experts in their fields. The theory of climate change is one of the most widely, globally accepted theories by those experts that understand it. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you had cancer and 3 said you didn't, which ones are you going to believe?

Of course they do, I would too, but if it’s only a small fractional percentage, then why go broke or add to the 32 TRILLION in debt to make it only fractionally smaller????

If your country goes bankrupt and we all start killing each other for food/money/shelter because we have no government left (Venezuela) THEN WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED?

Do we as a society want to die in a few years, 9 years or maybe hundreds of years????

Do you ONLY think “environmentally”? Or would it make more sense to have a balance of environmental and financial responsibility????

Furthermore: Have you addressed the battery and solar panel recycling issue? What if THAT creates a BIG environmental issue?? Millions of tons of heavy metals to deal with every year? Don’t you have an issue with the soil/water contamination of nicklel, cadmium, zinc, cobalt ???? Won’t they harm the environment?

 

[walhondingMF]

Where do they put all the junk material from the out of date coal plants? Where will they put the worn out turbines in the NG power plant I've referenced before? What about when they have to demolish the entire facility in 30 years when it's out of date? What about all the shrimp fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico that can't fish for shrimp anymore? Why does China control the market on Cobalt (one of the most important elements to rechargeable battery efficiency)? Because we hung on to the past and they jumped on the future and beat us to it.

 

[kenmbz]

Another example from the 70's
Japanese car manufacture was done with mostly recycled steel since Japan has few natural resources. Their cars used to rust badly, but eventually they perfected the science of rustproofing them.
US car manufactures were short sited and when they started using recycled steel due to rising raw steel costs, they were now a decade or two behind the Japanese.

The Japanese also had worked on smaller cars for decades while the US car manufacturers kept producing huge monstrosities until the gas shortages hit their sales numbers really hard and they almost collapsed. The Japanese % of sales when up by leaps and bounds.

Looking for new ways to be more efficient work ok during good times, but works amazing during bad times.

Perfecting newer energy sources while we still have supply of current energy sources is the best way to keep us going forward and not having to jump the gap when it shows up.

Much of the technology we have today was due to sponsorship of the government through the space program and war research. (tax dollars)
So that is not new, turbines, computers, planes, cars all have this technology from those government programs.

 

[walhondingMF]

Do you ONLY think “environmentally”? Or would it make more sense to have a balance of environmental and financial responsibility????

It sure does make sense to balance environmental and financial. That's the point of subsidies going to companies and industries that are doing both. Allowing alternatives to have an equal role now in the market place is part of it. Elon Musk complained for years about how the Kock brothers lived on subsidies and alternatives got nothing.

Furthermore: Have you addressed the battery and solar panel recycling issue? What if THAT creates a BIG environmental issue?? Millions of tons of heavy metals to deal with every year? Don’t you have an issue with the soil/water contamination of nicklel, cadmium, zinc, cobalt ???? Won’t they harm the environment?

Hell yes they will harm the environment if not handled correctly... the same as injection wells for fracking liquids. As I have also stated before, I have many friends/ family that are in the industry, and not one of them have said the would ever allow an injection well for any amount of money. Do you think the strict regulations they have to follow (and still cheat to find ways around it) are made and enforced by the fracking companies? No, the government does that. And the government will do the same thing for alternative materials.
Rivian has a contract with Amazon for a fleet of EV delivery vans. The Rivian batteries are designed for second use and have already been contracted to companies like Generac for in-home solar battery systems. This gives the batteries a second, more long-term life and continues to drop the price for alternatives. This entire chain provides jobs, reduces waste, and cuts costs for consumers. Not hard if there is a financial push and a market. Isn't this good for America? Isn't that what our subsidies should be used for?

 

[KilroyJC]

Probably not, but if it only contributes a minimal amount of pollution, is it worth spending trillion on for subsidies and increasing everyone’s energy costs?

Nukes is much better solution since it produces zero carbon emissions and the technology is very well known. Or spend more to scrub NG emissions.

We are already 32 trillion in debt. Now spend trillions more on solar panels? They are very dirty to make and dirty to recycle.

carbon is essential for photosynthesis: light, water, carbon dioxide.

carbon dioxide generators are installed in greenhouses to increase yield.

historical physical samples and fossil record/core samples indicate higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than we have today.

there are not enough rare-earth minerals to convert everything that is currently hydrocarbon-powered to electric, and certainly not enough to replace all the batteries as they reach the end of their service life.