Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
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.

> 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.

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.
>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.

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.
loading story #48400464
loading story #48400522
loading story #48403647
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

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…

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.
> 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.

> 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.

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.

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...

loading story #48401944
loading story #48401618
loading story #48400994
loading story #48400740
loading story #48400691