What are your opinions on solar power

November

The ninth month of the year!
Pronouns
he/him
MarioWiki
MegaBowser64
Solar power is a pretty controversial topic so debate away.
 
I mean whatever disadvantages it has is still a ton better than relying on fossil fuels.

None of the alternative energies beat nuclear energy though, an energy we should have embraced a long time ago.
 
Solar power is ok in my books but hydro power in my opinion is way underappreciated. The fact that they are taking down dams and not putting more up is a disaster.
 
It's only controversial if you're an oil tycoon

This may seem surprising to you, but solar power is not a unanimous thing, and not even by a small margin. I'm not frustrated by people who are all for solar power, but what bugs me is people who completely ignore the cons of adopting it. Assuming that you live in an urban or suburban area, and you do not know anybody that lives in a truly rural area, probably all you've ever heard about is the satanic operations of fossil fuels and the heavenly redemption of solar power. That's not to say fossil fuels are bad, but there are cons to solar power as a whole. Is adopting it in one household a good idea? Probably. However, we need to think about the demographic behind this. There are the people with panels on their home, who are obviously very well-to-do. What about everyone else? They get their energy off solar fields. Now, I'm not an expert at this, but an electrician once told me that about one million dollars is put into each solar field to get it running. I live in a rural area with probably 20 solar fields. That's 20 million dollars. The government is paying for at least half of that. That's 10 million dollars out of the government's nonexistent wallet for my small area alone. There are only about 30,000 residents in my county and like 5% of them use solar. Huh. How about that. There are people working as hard as possible putting these up, and they don't even care about using it. Most people in the low-mid class do not care about solar power in the least, and the fact that they are both working for the wealthier people in putting up fields, and just paying for the fields in taxes, seems a little unfair. The poor people work harder so the wealthy people can live better. That's how it's always been. The people without a voice do all the dirty work to make the whole thing seem like a perfect system. Heck, I don't have any voice and I know it. I don't care. The people with a voice want solar power, and the people without one don't. It appears to be a perfectly unanimous and innocent operation. I'm not saying we should stop putting up fields, but it's just something to think about, from a different perspective.
 
Every single alternative energy source has many cons to it and those reasons are one of the reasons we're stuck with the terrible fossil fuels. Wind power destroys landscapes and disrupts birds. Hydroelectric dams and tidal energy can pollute the ocean and disrupt marine life. Nuclear energy can be dangerous and needs excellent regulation, you can't have sloppily built shit and management like what happened with Chernobyl (which will never happen again, modern reactors are fantastic and practically bullet proof). All alternative energies need to work in tandem with each other in order to deprive the best efficiency out of them.

Fossil fuels are still the worst fuel we are relying on despite all alternative energy cons, this is no contest. You think all the cons of nuclear energy? Fossil fuel-related deaths happen on several orders of magnitude more than anything nuclear-related and fossil fuels generate much more dangerous waste (that also needs to be buried) that stays bad practically forever. Global warming is a serious threat to humanity and fossil fuels are the sole contributing factor to it, we have to eliminate reliance on them completely.
 
The poor people work harder so the wealthy people can live better. That's how it's always been. The people without a voice do all the dirty work to make the whole thing seem like a perfect system. Heck, I don't have any voice and I know it. I don't care. The people with a voice want solar power, and the people without one don't.
Golly I think whatever conglomerate media outlet framing this nonsense in these terms to you has it completely backward
 
Golly I think whatever conglomerate media outlet framing this nonsense in these terms to you has it completely backward

First of all, I don't use any media outlets in terms of politics, so your witty remark doesn't work. Opinions are only good if they can stand up outside of an echo chamber. My political beliefs come from actual fact (Wikipedia in a lot of cases) and my actual real world experiences. I'm not just an idiot that gets told what to believe, so if you're calling what I said nonsense, it's my nonsense. If you would like to elaborate your point of view in a logical sense, I would be very much interested, but as for now I'm going to leave my argument at what it is.
 
The fact that they are taking down dams and not putting more up is a disaster.

Environmental impact is the primary reason we're not building giant dams everywhere and even taking down some. I know in the Central Valley, those dams (specifically that of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project) are disruptive to wildlife, specifically the delta smelt which is a crucial indicator of the health of the ecosystem there and an extinction of its species can signal a domino effect of further species struggling.
 
You're putting forward a very strange argument. There's actually a number of sources that'll tell you that solar power is as cost-competitive as fossil fuel burning, at least in the current year. If you'd prefer not to just look at this year, though, there's also the matter of adaptation, which in climate change terms refers to our general ability to prepare for further climate change catastrophe. The actual long-term costs of fossil fuel burning aren't just focused on the now, because as fossil fuel emissions rise, so do rates of climate change - and this'll cause all sorts of cost deficits in the future as extreme weather causes damage to our electrical infrastructures, buildings, roads, changing seasonal patterns cause harm to our agricultural and fishing industries, the list goes on and on. Even if solar power were twice as expensive as fossil fuel emissions, it would ultimately be an economic benefit to move in that direction, to mitigate more harm than we've already invariably caused.

It's also potentially true that a lot of people just don't care. I don't think that's necessarily because they only want fossil fuels, though - I believe a lot of people just want power and energy, regardless of the source. You'll struggle to get everyone in electric cars, but I think if a neighborhood moved towards solar power, you'd probably have little resistance beyond the initial inconvenience of having their power down for a day or something. Of course, solar power cannot be our only source of energy, but to not provide the option because not everyone has adopted it yet seems silly. We have to build the resource so that we can encourage others to use the resource.

I'm not sure where your nihilistic centrist view is coming from, but let's not toss out rhetoric that our voices mean nothing. It is true that an average civilian has to fight to be heard, but any civilian can contribute to change. Sometimes that doesn't just mean voting in new politicians, but actual sustained action. You're fifteen, so I'm cutting you some slack, but mobilization of people is real and effective, regardless of what your real world experience and Wikipedia deep-diving tells you. Regardless, if you think it's only the "elites" who want solar power to happen, I think you'd be mistaken in your demographic analysis. Here's two articles to help out.
 
Ethics also comes in play. The population worst affected will be impoverished countries with the smallest carbon footprints. Due to the media's hierarchy of victims whose catastrophes (which are amplified from climate change) are often swept under the rug, it's truly the voiceless that's going to hurt the most from continued fossil fuel dependency.

 
I am sure that Climate Change/Global Warming is real (because of the scientific evidence) and I think that mass usage of non-renewable energy for electricity (like oil, coal and gas) makes the planet less healthier. I think more and more renewable energy should be welcome. Perhaps, the introduction of electric cars and the addition of electric car infrastructure to the roads is a good thing. Also, I think that using more wind power from turbines is a good thing. I think increasing the usage of solar power is a good thing.
 
Nuclear energy has its strengths, but I think major environmental political parties and activist groups (like the Green Party and Greenpeace) and some other scientists make a good point about the toxic and dangerous waste/pollution than can come from nuclear power stations. That could be a major negative side effect from using nuclear energy as a source of energy.
 
Nuclear energy has its strengths, but I think major environmental political parties and activist groups (like the Green Party and Greenpeace) and some other scientists make a good point about the toxic and dangerous waste/pollution than can come from nuclear power stations. That could be a major negative side effect from using nuclear energy as a source of energy.

A lot of anti-nuclear hysteria stems from misunderstandings of how nuclear energy works and government propaganda (especially overreacting to events, the poor handling of the Fukushima reactor breaking down caused more deaths than the actual meltdown itself). In fact, political interference, mismanagement and maintenance remains the biggest obstacle to nuclear energy (then costs and time making plants, then probably disposal of waste).

Dangerous waste and pollution is an issue yes, but fossil fuel also produces far more toxic waste that we also have to bury (and unlike spent rods, these stay bad practically forever). In addition, the plants are extremely efficient; spent fuel can be reprocessed further and the amount of waste it generates is comparatively small compared to other fuels.

Also, Greenpeace is unreliable and base their stance on bad science; they're against GMO's for starters.
 
Case in point: The BP oil spill was more disastrous than Chernobyl I believe.
 
Back