“Every. Single. Modern. Device. Has. A. Cost. Since the advent of the automobile, 3.5 million people have died in car deaths. Using your logic, we are complete fools...we should give up our cars and start walking. Obviously we don’t though.”
Not valid logic. With a vehicle I can GREATLY affect my own safety by cautious defensive driving. What pray tell am I similarly going to do about global mercury poisoning?
24k, 13k, 7k, 600k, 1 in 8 deaths, 30k IT all depends on exactly what area, what year, and the exact cause. One thing that is very clear is that the global use of solar power vs. coal would save an enormous number of lives.
http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/coal-death-toll-china-suffers-670000-smog-related-deaths-each-year.html
http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants//
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/health/who-air-pollution-deaths/index.html
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm
“Now in order to accept even the EPA’s claim, I have to ignore the fact that states that have had stricter particulate rules (North Carolina) for a decade showed no reduction in deaths.”
That is entirely false as I saw in at least one of the links I just looked at and I think I added it above.
” Also, I have to pretend that no energy is used to manufacture a solar panel”
More BS. unless you also want to start including the energy to mine the coal and create the power plant, lay utility lines, maintain them etc.
“Then I have to accept the premise of your argument - that its a two horse race between solar and coal.”
In no way shape or form do I believe or support that premise.
“the real, viable, successor to coal is natural gas.”
I certainly believe there is a place for natural gas. It certainly has less emissions like mercury but still has sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides. Although I think nuclear is superior.
“And then I have to overlook the extreme damage our do-gooders have done to the third world...where they use the World Bank to enforce some of the most expensive power on the planet (solar) on the poorest people in the world”
That is delusional. In many of these place the cost in connecting a village to the grid is more than ten times the cost of solar. http://www.villageprojects.org/
“And I need to back up some more - your argument is based on a libertarian notion that solar will get you ‘off the grid’. It won’t. It can’t. It is not a constant, reliable source of power. “
Another complete delusion. It is called energy storage. In fact we even have panels now that work on deep infrared and get energy from the re-reflected energy at night. 100% solar with complete energy storage may not be ideal or practical given other alternatives, but there are plenty of off grid home and communities. You are living in a dream world Neo.
“I hope you can understand that - every time a power company builds a windmill, it is 100% extra cost, above and beyond their normal costs. There is no offset or reduction on their plant size, no matter how many windmills they have.”
I can’t even imagine what you are thinking here? Of course you do not chop off a part of an existing power plant because you put up a wind turbine. Power use in this country keep growing. More power is constantly needed. More wind and solar means less new power plants.
“You know what doesn’t work: Government using my money to foist solar projects on an organization whose mission is allegedly to provide medical care to veterans.”
Govt is already using your money to foist death causing coal and has been for decades. But since coal is sooo much safer I am sure that was ok. SMH
“There are some exceptions btw. In Portugal they lift water with wind energy and release it later through turbines “
Yeah, like pumped hydro is the only effective energy storage mechanism
http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/energy-storage-technologies
” I mentioned in my initial comment that the fence around this solar field is a zoning violation. “
Zoning variances are done all the time for a variety of causes and if you don’t like how the leaders in your community handle them, then I suggest you try to get them removed form office rather than blame solar for it.
“But I have great disdain for the solar pushers.”
Exactly my point. After a long rant you made not one single valid point. You just hate people promoting clean, independent, distributed energy. Too bad for you.
Power Blackout = clean air
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040726/full/news040726-1.html
BTW there is one more inescapable fact, unless you are one of the deluded few who believes the earth manufactures new oil and coal deposits at a rate as fast as we use them and are projected to use them, then ultimately fossil fuels still have one unavoidable problem. THEY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE.
“More wind and solar means less new power plants.”
No. It. Doesn’t.
You completely fail to understand that one important point. Since solar and wind is not reliable, there has to be backup capacity. I live in Kansas, and we have hundreds of large windmills, in huge ‘windmill farms’. And I assure you, these windmill farms have not offset, reduced a need, or delayed construction of any type of traditional power plant in this state. Not one single KWH.
Why?
Because (I’m going to use caps here, since it seems to be in vogue) POWER COMPANIES DO NOT STORE ENERGY ON A LARGE SCALE. Never have....never will.
We obviously aren’t going to agree - you are a solar disciple. Now, you have projected on me that I must be a coal disciple. Neat how that works, huh? Common enviro debate trick.
Anyway, lets make a deal. I’ll quit complaining about solar projects at VA hospitals when....my federal government quits confiscating my money to pay for it. Deal? That’s fair right?
[I haven’t bothered to even look at the links that allege the government subsidizes coal...but I think I know how it goes: The feds own a lot of western lands (an entirely different subject I object to btw), and they lease the coal lands to crooked companies that make a huge profit. Am I about right? So the alleged ‘subsidy’ is really lost revenue due to poor leasing practices...crony government at its worst and it should be remedied. But it still doesn’t alter a very basic concept: Private companies pay the gubmint to lease coal land, while the gubmint pays private companies to use fed land for solar. One is inherently a revenue stream TO the gubmint, and one is inherently (and perpetually) a revenue drain From the gubmint. Please refrain from calling me delusional until that axiom is no longer true (ie never).]
And even if coal is genuinely subsidized, are you really throwing ‘he did it too’ in my face? That’s a terrible argument that quit working for me at age 4.
I can tell you read a lot, get into science news...may even have some panels on your roof (or at least know somebody who does). Good for you. That’s great. I don’t have a problem with people putting their own panels up (again, unless I get to help pay for it). Its a fine hobby.
But it will never be a large scale source of energy. I am going to break this down to the most simplistic terms possible. I know you will protest and say coal has some sort of unfair advantage, etc....but here is the stark truth:
After decades of use in this country, and untold billions of subsidies, the solar energy sector in this nation provides 1% of our nation’s energy needs.
There are very obvious reasons for why the statement above is true...and those are the same reasons it is offensive that money is being wasted putting solar panels on VA property.