Instead of careful analysis this article just give the chemicals are given attributes like "virulent" or "treacherous". Emotional sloppiness like this is what I expect from the left trying to play to people's hearts rather than their brains.
Unfortunately, even determining how much CO2 is "saved" by photovoltaics isn't straight-forward. In the current energy mix, their output still has to be backed up by conventional reliable generation, because our society isn't going to accept a power drop-out when clouds pass over a big solar farm, or a dust storm obscures what few panels the enviro's allow to be put up in the desert. A backup coal-fired plant has to keep its water boiling, ready to release steam as soon as it is able to pick up any slack, and that really reduces the energy being "saved".
Solar, and wind as well, are unreliable sources that are being shoe-horned into the energy game just to make their manufacturers(e.g. Solyndra, GE's Jeffrey Immelt) rich through sweetheart deals with politicians so that they can brag to their voters how they're "saving the planet", so that they can feel good about themselves. To me, that's the real emotional sloppiness.
I agree - this is one idiotic article - it has inconsistencies and inaccuracies and plain stupidity written all over it.
Such as the following...
“Zehner explains that alternative energy subsidies keep retail electricity costs incrementally lower, which then spurs demand.”
Even with subsidies solar is more expensive and in california I sure as hell don’t see my electric bill go down. And in Germany, the capital of solar energy (but not exactly the sunshine capital of the world) the price of electricity is around 36cents a kwh - one of the highest in the world.
And this one...
“...gold-rimmed suburbs of Arizona...” Maybe he’s referring to gold-rimmed Buckeye or gold-rimmed Peoria.