> In some cases it's questionable if some green technologies actually are a net positive at all.
This is just FUD, unless you actually have numbers that show CO2 emissions are higher over the lifetime of a solar panel compared to a coal power plant.
> don't want to consider the very obvious alternative, dematerialisation and reduction of energy consumption.
Forcing everybody into poverty is not a viable alternative.
Re:Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap
by alextingle on Thursday May 14, 2020 @07:00PM
(#23186650)
> It highlights the extremely neglected costs in raw material and non-electrifiable infrastructure that is required to produce materials that are nominally 'green'.
Ignored by whom? You?
In fact, embedded energy is a huge consideration in the evaluation of green technologies.
It’s a depressingly common reality that “nobody has considered” is effectively equivalent to “I haven’t considered” on the internet.
The idea that solar panels might not be more efficient than burning coal is not an opinion held by someone who has done any level of research on the subject at all.
Re:Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap
by HeadsUpHigh on Friday May 15, 2020 @01:28AM
(#23189181)
> It highlights the extremely neglected costs in raw material and non-electrifiable infrastructure that is required to produce materials that are nominally 'green'.
Hey just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean other people with much more knowledge and experience on the subject haven't.
There is a strong 'abundance' bias implicit in articles by people like Ramez Naam, who push so strongly for green energy production because they don't want to consider the very obvious alternative, dematerialisation and reduction of energy consumption. People like Naam still categorically hang onto a growth narrative so they tend to neglect the downsides of the solutions they provide.