Critically Thinking about Industrial Solar Facilities
Realities vs Illusions
I recently had a Substack article about some of the numerous concerns with industrial wind energy. Several people then asked: does solar have the same issues? The answer is that solar is similar, but different.
Solar is similar to wind in that it also fails on the three main criteria for adding worthwhile energy sources to the Grid: cost, reliability and environmental impact.
Solar differs from wind in that its performance and issues are distinctive.
Let’s step back, put aside the marketing hype, and look at some of the key consequences of promoting and subsidizing industrial solar energy:
a) solar projects rarely have meaningful state rules or regulations to abide by (note: a similar situation also exists for wind energy). This throws the responsibility for regulating a complex technical product, on the shoulders of local, non-technical representatives — i.e. good people who are easily duped by lobbyists;
b) solar proponents often attempt to further handicap local communities from enacting meaningful regulations, by advocating an expedited approval process;
c) solar projects require 100% backup, so we must pay for twice the energy sources;
d) solar projects require 100% backup, which is typically from gas, so that needs to be factored in when discussing cost, environmental impact, CO2 reduction, etc.;
e) solar facilities are likely a net energy sink (e.g., see this study);
g) despite states shelling out Billions of dollars to benefit the solar industry, no scientific, thorough, objective studies have shown that solar is a net benefit;
h) further, this 2021 Study: Built Solar Facilities are Chronically Underperforming;
k) solar can take prime farmland out of production (e.g., here), which results in loss of jobs, loss of farm equipment & supplies sold, and a loss of consumer produce;
o) Solar has no scientifically-proven consequential net reduction of climate change! In fact, some studies (e.g., here, here, here, here and here) conclude that there’s good evidence that solar facilities make climate change worse; and
Some additional sample relevant information about solar energy:
Like industrial wind energy, the “success” of solar is almost entirely due to its relentless promotion by well-paid lobbyists. It is categorically not due to any net benefits to the Grid, ratepayers, or the country, as there are few, if any.
Our critical thinking theme continues: don’t be fooled by self-serving marketing hype based on political science. When technical matters like this are proposed, a genuine Scientific assessment consists of an analysis that has four key ingredients: 1) Objective, 2) Thorough, 3) Transparent, and 4) Empirical. No such study has ever concluded that solar (or wind) is a net societal benefit.
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free newsletter once every two weeks that covers what the mainstream media does not, on issues from: COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2022 Archives. Send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name, and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?)
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.