Quote:
Originally Posted by Floppa
Things that aren't wind turbines kill birds, so don't be worried about that fact that we're adding to it.
|
Proportionality matters. Being ignorant doesn't change that. Have you even bothered to Google how many species would get wiped out due to climate change? Or was the Boomer Facebook talking point enough education?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floppa
Big oil is backing renewables because they require gas plants to back them up.
|
Big oil isn't doing shit. Most renewables are built by utilities. Especially in Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
“Let them eat photons”
We are likely to be quite desperate for agricultural land as semi arid agricultural regions (such as the prairies) become less productive due to climate change. Solar is fine for areas like California or Australia where population centres are close to useless land, or for some marginal sites, but it is nonsensical to starve future generations for projects that don’t even generate much power.
|
You're quite the red herring and strawman expert. Nobody is going to starve if we have more solar. Quit your bullshit.
1) Most of what we produce is for the export market. It's not really to feed Canadians.
2) Prairie farm land, in particular, is used for particularly lower value commodities like grain and soybeans. In quite a few cases, there is literally more economic value in putting solar panels on there, than planting more.
3) Solar PV is not some magical technology that stops working at a certain latitude. The only difference is that more panels and grid storage needed (which itself gets lower every year with technological advances). And this is reflected in the economics with utilities paying accordingly.
4) Given the amount of hydro and nuclear and the offshore wind potential, the amount of land the we actually end up dedicating to solar will be closer to the lower bound in the Nature article. But even if it was 5% in aggregate across the entire country, I'm willing to bet that the net effect on agricultural output would be minimal.
Lastly, it's pretty fucking rich of climate change minimizers who argue for zero mitigation efforts to suddenly start feigning grave concern over feeding "future generations".