Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 228 posts

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#111

Post by asdff »

danw1979 wrote: post #58

I took a stroll recently through the countryside around Swindon, UK, where there’s a massive new solar farm on formerly arable land. One thing I only just realised was how the view from the ground is so badly affected when you’re down amidst the endless rows of panels - they reach well above head height. It’s basically like walking through a industrial estate, just with more grass in between. Really very bleak. Give…

So much spare land in flat roofs in industrial and warehouse space but solar installations there, if they are there, seem to be limited to covering utility bills for the building over generating surplus for the grid. Much of the roof will remain uncovered, along with all the periphery lot, parking, truck yard, and access roads. No one would be complaining about any view there...

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#112

Post by asdff »

simmerup wrote: post #74
danw1979 wrote: post #58

I took a stroll recently through the countryside around Swindon, UK, where there’s a massive new solar farm on formerly arable land. One thing I only just realised was how the view from the ground is so badly affected when you’re down amidst the endless rows of panels - they reach well above head height. It’s basically like walking through a industrial estate, just with more grass in between. Really very bleak. Give…

Climate change is an existential threat, it's switch to green power asap or burn the world our kids will live in

Would be nice if we started with the actual marginal land and not the marginal land in real estate terms. Roofs for a start. Parking lots next. Really no reason why any and all industrial land shouldn't look like a pure sea of solar from orbit. Every square inch is low hanging fruit no one would complain about a solar panel going in there.

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#113

Post by JumpCrisscross »

simmerup wrote: post #108
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is 100% an existential threat, but the existential bit happens in 100 years No, it’s not, and no, we don’t know that. Humans will survive climate change. Rich countries will survive, too. We will all suffer. Economically, healthwise and aesthetically. But that’s not existential. Framing it as such is disingenuous and counterproductive.

RCP8.5 is pretty much ruled out by people as unlikely for some reason, even as we have the major super power on the planet pulling out of the Paris agreement on climate change. There is clearly a temperature at which this planet will not support human life, and we could definitely get the planet to that temperature if we don't change course and reach net zero. Saying its not an existential threat is just wild to me.

> There is clearly a temperature at which this planet will not support human life, and we could definitely get the planet to that temperature

There is such a temperature. We are not getting to it in half a century at current emission rates, even with zero curtailment. If you have a source that shows the opposite, I’d be happy to read it.

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#114

Post by asdff »

card_zero wrote: post #96
nitwit005 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like endless corn fields, only solar panels.

I don't much like walking through corn fields either, it's heavy going, all that trampling. Farmers should just grow pretty flowers, small ones.

That is pretty much pasture land

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#115

Post by fluoridation »

dylan604 wrote: post #91
swsieber wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around, not over. Trees are a well studied thing where can you pick different species for different characteristics, like height, and growth speed.

TIL shadows from trees only project down directly under the tree and never project away from the tree itself. My entire life experience has been rendered useless.

Ultimately, everything we build we build for ourselves, and people will generally prefer something that's nice to look at, if slightly inefficient, over the thing that's optimal at the cost of every other parameter.

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#116

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nixpulvis wrote: post #97
carefree-bob wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think you're qualified to make this assessment. If a large majority of the scientific community is treating it and calling it an existential threat, I'm tempted to agree. In fact, I think most widely held scientific stances on this are meant to be balanced and as agreeable as possible, so I personally believe it's likely to be worse than the mainstream opinion. Climate migration is already an issue. Extreme c…

> large majority of the scientific community is treating it and calling it an existential threat

I haven’t seen evidence of this. What I see is scientists making measured predictions about massive costs in human life, economies, refugee crises, and wars. Extinctions. Like, horrible stuff. But not extinction or even civilisational collapse.

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#118

Post by simmerup »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #113
simmerup wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RCP8.5 is pretty much ruled out by people as unlikely for some reason, even as we have the major super power on the planet pulling out of the Paris agreement on climate change. There is clearly a temperature at which this planet will not support human life, and we could definitely get the planet to that temperature if we don't change course and reach net zero. Saying its not an existential threat is just wild to me.

> There is clearly a temperature at which this planet will not support human life, and we could definitely get the planet to that temperature There is such a temperature. We are not getting to it in half a century at current emission rates, even with zero curtailment. If you have a source that shows the opposite, I’d be happy to read it.

Of course not in half a century, but it's not like the earth just stops getting hotter after 2100 rolls around.

What about 2200? Humanity at 2300? It's the same planet with the same feedback loops after all.

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

simmerup wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is clearly a temperature at which this planet will not support human life, and we could definitely get the planet to that temperature There is such a temperature. We are not getting to it in half a century at current emission rates, even with zero curtailment. If you have a source that shows the opposite, I’d be happy to read it.

Of course not in half a century, but it's not like the earth just stops getting hotter after 2100 rolls around. What about 2200? Humanity at 2300? It's the same planet with the same feedback loops after all.

> What about 2200? Humanity at 2300?

You literally said “the existential threat happens in 100 years.”

And to your questions, we don’t know. I’d love to see the data. I’m still sceptical we hit “existential” levels for human survival. That wouldn’t even happen if we went back to dinosaur levels of CO2.

Re: In Denmark, the spread of solar panels has become a divisive issue

#120

Post by devilbunny »

SoftTalker wrote: post #25
ahartmetz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could possibly be combined with a solution to the storage problem: store the energy in some transportable chemical form like hydrogen, methane or the electrolyte of a redox flow battery.

Yeah possibly. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuel that's already compatible with transportation infrastructure and energy consumers might be the best bet.

We will probably be using that in aviation for a long, long time. Turbines are pretty efficient and jet fuel has a remarkably high energy density for something that does not easily explode.
Post reply on HN