938
Gas imports or solar panels?
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
938 points (98.3% liked)
Climate
8441 readers
377 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And? The land doesnt become a useless wasteland. Shading the land actually promotes more plant growth with less water useage.
Think the point is that it represents an added cost not modeled in the infographic. It's really the curse of incremental infrastructure cost, the LNG infrastructure sunk costs would be untenable but they've already been spent. So now solar, however unfairly, has that added infrastructure cost to consider.
The weird thing are solar nimbys. A while back I was reading about a big bunch of solar intended for the Mojave. Perfect, useless wasteland that should be a slam dunk for solar. But NIMBYs said that they would be an eyesore and hurt Vegas tourism. So they proposed installing on Mesas, out of sight. Then they still complained that skydivers could see it.