You are being misled about renewable energy technology.

> And no, there's no mention of batteries there; it's literally a straw man fight, showing their applicability to daily solar power generation cycles while almost completely ignoring their applicability to annual cycles. Why is it every single time someone in this thread speaks up they are just plain wrong? Here is a direct link to the part about batteries. He talks about them for about 15 minutes which is something like a quarter of the video. There is even a chapter mark to take you to that part. He also mentions them half a dozen more times throughout the video and warns in the beginning that people like you will chime in with misinformation without watching the video. You proved him right. [this video] > applicability to annual cycles. He talks about that too. I'm not going to bother linking. Actually watch the video or move on. > Just take a weekly chart of the actual energy output of the panels for the year, and calculate the price relative to the worst week I don't have to. The United States government did and even considering the cost of storage, it's still cheaper than all the alternatives. Has been for years now. See my earlier comments for links. Private investors have done the same math, and that's why almost all new electricity generation being built is solar. It's the basically free money. Nobody with a brain can legitimately think that digging goop out of the desert, doing expensive processing to it, shipping it to the other side of the earth, and literally lighting

> in effect you've basically hamstrung green sources of energy around the country by being very smart for your own state. > The question is, should you be allowed to this. "...you've basically hamstrung green sources of energy"? Well, after we stop growing corn to feed exclusively to cars and start using solar panels deployed on that land to harvest electricity for cars and houses and everything else that runs on electricity [0], if we're still short on power we can have the discussion you're itching to have. [0] The immediately relevant discussion starts here < [this video] > and runs through to about 38:29, but the entire video is very, very well worth watching.

I think the lament is the rise of the "facts are the enemy" stance is a step towards dystopia. I recently learned that if we converted all the land we use to grow corn for ethanol (not food) into solar farms the US would produce 84% more energy than it currently produces (from all sources) [1]. Of course that's a huge undertaking, but we're not even talking about it because pesky things like facts are swept aside in lieu of punchy counters like: panels are expensive (they're not), we don't have the land (we do), what about the batteries (solved problem with today's--let along tomorrow's tech), the corn best doesn't get enough sun (it does), etc. [1]: [this video]

Haha, but you did that already: > How much CO2 is released producing, shipping, and installing the solar panels? Or maybe you wanted someone else list all the steps. I was simply helping you with the part you missed: > GP is right: you gotta consider all the variables The fact you seemingly missed the fact that growing and processing corn keeps emitting GHG (not only co2), and that producing, transporting and installing the solar panels costs *once*. I already mentioned the video that covers this specific relationship and details, the actual costs and benefits of growing corn for ethanol vs generating electricity: [this video]