Loading ...
Ignoring the solar power trade-offs
Let’s say global warming is real and is caused by CO2 (it’s not, but I’m trying to make a point).
Our liberal friends tell us that we should be switching to alternative renewable sources. One of their favorite solutions is solar power. Liberals don’t see the world like conservatives do. They look at problems and solutions. Conservatives see trade-offs.
With regards to solar power, liberals look beyond the trade-offs that solar power is extremely inefficient, costly and an extremely poor use of land to make the argument that we need to do it to stop global warming. OK…let’s concede another huge point to them for argument sake.
A new study suggest that the current production of solar panels won’t do anything to combat global warming. A chemical called nitrogen triflouride (NF3) used in the production of the panels is 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and this gas is collecting in the atmosphere. (LINK) The dubious science used to predict global warming by CO2 also predicts that solar power will give no relief to global climate change because the NF3 pollution will offset any reductions. Instead of CO2 causing a green house effect, NF3 will. At least CO2 is good for plants and crop production. I’m thinking NF3 is good for nothing.
So even if you look beyond the trade-offs, it can be argued that there are no benefits.
