Environment & Energy

Either will apply. I certainly don't feel "refuted" by pointing out the fact that the trillion dollars spent on solar energy has not a fucking thing to do with ameliorating the destruction of the planetary atmosphere, and therefore there is no good reason to build them, particularly if the money is better spent on reliable and infinitely scalable carbon free systems, of which there is only one example, nuclear energy.

If I've changed the subject from blather about the efficiency of solar cells to one that matters, I have no inclination to apologize.

The point is that handwaving about solar cells in Switzerland, having no legitimate reference to support the claim, or a exhibiting a shred of insight to the fact that the degradation of solar cells is connected with the time they are exposed to sunlight, and temperatures, and if they are under snow for half a year, they can appear to have a longer life because they are protected from, um, light, which causes degradation.

I recognize that the following recent paper on the topic involves science, for which antinukes hold contempt, but I'll link it anyway, as it shows the degradation pathways connected with 90% of the solar junk that's accumulated uselessly, silicon based solar cells:

Eshetu Tadesse Ymer, Hirpa Gelgele Lemu, Mesay Alemu Tolcha, Identification of the key material degradation mechanisms affecting silicon solar cells: Systematic literature review, Results in Engineering, Volume 27, 2025, 106113,

From the abstract:

The authors are Norwegian and African. They suggest the point that solar cells may last longer - albeit with lower capacity utilization in one climatic region and less well in another.

But of course, no antinuke is ashamed of cherry picking.

Fossil fuel coddling antinukes are in general, poorly read, and when they try to read, they don't do very well.

Here's a cute paper that an antinuke, given their indifference and poor educations, might think they can "refute" reality, published a little over a month ago:

Caixia Li, Feng Dong, Victor Nian, Global photovoltaic waste under ratcheting climate ambition: Spatio-temporal distribution and future pathways, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 221, 2025, 108388,

From the introduction:



I'm sorry that antinukes are incapable of understanding the basics of the useless solar industry - which despite the abstract above, including the parts in both articles with which I disagree, the claim that accumulating solar junk all over the planet has anything at all to do with addressing climate issues.

It doesn't.

Let's be clear, solar waste is distributed waste, not centralized and not easily recovered and where it is recovered, um, fossil fuel powered trucks are used, and where recovery is of no interest, are left to rot in place otherwise.

There is therefore, no justifiable reason to build mass intensive, land intensive, short lived solar junk.

I'm sorry to report that antinukes miss the part where I claim that issues in energy technology should be connected with environmental value, as opposed to bourgeois affectations.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

I have yet to meet or hear from one antinuke here or elsewhere that they give a rat's ass about the state of the planetary atmosphere. In general, pointing to this subject about which any energy conversation should be about, in my view, if not theirs offends them somehow. Nevertheless it is an issue in, um, "Energy and the Environment" in which I believe, even if antinukes are ethically, and intellectually incompetent to grasp as much, are related.

I have yet to hear from a single one of them a single verifiable reason why solar cells should be manufactured, since they have no financial, health, environmental or climate value. None. Zero. Zip.

I trust your having a pleasant weekend.