Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

To save some people the click -- minimum warming potential by a few less-than-randomly selected sources:

Coal: 770 Gas: 410 Rooftop solar: 26 Offshore wind: 8 Nuclear: 3.7

So, the word "vastly" above might be overstating things. Solar certainly isn't the most efficient, but it's pretty damn efficient compared to anything produced by biological processes.




400% and 700% are a vast difference.

I'm not comparing Roof Top solar to Coal or Natural Gas yes very clear winner there. I'm comparing it to Hydro-Electric, Nuclear, Tidal, and Wind where it is by far the dirtiest.


You know, I edited out a sentence that read something like "unless you're playing statistical games with percentages" because I thought to myself that this was an unfair projection of what you might be thinking.

Thank you for making it clear that I was not being unfair, even in my pre-edited state.

They are a small difference compared to extractive mining. Statistics rhetorical tricks aside, the world would be much better off if we were using any mix of the non-extractive power technologies, even if that mix heavily weights rooftop solar.

Fundamentally the fact that rooftop solar is something I can put some money into tomorrow and see the results in six months means it is effective, which offends many people who would prefer that we spend our efforts in ineffective ways, either for ideological reasons (amusing that nuclear doesn't appeal to these types) or because they wish to maintain the status quo. Since the science shows that status quo is going to drown the island I live on inside of 75 years, I'm not a big fan of this point of view. My island is probably already dead, and the 80K people that live here need to find a new home in our or our children's lifetimes, but I am motivated to make choices that don't produce more stories like mine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: