Start A Petition

L.A. Times: Minority Groups Fight Solar Power


Business  (tags: solar power, energy companies, naacp, environment, coal, oil )

M.N.
- 1616 days ago - latimes.com
Support from minority organizations has given power companies a potent ally in their fight to slow the spread of solar energy installations, saying incentives favor the wealthy. How can renewable proponents reach out to counter energy company lobbying?



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

. (0)
Thursday February 12, 2015, 3:42 pm
well, ANY-way, they and all OUGHT to distinguish between "solar power" and the "solar power HYPE" and the "solar power == clean energy LIEs," esp. the denialist delusions that "solar" can replace current industrial-scale energy-production --or would, if it could, be much "greener"-- , which denialist delusion(s) is of course very helpful for those who want to "sustain" the current $y$tem, never mind that it is murdering Eaaarth. (And would continue murdering Eaarth even if all power could be supplied by e.g. windmills. Which of course just ain't possible.)
==
U.S. electricity generation by energy source:
Wind 4.13%
Biomass 1.48%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.23%
-- http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

global:
92% of renewable energy was hydroelectric followed by
wind at 6% and
geothermal at 1.8%.
Solar photovoltaic was 0.06%, and solar thermal was 0.004%.
Data are from OECD 2011-12 Factbook (2009 data)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Production

From 1990 to 2008, the average energy (ab)use per person increased 10% while world population increased 27%. For every one human who dies, still about 2.4 are forced into this dying world.



 

. (0)
Thursday February 12, 2015, 3:43 pm
and as to the above mentioned "solar=green&clean"-Lies.... combine the following with above numbers...

""" Solar panels, no matter how groovy, require mines. In addition to copper and other metals, the panels require rare earths mines. Nearly all of the rare earths mines are in China. Half the rare earths mined are from the city of Baotou, and most of these are from one open pit mine more than a half mile deep and covering (or rather uncovering, or rather killing) more than eighteen square miles. The costs don’t stop there. Rare earths are found in extremely low concentrations, and must be separated from the rest of the ore. The separation processes require the use of sulfates, ammonia, and hydrochloric acid, and produce 2000 tons of toxic waste for every ton of rare earths. And the mines and smelters and factories of Baotou alone produce ten million tons of wastewater per year. This “water” is pumped into tailings ponds, including one that covers almost four square miles and about which The Guardian has written, “From the air it looks like a huge lake, fed by many tributaries, but on the ground it turns out to be a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it.” The Guardian also wrote, “The foul waters of the tailings pond contain all sorts of toxic chemicals, but also radioactive elements such as thorium which, if ingested, cause cancers of the pancreas and lungs, and leukemia. ‘Before the factories were built, there were just fields here as far as the eye can see. In the place of this radioactive sludge, there were watermelons, aubergines and tomatoes,’ says Li Guirong with a sigh.” Further, the soil and water are so polluted that the local residents can no longer grow vegetables there. Many have fled. Many have been forcibly relocated. Many have died, and those who remain are suffering a host of diseases caused by this mining.
...
And did I mention the slave labor? As Max Wilbert states, “A substantial portion of the Chinese workforce, especially for the dirty jobs like this that are likely to result in cancer, lung disease, asthma, comes from Tibet, where communities are forcibly disbanded by the Chinese military and sent hundreds of miles away from their homes and traditions to work in the coal mines, the uranium mines, and rare earth mines. A full fifth of Tibet’s population has been worked to death in this way. At this point that’s one point two million people and counting.”
There are plenty of other consequences (by all means we should never call them costs) but let’s mention only two.
One is that the production of solar panels is a leading source of the potent greenhouse gases hexafluoroethane, nitrogen triflouride, and sulfur hexafluoride; with hexaflouroethane being 12,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and lasting 10,000 years in the atmosphere (and does not exist in nature, which I guess means humans really are superior since they made this pollutant); nitrogen trifluoride being 17,000 times stronger than CO2 (with concentrations rising in the atmosphere at more than ten percent per year); and sulfure hexafluoride being 25,000 times more powerful than CO2.
The other certainly-not-a-cost is mentioned in a report by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition: “As the solar industry expands, little attention is being paid to the potential environmental and health costs of that rapid expansion. The most widely used solar PV panels have the potential to create a huge new source of electronic waste at the end of their useful lives, which is estimated to be 20 to 25 years. New solar PV technologies are increasing efficiency and lowering costs, but many of these use extremely toxic materials or materials with unknown health and environmental risks (including new nano materials and processes).” """ -- Derrick Jensen in (a draft for) his upcoming book (title not yet fixed) on "HUMAN SUPREMACISM"


 

David C (75)
Thursday February 12, 2015, 4:07 pm
thank you!
 

M.N. J (18)
Thursday February 12, 2015, 4:09 pm
Well, El Lobo, I love your avatar. Not so crazy about your editorial.

Take a look at the research presented at Media Matters. Titled "Myths and Facts About Solar Energy," it cites its sources, and refutes your rant.

I'll excerpt briefly:

"MYTH: Solar Energy Is "Dirty"
FACT: Solar Energy Can Greatly Reduce Pollution
Solar Energy Emits Much Fewer Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Fossil Fuels. Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development. 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction. Fossil Fuel Costs Do Not Fully Account For Their Pollution Damage."

There is much more information available on these topics at the site.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/24/myths-and-facts-about-solar-energy/192364

You're right, El Lobo, that slave labor is horrible. That's why we should be investing in U.S. solar and not buying our systems from the Chinese, right? And slave labor is why you don't own a computer, I'm guessing.

We can only work toward a better world. We can't wave a magic wand.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Business





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.