It seems like it a bad place. It would probably shorten the panels’ lifetime, and maintenance would be tricky without interrupting train traffic.
Let’s work on putting more solar panels on schools, malls, parking lots, train stations, and any structure with a large roof.
Li-Ion seems to be the go-to solution. I hope new static energy storage projects will prefer other options (Na-Ion, flow batteries, …) since there’s a limited supply of Lithium and we need it for vehicles.
The Richmond farm uses 97% less land
Sounds too good to be true. Does this account for land use of the electricity production system?
For every 10sqm saved in farm area, how many extra sqm does the energy production require?
I know it’s possible to put solar on rooftop. But it’s also possible to have a greenhouse on the rooftop or last floor of a building, and greenhouses need almost no energy in comparison.
Because using children as guinea pigs is unethical. The cure is uncertain and there are known risks.
Before considering a ban, we should start by fairly taxing flights and burning of fossil fuel in general. That would include closing the loophole that makes plane ticket and plane fuel exempt of taxes. And of course a carbon tax.
That’d be probably enough to significantly reduce pollution from flights and data centers.
That’s true. If there’s lots of flexibility in the energy consumption, then it would be easy to keep adding lots of renewable. And there’s lot of potential for demand flexibility.
In reality there’s limited flexibility, in part due to laziness and inertia. So adding more solar is giving diminishing returns. Which means adding solar gets harder to do economically as the share of renewable increase.
There need to be better incentives for flexibility in demand (ie push consumer to shift energy usage) and for storage (ie give energy producers bonuses depending on the amount of energy storage they have available).
We have geo-engineered our way into this climate crisis
Well said.
It’s unfortunate that so much susidies go into burning wood, and fossil fuel.
I looked into a local nonprofit that support renewables, and it focus on biomass, less so on solar, and didn’t focus of wind at all (because of scale and upfront cost). Because of that focus on biomass and uncertainty on emissions from biomass I stayed away from them.
That sounds analogous to the withdrawal effect which addicts suffer when stopping drugs.
Quickly reducing pollution reduces the short-lived masking effect, which makes things temporarily worse when the pollution stops. It’s still worth it and the best option long term.
It’s a matter of time scale. When burning wood from old trees, and planting new trees instead, and it take several decades for tree to grow old enough to compensate for what released on day 1. The emitted particules affect air quality, and emitted carbon will affect climate for decades. One of these effects is an increase in forest fire, and a burned tree cannot capture carbon.
Unfortunately we cannot wait decades to reduce emissions.
Similarly, burning fossil fuel isn’t introducing more carbon into the earth, it’ll eventually be absorbed by planctons, trees, etc and will make it back in the ground. That cycle is longer however, housands or million of years.
Clean energy can come from many things, but not from burning stuff.
Hydropower, tide-powered water turbines, osmotic power, etc can be clean.
This is not even half the amount of fossil fuel subsidies.
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
The article cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper paper which indicate satellites reentry has a significant effect.
Have you published (or know of) a better research paper that show this is incorrect?
the population of reentering satellites in 2022 caused a 29.5% increase of aluminum in the atmosphere above the natural level.
[…]
As aluminum oxide nanoparticles may remain in the atmosphere for decades, they can cause significant ozone depletion.
Don’t waste time trying to reason them. If you’re not able and willing and sue them to enforce the GPL license, the company won’t care.
You should directly informe one of the organisations mentioned previously, they may have a lawyer and experience fighting this kind of fight.
Best you can do youself is collect evidence that they’re distributing modified GPL software, and write a precise description of the issue, to help these organisations kickstart their investigation into the GPL violation.
Then someone will write an utility that automatically sets timezone using geoclue location data.