Solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun

And older people want to retire there.

Nope. Both ecosystems (prairies and forests) have their place. However, note that the forest is far worse since it will kill the plants beneath the trees, per the author's opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trees don't block every scrap of light beneath them the way a panel does. And the panels need to be maintained, at least washed from time to time, so the area is hardly going to support anything in the way of wildlife.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Solar arrays don't block every scrap of light either. Most arrays contain significant gaps for mounting hardware, and modern arrays are generally translucent (so the backs of the cells can capture reflected light as well.) Again, go behind any ground-mounted array and see if everything behind it is dead.

I have had solar for 25 years now. No regular washing. Rain seems to work just fine.

If those towns want to outlaw solar, it's up to them. Their town, their rules. But when their decisions are based at least partly on ignorance, and that ignorance comes from someone who should know better, they deserve the ridicule they get.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Many of their concerns are legitimate.

 

I don't think any of them are legitimate; they are primarily fearmongering and NIMBYism. And some of their concerns are downright ignorant. Again, their town, their decision. But they want to make decisions based on the idea that solar panels can cause cancer, and suck up all the light from the sun, then they (rightly) will get grief over that.

In general, knowledge is better than ignorance. It's almost always better to speak up when it can help promote knowledge over ignorance.

 

They use land that could otherwise be used for something different (so they do suck up the sun in those areas), the town doesn't get much benefit, the solar panels are possibly made of carcinogenic materials that could end up in the ground at some point in the future. These aren't ignorant reasons for objecting.

 

Everything has problems and most of the problems can be solved.
The ground under a new installation looks brown and dead, because it's been dug up to make cement foundations. (Plus, most of the large arrays are on gravel or sand, which was already poor in vegetation.)
Soooo - dig shallow trenches on either side of a row of panels. Fill them with good topsoil. Plant the shady side ones with lettuce, spinach, kale, mustard, etc. and the sunnier side with tomato and pepper. It's the sunnier side that will get most water runoff from the panels, but enough water will seep over to the other trench. Hoe and weed occasionally. Pick at will.
Or throw some random barley and other rich grass seed around, wait a while, then graze sheep on it. Or plant nothing, wait for the weeds and graze goats. Or geese.
Or raise the panels a bit and plant anything you like.
Really, the only places you need big solar farms are airports http://ste.india.com/sites/default/...public/2015/12/06/438850-so.jpg?itok=VBTchTma; but other places can benefit from less extensive installations.
http://www.convergence-energy.com/wp-content/uploads/Farm_Flowers.jpg
A single array on or near each house has the advantage of short wires, losing less power in transit. There are all kinds of different configurations and options. https://www.google.ca/search?q=sola...vkhN_JAhUFy2MKHdLqCDUQsAQILQ&biw=1600&bih=698

 

Let me rephrase what I was stating. The growth of usage for solar power is growing by large margins in comparison to its previous usage, but you are very optimistic if you think within the next ten years coal and uranium will be a secondary power source in comparison to solar. You are right; it will eventually out shadow it, however only 4.6 millions homes are currently powered by solar in the United States, in comparison to the 123.2 million homes. Not quite sure if you are implying if it will come relatively fast.

Links: http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data

 

That is indeed an ignorant reason. It is similar to the argument that vaccines might cause autism, so people shouldn't get vaccinated.

 

Not really, those solar panels could be abandoned, smashed, and then leach carcinogens into the ground for decades.

 

What? Hide! Dig a hole, quick! The sun is a nuke!
Not using sunlight to generate electricity doesn't change that or make the sun any easier to stare at.

Can we get back to reality?

I don't blame people worrying about the breakdown products of any manufactured item. You need to look at how well it's made, whether it's durable, whether there is a safe means of disposing of it when it's broken, how to prevent damage from accidental or deliberate fracture. The concern is legitimate.... as long as it's spread across the board. I become suspicious when people attack solar panels, but not other silicon-based artefacts, including cookware and cosmetics. Or when they are afraid of solar batteries, but not the gazillion batteries in all their business, household and personal appliances.
Why pick and choose?

 

Shame on you.

 

Sure could. And someone could get a vaccine and then get autism. Or they could get an infection from the injection site and then they could be DEAD. Let's hope the town keeps vaccines out as well (which, of course, are manufactured by greedy non-local big pharma.)

Or - heck - the local fire department could accidentally crash their fire truck. Those things have even more carcinogens in them, like motor oil. Thus it would make sense for this town to ban fire departments. That wouldn't be ignorant or short-sighted at all.

 

Defend this assertion. Where did the townspeople demonstrate their ignorance?

What I see them saying is we won't approve it until we get answers to our questions that allay our concerns. That's pretty rational where I come from.

 

Where they (specifically one person, supposedly a science teacher) stated that solar panels can cause cancer.

 

Show me.

No, I'll save some time and posts and show you:

"She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-up-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html

1] It's a shame the reporter didn't quote what she actually said. It's kind of important. I note the reporter had no trouble quoting Strata's spokespeople. So he understands the importance of quoting a source.

2] Even the reporter did not claim she said 'solar panels can cause cancer'; he simply claimed she said 'no one can give me an answer'.


Which is the only thing she has been quoted as saying in the original article:

"I want to know what’s going to happen,” she said. “I want information. Enough is enough. I don’t see the profit for the town. “People come with hidden agendas,” she said. “Until we can find if anything is going to damage this community, we shouldn’t sign any paper.”
http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

That doesn't sound ignorant at all. That sounds like someone demanding answers, like any rational, concerned, non-ignorant citizen ought to do.

 

OK. Right here:

That is an ignorant thing to say.

I did not claim that everything she said was ignorant. I know a few creationists who, in other ways, are quite intelligent. That is not an argument that their views on evolution are less ignorant.

 

She didn't say it; the reporter did.

And cancer agents are a hot topic. It is by no means a settled subject.
She is not ignorant for being unsatisfied with the the say-so of a company who has a vested interest in the outcome.
She is not making any claims, she is simply demanding that the questions are adequately answered before the door is kicked open to development. Environmental impact assessments are something any citizen has a right to expect.

The reporter is demonstrably biased in what facts he provides.

 

It would be a valid objection for a site to store old fire trucks. But vaccines don't cause autism.