Solar Panels Again

Is carbon the issue though? we now know how much water vapour there is, and how much it contributes to greenhouse - see stats in my last post. And everyone continues to say there needs to be more rain to end the dry.
My uneducated view - and thus dilemma - is China and India need to get dramatically lower and near the rest of the world on reductions targets (the U.N has nothing to say on that), which require cutting out coal, and installing substantial volumes of wind turbine and solar alternatives, but how can you do both if you need the coal to make the alternatives? Its a Catch-22.
And then you get back to the solar panel waste, and decommissioning cost of each expired wind turbine dilemma.
Lets go nuclear?

 

As a property investor in a modern western civilisation many of us are in the business to build, buy, lease and sell houses. These are high energy activities that are successfully accomplished when energy and cost of materials resources and labour is at a level that makes the transaction viable. That's how western countries become wealthy and can then afford to look after its people with top class medical and welfare programs.
You can cover Australia with wind turbines and solar panels and it won't produce enough energy to make the steel and other raw materials to build houses.
Germany, one of the most wealthiest European countries have spent billions of their peoples money and international corporations to do renewables and it's not enough. They are currently buying nuclear from France, thermal from Norway and building coal fire power stations.
Now if Germany is spending billions on renewables and cannot execute the outcome they want, how are developing countries ever going to afford to do the same.
The third thing is the issue of CO2 emissions, This is where there is a disagreement between many here on this forum. On one side there is the belief that man made C02 is the predominant cause of climate change and on the other side of the debate the view is the climate has always changed due to natural causes such as the earths orbit and tilt around the sun, the impact of solar activity, radiation and sunspots and the impact of clouds and the oceans. Both models are long term models which are open to interpretation and some believe that it's a combination of these two theories that count.
The 4th thing is what to do about it or what can be done about it. The CO2 anthropological viewpoint is currently advocating radical transition to renewables and to do this you have to de- industrialise all countries. However this theory in practise always results in action that stipulates something different in reality. Such reality includes forcing western countries like Australia to decarbonise but other countries who classify themselves as developing countries become exempt. Those who oppose this action do so because they see this as a bad financial outcome to the success of there respective countries.
The 5th thing is yes solar panels, tidal energy and wind power can supplement other more traditional forms of power but presently as a go alone they are not there yet and they are expensive. In Spain btw, they have found a way to make solar panels work at night. What they do is connect diesel generators to flood lights that shine on the panels to produce electricity, that's what is going on.
Finally I know this has been long but I think that it's not ignorant when one has a different view to a topic.

 

A good read from a Yale publication. I understand the University has 4,400 solar panels energising away.

Yale and climate change: A world of research

By the way @MTR, the dude in the article you posted is a freelance journalist and doesn't have, as far as I know, any other qualification including one to make any assessment of solar waste, etc. The Foundation for Economic Education is considered on the conservative side of think-tanks and has a mixed bag when it comes to accurate reporting. It tends to argue for the ethical and legal principles for a free society (whatever that actually means)

However, to admit my bias, I tend to be a little suss of those who are not actually involved in the research but proclaim to be able to know all good and bad bits about it.

 

there are plenty of journalists who fit that criteria, but plenty of people blindly believe them.