• VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s much better than the alternative, yes cancer rates shot up and a huge area of once beautiful and productive land is contaminated but if we had rooftop solar then rich corporations wouldn’t be able to manipulate us with price spikes and lock us into being helpless without them.

    The rich need to have power over us and centralized power generation controlled by the ultra wealthy is the only option that let’s them have that dominamce so every propaganda bot must ignore all the safety risks, spiraling economic costs, and political bullshit so they can push for it and divert money from.far more viable and effective alternatives.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Manufacturing of solar panels produces a different kind of contamination, though—it’s just not located at the point of power generation. Wind is probably a bit better, with fewer exotic chemicals required, but “rooftop wind” isn’t exactly a common catchphrase.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wind Turbine’s problems is we have to replace the blades every 3-7 years depending on the model and there is no good way to recycle or break down the fiberglasse components. So every every 3-7 years you have 3 XL tractor truck trailer size turbine blades going into landfills.

        Wind and Solar are still good, don’t get me wrong, but lets not pretend they have no downsides or drawbacks.