Re: “Site C would provide reliable, consistent power” and “Solar system has a huge bottom line,” letters, Sept. 15.
There was a backlash of letters to the Sept. 14 column by the proud solar owner Peter Nix. Criticisms included:
• The land area required for clean energy, yet wind farms are remote, and solar can be roof tiles, road surfaces or in reclaimed industrial sites.
• The intermittent nature of renewables, power from which allows water to be kept behind our hydro dams for later use).
•Twenty-five-year solar-panel life versus 100 for dams. In 1900, people travelled by horses and buggies; in 2117, there might be benign energy sources not yet conceived of.
• Deep need for the arable northern land submerged by Site C. See Tony Seba’s Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation on YouTube for insight into how quickly things could change.
Other issues include the embedded energy of solar panels (generally agreed to be equivalent to about three years of panel operation – leaving 22 years of benefit). If these issues are brought up regarding renewables, they should be examined for oil and gas too, (one barrel of oil required to get three out of new oilsands).
When questioning renewable subsidies, consider the 300,000 oil and gas wells reported to require cleaning up in Alberta, at an unaccounted cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Think about who pays for floods and fires aggravated by global warming, health impacts of pollution, sea-level rise and acidity.
I see no valid reasons to delay conservation, clean energy and the protection of land, air and water any longer.
Bob Landell
Victoria
