6Foot2 Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 Link: Woodland rejects solar farm | The Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald There were concerns that property values had slumped where there were already solar farms. Other concerns (from a former science teacher) were that plants might not be able to photosynthesise with the panels in place and that solar panels might cause cancer (somehow?)
Nixon77 Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 They look ugly then. Would you want it next to your house?
6Foot2 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 They look ugly then. Would you want it next to your house? From the linked article: ...She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the plants from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where the plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight. She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer... I read the passage above as Jane Mann expressing her concerns that the solar panels somehow funnel light to themselves so that nearby plants cannot grow, Also that the mere presence of solar panels is a cause of cancer for people living in the town.
3s-gtech Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Wha? I'm guessing she wasn't a Physics teacher then. Or a biologist. Or indeed, Chemistry. Explanation - she was a Geology teacher, and obviously not a massively bright one.
elsiegee40 Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 I picked up on "the solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland" To which the reply from the company representative, presumably in need of a stiff drink, was "the only sunlight the panels use to generate power is that which hits them directly. The panels don’t draw additional sunlight”
localzuk Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Oh dear. What a bunch of numpties. To be fair, there's a few solar farms been built here this year and since they finished the last one its been darker in the evenings! They're obviously absorbing all the sunlight we were getting in summer! 4
pcstru Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Wha? I'm guessing she wasn't a Physics teacher then. Or a biologist. Or indeed, Chemistry. Explanation - she was a Geology teacher, and obviously not a massively bright one. There is no special protection offered to Science teachers (or any other Scientific discipline) in relation to believing in 'Woo'. I don't think it relates to being 'bright' or 'dim' either; even extraordinary diligence and ever present doubt will only take you so far. We (humans) are just extraordinarily easy to fool.
sonofsanta Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 But what happens when the renewable energy runs out? 1
elsiegee40 Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 But what happens when the renewable energy runs out? Classic!
abillybob Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 US town rejects solar panels amid fears they 'suck up all the energy from the sun' | Americas | News | The Independent Deleted my thread and put it here as I think this is quite relevant and even stupider
elsiegee40 Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 US town rejects solar panels amid fears they 'suck up all the energy from the sun' | Americas | News | The Independent Deleted my thread and put it here as I think this is quite relevant and even stupider That's the story that started this thread @abillybob Just a different paper
jinnantonnixx Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 US town rejects solar panels amid fears they 'suck up all the energy from the sun' | Americas | News | The Independent Deleted my thread and put it here as I think this is quite relevant and even stupider Let's examine that argument: "they 'suck up all the energy from the sun'". Is that another way of saying "they cast a shadow"? Or am I missing some subtle point?
6Foot2 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 Let's examine that argument: "they 'suck up all the energy from the sun'". Is that another way of saying "they cast a shadow"? Or am I missing some subtle point? The first postulation seems to be the 'reason' for rejecting the solar plant. The panels funnel the sunlight toward themselves (somehow?) leaving less light for the plants for photosynthesis.
sted Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 as to higher cancer rates wouldnt that be due to the fact that that the best place to put solar panels is places with lots of sun (say Australian desert/Nevada etc) and these places i would imagine have a statistically higher cancer rates due to sun exposure anyway? yes any plants below the solar panels may get reduced sunlight but the same would be true if you installed say an umbrella or deck chair
jinnantonnixx Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) The first postulation seems to be the 'reason' for rejecting the solar plant. The panels funnel the sunlight toward themselves (somehow?) leaving less light for the plants for photosynthesis. I see. That could happen if Strata Solar Company decide to install a black hole. Unlikely to happen. Edited December 14, 2015 by jinnantonnixx
pcstru Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 I see. That could happen if Strata Solar Company decide to install a black hole. Unlikely to happen. Pedantically, any and all mass warps space time, so these solar panels do in fact bend light towards themselves.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now