In a new study released by researchers in four states, data reveals what many of us suspected about large-scale solar farms:
They create a massive and unavoidable “heat island” effect.
“The finding by Mitchell A. Pavao-Zuckerman, an assistant professor from the University of Maryland's College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and colleagues from the University of Arizona, University of Madison-Wisconsin, and the Nevada Center of Excellence appears to contradict previous theoretical work and modeling studies predicting solar power installations would decrease temperatures around them by intercepting some of the sun's potentially warming energy and converting it into electricity.”
One wonders why any so-called “theoretician” or “modeler” ever would claim that temperatures would decrease when human central-planners destroy greenery and lay vast acres of black panels over the formerly growing, radiation-absorbing and converting, oxygen-creating, soil-gripping plants that had called many of those “solar farms” home.
As a guy who worked many of his teen years at a farm stand, where we laid-out long rolls of dark plastic to stifle the growth of weeds as we encouraged the produce to grow out of holes in the weed-barriers, I would mention to the “theoreticians” that in a sane world, virtually anyone with practical experience could tell them what an equivalent acreage of giant black photovoltaic panels would do.
Said Pavao-Zuckerman, in part:
"The understanding of energy balance - how heat moves in and out of ecosystems that change from natural to built settings is a big game changer for the future. Consider how PV [solar] panels absorb and reflect certain types of radiation which prevents the soil beneath from cooling like it would under a regular night sky…”
Does it really take a study to figure out this fundamentally obvious phenomenon?
Evidently, these real-world fundamentals are problematic in a politicized world where U.S. government agencies disregard the scientific method, where government-tied supra-national organizations like the U.N. fund university employees to engage in slippery pseudoscience, and where politicians shower tax cash on solar power interests, on mineral-demanding electric car makers and environmentally and economically disastrous “charging stations,” and on wind-farm interests that disregard or overtly hide the devastating environmental impact of the farms, the blades, and the unworkability of the farms to maintain reliable output.
“Considering the external costs of solar power, the discovery of this heat island effect may affect future decisions on when and where to convert natural ecosystems into large-scale solar facilities.”
As Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “There’s the rub.”
The key is the stark difference between political decisions and market decisions based on private property and free will.
Whatever the era, whatever the “field,” when the “choices” are dictated by agents of the state, honest considerations of “external costs” don’t take place. The “costs” are cloaked, shifted, and replaced by political interests, where government hides liabilities for damages, and central-bank-provided money and taxes always can be tapped to hide inefficiencies, errors, and lost opportunities.
In fact, costs cannot really be calculated in governmental systems, because government, as a matter of its design, blocks individual free will, and only when consumers are free can they state their preferences through purchases and investment, incentivizing competitive sellers to offer more of certain goods at lower and lower prices.
This analysis of risks, costs, and benefits is an honest, interactive ecosystem that only can flourish and reveal the most efficient products and services when political coercion is not part of the equation.
As it was with the Nineteenth Century development of kerosine, which proved to be a worthwhile lighting alternative to increasingly rare and expensive whale oil, prices determined through free markets send signals to providers, and providers – who must answer for errors and liabilities – respond.
Right now, oil, coal, and natural gas are the cheapest and most efficient energy providers for the economic input they demand, while solar and wind remain incapable of handling the energy requirements humans worldwide require to improve living standards.
We should not have to battle in the political sphere for the freedom to decide how to power our vehicles, or heat our homes, or run our lights at night.
But, as we see this new information about solar arrays, we can see another stark reminder of the fact that acquisitive political players want to box us into the lifestyles they decide FOR us, even as they take our money to do it.
Follow MRCTV on Twitter!
Rep. Chip Roy: ‘Defund Climate Tyrants Like John Kerry’ https://t.co/uoox1Xrywv— MRCTV (@mrctv) July 5, 2022