The first time I came across these arguments against solar energy was in "Overload" by Arthur Hailey. Admittedly, this is fiction, but the arguments seems to have some merit.

  1. Using solar cells to produce comparable amount of energy will need so much area that it will cut out sun light from that much area and this is also a type of pollution.

  2. The cost of solar energy is so high that it creates more damage than other sources indirectly. The extra cost of solar energy can be used to offset the ill-effects(?) of conventional energy sources.

So my question is, are these arguments valid?

closed as off-topic by EnergyNumbers, Larian LeQuella Apr 2 '16 at 3:29

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – EnergyNumbers, Larian LeQuella
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Browse other questions tagged .