Just prove your point, "fact checker."
Seeing images doesn't make you a specialist on climate or whatever you claim to be.
Thank goodness people are not throwing away their PV panels to install nuclear reactors in their houses instead. Based on your logic...

Your vision is limited by the whole thing.
Or, if this is the problem, we could keep burning fossil fuels until we find another energy source.
Just don't be a troll and be more respectful of people you don't know. Don't be a dead weight on the earth spreading a fool's opinion.

Consider the ratio of power to land required. For example, a wind generator is better than solar. But it's not just a matter of how much power is produced, and you know it.
Nuclear? Yes, it's intermittent, occupies less land, etc. But what about the costs? The wastes?

You've been ignoring the core of the question since the beginning. You had to prove your point, but you couldn't. We all know this is not propaganda; it's science. You believe the opposite, but you can't prove it. You just bring images, or in other words, it's just your opinion. Where is the proof?

He won't.
But, just in case, he should have the opportunity to show it for a bigger audience like the science and energy sky feed. People who, according to him, reproduce wind and solar propaganda like parrots. His moment to prove that all of us are wrong.
🧪
🔌💡

By the way, the onus of the proof is yours. With numbers, real science. Not photos, opinions, outliers.
By the way, even wind people say something about the ratio power/land against solar PV. The difference is that they're just kidding, not being a fool like you and your "big knowledge".

Really? Your point is to compare energy production with... Nuclear? Why are you supposing that me or anyone here who works with PV doesn't know these numbers?
How long does it take you to make this big discovery, about energy production?
I was expecting something else from you. How disappointing

The onus of the proof is yours. You're saying all wind and solar stuff is propaganda. But rather than explain it to me, publish it through a specialized publication. This way your assumption could gain some credibility. Otherwise, it's just faith, and faith is nothing more than your own opinion.

Yes it is. This is why people are still researching it, bringing solutions rather than trolling everyone. This is how science works, if you don't know.
There are plenty of advances all day being published, including in recycling. If you don't agree, again, bring a solution better than this one.

We don't have "to cover the planet". PV works also on roofs and small installations if the problem is land usage. If you want to criticise something and be disrespectful to people doing their part by calling them a liar, try to know something about it at least.
Bring a solution, if you have one.

Nuclear? Interesting. I suppose that nuclear people already know how to manage the nuclear waste after years of usage. Or is it an issue for the next generations? Really, I'd like to know it. You must know that nuclear is really expensive nowadays right? I mean, maintenance costs, construction etc.

Yes but, how did you realise? That's the point.
Why according to your opinion everyone in wind and solar is lying? Do you have some profound research that supports it or is it just a matter of...opinion? I mean, your faith? If you're fact checking I suppose you're doing some real research right?

How did you realise it? Did you do some scientific research about it? So what's your alternative to generate energy without emitting too much CO2, technically viable today?
We all know that there are no 100% clean energy sources, as we've studied thermodynamics at least once in our lives.

It's not propaganda. It's real research. If you have a better solution, just tell the world about ir rather than be a conspiranoic reproducing outliers like "wind and solar propaganda". If you think you're right, publish it. Tell the world. Fight for it in a proper arena.
Or come back to X.

Nothing is 100% without consequence, but some alternatives are definitely better than others. You're talking as if nobody knew anything about this, but a lot of research is already being done on all of these topics. Science doesn't look at outliers. That's for MAGA people.

Considering that most large-scale PV plants are strategically placed in deserts or are integrated with agriculture, only a very small number of installations are considered environmental outliers, and. Deep-sea mining is unlikely given that recycling and reuse are expected to be more cost-effective.

There's no scientific consensus about it. But most of the scientists say that the solar cycle has a very low, insignificant impact on these variations. Maybe it's the primary force behind all of this and the anthropogenic forcing just exacerbates it? Maybe.