List of Lies Against Solar -- Starting the List

I have a long list of lies "93 One Liner Lies of the Nuclear Cartel"
here http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/02/classic-one-liner-lies-of-nuke.html

And I start an article on the "Lies of the Cancer Cartel"
Let no disaster go to waste, instead propagandize it and profit from it.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/05/one-liner-lies-of-cancer-cartel.html

So today I am going to start addressing some lies against the renewable energy field.   Pro-nuclear trolls use these lies to create Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about renewables.

1. Not everyone lives in Hawaii, where energy is a luxury and not a necessity. (Lie Maker moniker Michael Mann), this goes beyond just a lie to a condescending "happy camper" natives in their huts ramification.
2. You have to cut down whole forests and kill trees if you want to do solar (Lie Maker Moniker greenthinker2012) 
3. If you use solar energy, you will be in the dark when the sun goes down
4. There is no good way to store the energy from Renewables
5. Solar panels take more energy to produce the panel than they produce in their lifetime
6. Solar panels take up so much room that it is not realistic that they could ever provide any significant percentage of a modern industrial society
7. Solar is expensive
8. Producing Solar panels is so dirty, the whole concept becomes non-green
9. Germany's solar push has been an expensive failure
10. Large amounts of solar put the grid at risk and will create blackouts.
11. Solyndra proves that solar is a scam
12. If solar really made sense, wouldn't we have more than 1% solar
13. Solar PV is not  that efficient, therefore it doesnt make sense
14. You must have expensive polluting batteries to run solar.
15. We all should wait to do solar, until they have solar paint you can just put on your house.
16. The grid is old, and therefore we cannot do solar until the grid is upgraded
17. Subsidies for solar are huge, whereas subsidies for nuclear and oil are almost nothing.
18. Your roof won't be able to support the "weight" of solar.
19. If you have batteries, they need a lot of maintenance and ventilation and they can blow up
20. Solar is not reliable
21. You need to live somewhere that gets a lot of sun all year round
22. Solar kills jobs overall, especially at nuclear power plants and fossil plants.
23. Your roof must be less than 7 years old or you are crazy to install solar
24. Solar is ugly
25. The grid operator will have to raise costs a lot when many of their customers go solar and their fixed costs stay the same.
26. Actual comment: another point you can mention is although most PV panels are guaranteed for 10 years most start to diminish after 5 and every year after that output is reduced by a further 10% and this is not covered as its not a structural issue.  but apart from this there is little fault to find. 
27. You won't be able to use as much electricity as you used to use and will have to make compromises on your lifestyle 
28. Construction in the deserts is hurting lizards and wildlife. 
29. There is no practical way to store the solar energy for use when the sun don't shine. 
30. Solar and wind are dirtier than nuclear. (Lie Maker Moniker Codejack)
31. Solar and wind CANNOT scale up to meet demand. (Lie Maker Moniker Codejack)
32. Solar and wind would require storage which completely eliminates any benefits. (Lie Maker Moniker Codejack)
33. Nuclear is safer than wind or solar. (Lie Maker Moniker Codejack)

Some fresh ones from 1 source

The nuclear waste is minimal in comparison. Couple of points to consider 1) Nothing is zero carbon footprint. What is the true carbon footprint of the mining, refining, smelting, manufacturing, transport and construction of all the wind turbines and solar arrays it would take to equal the capacity of one nuclear plant. For instance if a typical Nuke puts out lets say 1600 mega watts. That would equal depending on efficiency 4.8 to 7 million solar panels! Think about that a minute. I have personally worked on both. A 250 mw solar field had 3/4 million panels with top efficiency. 3000 acre footprint. 2) Now lets talk about the 15-20 year life cycle of a solar panel. Then what, recycle what you can, hmmm more waste, more carbon. Yes I agree it sounds good on the surface but remember the minimal spent fuel kept on location at moment has been in operation at some plants since the mid 60s in the US. 55 years from now what thought has gone into issues that will come from the solar and wind side from waste, carbon footprint of replacements and recycle. Not to mention that 3000 acres just became about 20,000 acres to equal that one Nuke. Count on that being one hell of an enviromental impact. Nothing is perfect. It will continue to improve that is human nature but dont fool yourself to thinking that it is the perverbial holy grail.

PacE bill nelson • an hour ago

LOL the acre lie, rooftop solar can account for 50% of all the countries needs, no acreage needed big guy.
And when was the last time you flew across country....we have craploads of space in this country.

bill nelson PacE • an hour ago

Well no lie there, actually acurrate to the panel if youd like. That is experience and several hundred MW installed. There is no doubt that roof top can add up but consider the cost and time involved in achieving the same load. How many panels per roof, each roof needing all the support and metering equipment, batteries, connection to grid...Remember keeping this in the context of how many years to achieve. Also with so many owners of every rooftop how do you propose to maintain any kind of baseload that is uniform. Even utility size plants have to carefully plan their outages not to tax the system even for general maint. Anyone who believes you can achieve independence without a base load is fooling themselves. Would be one thing if the only energy consumption was homes. Add in commercial and industrial needs. Spikes in useage from large power draws... many factors to consider.

DEBUNKLies:
1) no batteries are needed, and they are not desired
2) connection to grid is a $40 PV disconnect, simplistic
3) Who cares about how many panels per roof...enough to serve the load
4) No need to change meters, unless utility has already spent your money to install a solar unfriendly meter, all the old style meters would just spin backwards.
5) Baseload is a canard until we get to 45% PV, for now diversity is the operant word, load the grid with PV....
6) Spikes are a canard...you gots rolling reserve now, you will have it in the new grid also.
7) Cost and time? Huh time? A system can be completed in 1 day by 3 men. Cost, well about 3 cents per kWH, solid for 30 years. Check it out. And thanks for the material.
http://nukeprofessional.blogsp...
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dEBUNKING (looking for crowd source ideas to backup the debunk with links)

1)
2)
3) In 2000, solar panels needed 3 years of their own production to create themselves.   Advances in manufacturing and efficeincy output now make that a little over 1 year.  http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15) Subsidies: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-imf-just-destroyed-the-best-argument-against-clean-energy-cm485094
16)
17)
18)
19) (thanks Dud) You need to live somewhere that gets a lot of sun all year round

Quote of the European Space Agency: "Was new technology developed for Rosetta and can it be reused for other ESA missions?
The solar cells in Rosetta's solar panels are based on a completely new technology, so-called Low-intensity Low Temperature Cells. Thanks to them, Rosetta is the first space mission to journey beyond the main asteroid belt relying solely on solar cells for power generation. Previous deep-space missions used nuclear RTGs (Radio isotope thermal generators). The new solar cells allow Rosetta to operate over 800 million kilometres from the Sun, where levels of sunlight are only 4% those on Earth. The technology will be available for future deep-space flights, such as ESA’s upcoming Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer."
quoted from: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Frequently_asked_questions

28) Only RTG's make exporation beyond Mars orbit possible. (debunked)

20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27) Practical energy storage: https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/loch-ness-monsters-of-energy-storage-2/
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)