more at VisualizingPalestine.org
$3500 for solar power is a pretty good deal. If it were that cheap, I'd have solar power now.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
83 points (90.3% liked)
Activist Art Gallery
219 readers
1 users here now
A place to share activist and polemical art (visual and textual art with a critical social message).
Didactic, informatively conceptual arts imply collective action, encouraging us to make the world a better place.
Street art, murals, stickers, zines, and other forms of eye-catching arts can be shared with others and discussed here.
You may include photos of your own or other's artworks displayed in public.
Art opposing the Right Wing is the so far the most popular.
Enjoy! Looking forward to seeing and discussing what is shared!
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, I like the message but I think that stat is misleading by design. It doesn't make sense to power a home for a year with solar.
Does that mean it's the cost of solar power itself, or is it some weird way to talk about installing solar capacity?
It should just be how many homes can be permanently powered by investing that much in solar capacity, which is probably a much lower number...
I'm guessing the math was taking the total amount spent divided by how much it cost to power a house for a year with solar energy, which doesn't really say anything. Good intention, bad execution.
I think the essential point is, rather, instead of being destructive abroad, we could be productive at home. We could use our resources to improve life here instead of being complicit in taking the lives of others.
It just smells like "I don't care if it isn't true, it's still evil and should be acted upon" some people respond with when they tout false statistics or facts when it comes to queer pedofilia or minority crimes and someone fact checks
Are you an Engineer? Seems reasonable to me. Do you have a calculation? https://www.pcmag.com/news/elon-musk-running-us-on-solar-requires-100-miles-square-of-panels You don't think $14 Billion could power 40 million houses for a year with solar? How is that "saying nothing?" It's saying money better spent constructively rather than destructively both to Palestinian civilians and the climate.
I think it's neglecting a big part of solar cost to say that circa 341 dollar would be sufficient to power a household for a year unless that household had a lot of prerequisites already filled such as already having the solar installed plus being power efficient in general (such as using air heat pump rather than older heating and cooling solutions).
If you don't count "microproducers" of solar power with panels of their own roof I have no idea of the cost of construction, production and delivery of the power so I guess if it's built close enough to a large population it might work.
Im not an engineer, Ive only researched the cost and savings for my own property in the north of Sweden so there is a huge difference in market and population. For me the panel and control installation would be around 8,000 USD due to necessity for wiring rework as well
Yeah, I like the message and totally agree with it but I don't trust that stat at all lol
Pretty cool mirror symmetry with solar above and carbon cloud below. That is also an impressive way to convey the information along with the stats. Good symbol design.
A basic tl;dr that our priorities are fucked.
Guns, Butter, and Growth: The Consequences of Military Spending Reconsidered
[...] military spending, social spending, the economy, tax revenue, debt, and the money supply are all related to one another. This implies statistical models that estimate the effect of military spending on social spending or on the economy without considering the ways in which these variables affect and are affected by one another likely are misspecified.
[...] we find that military spending has a nonlinear effect on economic growth that varies over time. Increasing military spending leads to significantly lower GDP growth in the first three to six months following the increase and then significantly higher economic growth starting approximately one year after the increase.
Oversimplification leads to bad conclusions.
How is "this" an oversimplification exactly? Yes, there is an interrelationship between the factors you quote. Yes, short-term spending on the military might improve the economy initially, but, like the quote says, the effect is nonlinear and inhibits growth in the long run.
Your quote supports rather than refutes the claim of this activist infographic. I would have to delve deeper into their sourcing, but the position is still strong overall.
Instead of using war to stimulate the economy, a Green New Deal could and the benefit would be sustained long term. It just takes large-scale leadership.
~~The claim up top is not true~~
What claim is not true? There are several claims. You just deny it and that suffices, Kai Ro? The "moment" is rigged for you.
Sorry I'm dumb and misread it. Its technically false but that's disingenuous. My brain read it as "could power more homes..." Which is false because supply and demand stuff. I'm kind of a stickler for (against?) lying with statistics.
Ok, check the stat sources. Right. I'm betting they are valid just thinking about how much fossil fuels are expended in a war, how much all those bombs and weapons cost, and how good solar can be in a sunny climate like the US Southwest or the Middle East.
Yeah they are likely valid. Like I said–i'm a stickler.