PFOA v. Solar Panels: Proof That NH Democrats Are Not Serious About "Clean" Drinking Water - Granite Grok

PFOA v. Solar Panels: Proof That NH Democrats Are Not Serious About “Clean” Drinking Water


On one hand, NH Democrats pushed meaningless standards for drinking water that will cost hundreds of millions for no added benefit. On the other hand, they want to spend more to expand something that is an actual threat to drinking water.

Related: New Hampshire is Using State “Power” to Shape Your Behavior

I’m still waiting for a coalition of municipalities to sue the state. The new PFOA standards are unnecessary. And they will cost at least 200 million to implement. This does not address ongoing costs. It also violates the state constitution. The state cannot cram those expenses on localities without providing funding.

To fund that fraud, Democrats will say we need to raise taxes. That is not a coincidence. The standard is low because Democrats want to raise taxes (or create new ones) not because of public health and safety.

On the other hand, the same Democrats want to incentivize solar installation expansions by forcing us to pay for that power at above-market rates.

Solar power represents a real and serious threat to your drinking water.

Solar is not green. Not even close. 

Both ends of the soal panel life-cycle are demonstrably more dangerous to the environment and to drinking water.

Manufacturing and disposal are an environmental nightmare thanks to all the hazardous waste.

  • Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

 I itemized the risks last December but there’s more story to tell, especially when it comes to heavy metals and drinking water.

  • Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.
  • Cadmium and its compounds are highly toxic and exposure to this metal is known to cause cancer and targets the body’s cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems.

Plenty more here and the risk is significant. As are the costs of addressing the impending pollution and any serious investment in end-of-life processing. All costs you and I will bear.

That is the defining characteristic of solar.

You pay (through tax incentives and subsidies) for solar installations. You pay higher electric rates to buy power which is more expensive and less reliable. And, you will pay more for decommissioning and unplanned cleanup – and for proper disassembly and disposal.

The cost of cleanup for Solar will dwarf the cost of the unnecessary costs rammed down your throat to satisfy a ridiculously low PFOA standard which needs to be rolled back.

And let’s face another fact. Solar, especially in New Hampshire, is a huge waste of money.

Solar panels rarely produce electricity–never at night, not much when it is cloudy, and in a Northern climate, not when they are covered with snow and ice. In Minnesota, solar panels produce electricity less than 20 percent of the time. The intractable problem of hazardous waste disposal associated with solar panels is one more reason why they are a terrible investment.

New Hampshire Democrats are all in on Solar while ignoring real threats to the environment, and the costs we’ll be saddled with to clean it up. It might make you believe they are more interested in adding new taxes and growing government than public safety.

And you’d be right.

| The American Experience