Solar Panels are not green!!!

[Mikey]

As you can see, they are black!

 

[So]

You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

 

[Mikey]

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

In the end, the only thing "green" really means is, "Even though this technology is cleaner than coal and oil, it's still no Lysol." Still, it's great that we are finding better ways to save the environment, because admit it...everything we don't want to happen will probably happen eventually.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

I doubt the heavy metal poisoning is any worse than the mercury released by a similar sized coal plant but I could be wrong. Another thing that should be considered with solar panels the huge energy inputs, they rare materials used are not only a toxic hazard, but also take a large amount of energy to produce. Its nothing so bad as coal, but a solar panels lifecycle CO2 production is like 15% that of a similar sized coal plant, which would be like 30% that of a similar sized natural gas plant. Obviously a huge improvement, but not perfect (less perfect that nuclear btw and MUCH worse than wind actually). However in the end what REALLY kills them is their obscene costs, about 5 times the cost of coal or nuclear, so really no chance there to every make a breakthrough. The only place it has any use from an economic standpoint is when massively subsidized like some areas do. I mean I live in Tennessee which is a pretty conservative state and the solar production credit it twice the standard rate of power and there are also interest free loans for solar. In places like California with electricity prices being twice what they are in Tennessee, and massive solar production credits it might just make sense, but never on its own feet (wind on the other hand is pretty competitive in windy areas and I don't know why everyone loves solar so much, wind is better in every way imaginable these days).

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

really actually?

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

really actually?

Actually, really.

 

[Engineer]

All the stuff posted above is so old-fashioned. Nano-tech. for the win.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

oh really? i was unaware that CIGS photo cells had anything to do with arsenic.

 

[Bateluer]

Whats the point? The world ends on Dec 21st, 2012 anyway, something about cosmic alignment between Earth, the Sun, and the galactic core resulting in a total crustal shift on Earth.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Whats the point? The world ends on Dec 21st, 2012 anyway, something about cosmic alignment between Earth, the Sun, and the galactic core resulting in a total crustal shift on Earth.

*starts planning for "THE END OF THE WORLD" party*

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Whats the point? The world ends on Dec 21st, 2012 anyway, something about cosmic alignment between Earth, the Sun, and the galactic core resulting in a total crustal shift on Earth.

*starts planning for "THE END OF THE WORLD" party*

Pics?

 

[andy04]

Excellent points, I am really enlightened. But besides less pollutant and environmental concerns there?s another thing - a very small step towards energy independence
Also their efficiency has grown to around 40% so who knows what we can get out of these in the future by rigorous research. Maybe we will find some better photosensitive material in the future...

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

I doubt the heavy metal poisoning is any worse than the mercury released by a similar sized coal plant but I could be wrong. Another thing that should be considered with solar panels the huge energy inputs, they rare materials used are not only a toxic hazard, but also take a large amount of energy to produce. Its nothing so bad as coal, but a solar panels lifecycle CO2 production is like 15% that of a similar sized coal plant, which would be like 30% that of a similar sized natural gas plant. Obviously a huge improvement, but not perfect (less perfect that nuclear btw and MUCH worse than wind actually). However in the end what REALLY kills them is their obscene costs, about 5 times the cost of coal or nuclear, so really no chance there to every make a breakthrough. The only place it has any use from an economic standpoint is when massively subsidized like some areas do. I mean I live in Tennessee which is a pretty conservative state and the solar production credit it twice the standard rate of power and there are also interest free loans for solar. In places like California with electricity prices being twice what they are in Tennessee, and massive solar production credits it might just make sense, but never on its own feet (wind on the other hand is pretty competitive in windy areas and I don't know why everyone loves solar so much, wind is better in every way imaginable these days).

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: So
You're right though. The amount of arsenic that their production puts into the water is extreme. They're really actually pretty bad for the environment.

I doubt the heavy metal poisoning is any worse than the mercury released by a similar sized coal plant but I could be wrong. Another thing that should be considered with solar panels the huge energy inputs, they rare materials used are not only a toxic hazard, but also take a large amount of energy to produce. Its nothing so bad as coal, but a solar panels lifecycle CO2 production is like 15% that of a similar sized coal plant, which would be like 30% that of a similar sized natural gas plant. Obviously a huge improvement, but not perfect (less perfect that nuclear btw and MUCH worse than wind actually). However in the end what REALLY kills them is their obscene costs, about 5 times the cost of coal or nuclear, so really no chance there to every make a breakthrough. The only place it has any use from an economic standpoint is when massively subsidized like some areas do. I mean I live in Tennessee which is a pretty conservative state and the solar production credit it twice the standard rate of power and there are also interest free loans for solar. In places like California with electricity prices being twice what they are in Tennessee, and massive solar production credits it might just make sense, but never on its own feet (wind on the other hand is pretty competitive in windy areas and I don't know why everyone loves solar so much, wind is better in every way imaginable these days).

cant discredit solar because it's lifecycle CO2 production (or other factors) isnt as low as we expected. It's a small step forward and no matter how you slice the bread, it will lead to energy independence from dinosaur fuels. More people adopting the technology will lead it to be economically viable and thus further the tech. Think of the people using solar right now as early adopters. They always pay the price for the bragging rights before the product goes more mainstream.

 

[jw0ollard]

I don't think anyone (the anti-solar ones ) is seeing the big picture.

Let's say we *magically* converted all the coal plants into 50% solar panel production plants and 50% wind turbine production plants. Yes, they'd be emitting roughly the same amount of pollution as their predecessors, but they'd be using all their resources not to provide "dirty" energy, but instead to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines with 10-25 year life cycles that will provide CONTINUOUS pollution-free energy over that time period. And then what happens next? Well, everyone in America would already be running off of "green" energy, and we'd only need as many solar/wind production plants as necessary to keep up with the increasing population/power grids, and to replace solar/wind systems as they "die".

Obviously hypothetical situation, of course. You'll notice I didn't even factor in where the new "green" plants would get their energy from. Well the simplest answer to that would be nuclear, of course! Or better yet, they initially run off of "dirty" power, until they have created enough solar/wind to sustain the plant on green energy alone. =p

I'll reiterate that this is a hypothetical situation, therefore my logic is flawless and there is no point in arguing with me. /sarcasm

Honestly though.. I believe it could be done but surely none of us will ever see it in our lifetimes.

---

 

[MegaVovaN]

too much to read. fail.

 

[BrownTown]

There is a good article on how peoples views of the "greenness" of certain fuels actually hampers the development of green energy. In this case talking about landfill gas (methane). Its not exactly "green" sounding to talk about burning the equivalent of farts to produce energy, but really it is probably 10 times better at reducing greenhouse emissions than solar or wind, and also half the cost. The reason why it reduces greenhouse gases so much is that methane is 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, so burning methane to make CO2 results in 1/25th the amount of greenhouse effect as letting it escape to the atmosphere. Not to mention it is 1/5th the cost of solar and 1/2 the cost of wind. So basically you are getting 125 times the greenhouse gas reduction as solar, and yet people will not allow you to build it because it isn't "green" enough. Just another example of all the "greens" not really understanding science at all and only going on what looks or sounds like its environmentally friendly.

 

[Jawo]

Not to mention the fact that we have to convert all of the factories in China and Asia as well (after the US and Europe is converted) to see a real difference. The Chinese only see one thing $$$ and they do not give a rats ass about the envrioment.

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah, coal plants in China don't even have the mot basic of pollution controls like bag houses and such. IF you think a modern US coal plant is bad then the ones in China would probably make you have a heart attack. They produce 10 times as much particulates, SOx and NOx as a modern plant in the USA.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Jawo
Not to mention the fact that we have to convert all of the factories in China and Asia as well (after the US and Europe is converted) to see a real difference. The Chinese only see one thing $$$ and they do not give a rats ass about the envrioment.

At least we could lead by example, and say we're doing our part.
If you see other people spitting on the floor of a store, it doesn't mean you should do it too. Every little bit helps.