|
To speak to the point about imagined nature or expectations of an unmolested version of nature, I generally think this comes from the desire for authenticity. Which to me is a bit of a fools errand but from my experiences it defines my generation.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Sethex posted:To speak to the point about imagined nature or expectations of an unmolested version of nature, I generally think this comes from the desire for authenticity. A philosophical problem with environmentalism today is the half-assimilation of "deep ecology", where humanity is supposed to bed imagined as being part of nature, rather than separate from it. The takeaway lesson however tends to warp into some kind of "in harmony with nature" philosophy where humanity must somehow attempt to never, ever have any kind of effect on the natural environment. This attempts to reinsert humanity into the natural environment and be part of it. Problem: this is, in fact, not deep ecology because it still views humanity as somehow separate. To speak of a natural environment is to not only implicitly contrast it with a "human environment", but treat all non-human environments as if they were equal and in harmony with each other. It has long been pointed out that animals and plants alter their environment to better suit themselves and they violently compete with each other for the scarce resources available. It is impossible to speak of a "natural environment" then because it is not one thing. In thier capacity to do so, beavers create a beaver environment, ants and ant environment, pine trees poison the ground with thier needles creating a pine tree environment (one of the reasons why pine forests have shallow soil). It is perfectly harmonious with deep ecology that humanity creates for itself a human environment defined by our mastery of technology, while leaving anything that need not be disturbed unmolested. We can even deliberately avoiding challenging other living things to their environments when our technology allows us to avoid it (because they'll always lose, hands down). I quote your post here because many notions of authenticity are wrapped up in notions of nature and purity, concepts that are very much present in the environmental conciousness. "Natural" things are good, "pure" things are good. Nature being defined as "not human" and "pure" defined as "untainted by synthesized chemicals", which itself disregards that synthesized chemicals are generally much purer than naturally derived ones. So, the desire for authenticity in energy generation tends toward "not human", which is impossible, so that gets mutated to "least human", and "untainted" gets mutated to "simplest to understand". You can see where the environmentalist penchant for wind and solar power comes from, and why nuclear is so vehemently opposed; they are complete opposites using these two criteria. Let us remember now that the view of humanity as separate from nature is categorically opposed to deep ecology. So in terms of philosophies that view humanity as part of nature, those energy generation methods that disturb non-human environments the least should be considered most environmental and those that disturb it the most, least environmental. Notice that on this criteria, nuclear power becomes most environmental, while wind and solar become ranked somewhere alongside hydroelectric due to the absolutely massive footprint and materials needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
It might be more palatable to highlight the very last part of that. Permanently turn a small chunk of the Earth into an unnatural nuclear hellscape (which won't ever leave the confines of the hellscape) in return for leaving the rest of the Earth pristine. No birds struck by wind turbines or cooked by solar collimators, no corals killed by climate change. Just a Mad Max wasteland in a 3 mile radius around our handful of nuclear sites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It might be more palatable to highlight the very last part of that. Except it's cost not "hippies" that are the reason power plant operators don't choose to build nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except it's cost not "hippies" that are the reason power plant operators don't choose to build nuclear. Guess who helps inflating the cost by protesting and delaying projects for decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
People who make lots of money from fossil fuels? Politicians who quite like the status quo and see no reason to challenge nuclear power myths if they can use them to win votes? I don't think "hippies" have ever really been a particularly potent force for getting things done, or stopping things getting done as the case may be. Nuclear power as a big scary thing is certainly convenient but it is the source of the narrative which is responsible more than its adherents. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Guess who helps inflating the cost by protesting and delaying projects for decades. Private investors have other reasons to not like it. It's extremely capital intensive with high (practically guaranteed) risk of cost overruns in the construction phase and the possibility of higher operation costs than projected. Add the risk of a perfect storm scenario where your 10-15 bill. reactor is suddenly rendered useless. At the same time you have to deal with unpredictable fossil fuel costs which may price you out at any point in the 40 years you need to recoup your investment while electricity demand is trending down and renewables are reaching parity. It's a lot of uncertainty and risk for a huge investment with a small to moderate return.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
On a vaguely related note. Why is subsidizing one type of energy generation bad. While subsidizing another is good. I see people argue about how nuclear is bad because of how subsidized it is, or solar doesn't work because it's only held up by tax breaks. When in reality pretty much all parts of the energy generation industry receive public help in various ways. And overwhelmingly more in favor of hydrocarbons. If you are going to have a government subsidize anything. It should probably be whatever the most sustainable source of energy is with the least potential for environmental impacts(i.e. not coal) or economic fluctuations(i.e. not oil). But at the same time a government has to worry about the prices of energy right now to not disrupt the overall economy. That means keeping policy in place for less desirable forms of generation. So I don't understand the arguments about subsidies being bad for X but not for Y. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:So I don't understand the arguments about subsidies being bad for X but not for Y. That chart is a bit opaque to me. We have derived most of our energy from fossil fuels so even a tiny subsidy would accrue to huge numbers whereas the opposite is true of marginal sources such as solar. It would be more interesting to see what subsidies amount to per kwh or something like that. Anyway, if you think CO2 or smog are bad then obviously the state shouldn't subsidize fossil fuels. If you think renewable energy is a conspiracy to usher in a world government then those subsidies are bad. If you don't like subsidies then they are all bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Where are the details behind that chart? Its pratically meaningless without more information about what each of those categories are and whether or not the y axis is adjusted for inflation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/26/whats-better-a-carbon-tax-or-energy-subsidies/Anosmoman posted:Anyway, if you think CO2 or smog are bad then obviously the state shouldn't subsidize fossil fuels. If you think renewable energy is a conspiracy to usher in a world government then those subsidies are bad. If you don't like subsidies then they are all bad. What if I like a functioning and healthy economy but think that we need to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy as quickly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People who make lots of money from fossil fuels? Naturalists and hippies created and spread the nuclear power myths that have been adopted by the average person, thereby influencing popular opinion, which influences elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Naturalists and hippies created and spread the nuclear power myths that have been adopted by the average person, thereby influencing popular opinion, which influences elections. That has nothing to do with why AREVA is loosing tons of money, their plants are behind schedule etc. Politics had nothing to do with the several plants shut down in the U.S. due to operator error (e.g. SONGS) I think people overestimate the political factors of building a nuclear plant and underestimate the economic factors. In a capitalist world, nuclear is an expensive and risky investment, other power plants are less so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That has nothing to do with why AREVA is loosing tons of money, their plants are behind schedule etc. Politics had nothing to do with the several plants shut down in the U.S. due to operator error (e.g. SONGS) SONGS was premature equipment fatigue, not operator error. Most nuclear plants have been scuttled by the concurrent events of (1) fracking-related natural gas price drops and (2) fukushima mitigation related upgrades having uncertain expenses and goals (essentially at the ever-changing whims of the NRC). I'd argue that hippie opposition played a role with Vermont Yankee, but that only served as a minor contributing factor compared to the rise of cheap natural gas turbine power. Hippies are frustrating and can drive a large amount of NIMBY/town-hall type construction halts that lead to incredible cost overruns, but in terms of shuttering existing operating nuke plants? That's economics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Pander posted:SONGS was premature equipment fatigue, not operator error. Most nuclear plants have been scuttled by the concurrent events of (1) fracking-related natural gas price drops and (2) fukushima mitigation related upgrades having uncertain expenses and goals (essentially at the ever-changing whims of the NRC). SONGS was shut down because they installed a broken heart exchange, so yes it was "premature" because it was broken (out of alignment). So you can blame the Japanese manufacturers instead if you'd prefer. The result is the same. Crystal river is another plant shutdown due to loving poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
I'm kind of curious to know too how the long-term viability of nuclear are stacking up compared to the potential of things like the molten salt solar tower plants, which seem like they're getting massively cheaper and more efficient almost by the month with very little opposition or downside compared to literally anything else. Heck, is the only reason we don't have a bunch more of them being built is that it's largely under the control and patents of one Spanish company?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:I'm kind of curious to know too how the long-term viability of nuclear are stacking up compared to the potential of things like the molten salt solar tower plants, which seem like they're getting massively cheaper and more efficient almost by the month with very little opposition or downside compared to literally anything else. Heck, is the only reason we don't have a bunch more of them being built is that it's largely under the control and patents of one Spanish company? Not very well, because they have very moderate output for their footprint, and many of them back their operations with natural gas boilers. And, y'know, that whole need to be exposed to full sunlight, which really only gives them ~6 hours a day peak output.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That has nothing to do with why AREVA is loosing tons of money, their plants are behind schedule etc. Politics had nothing to do with the several plants shut down in the U.S. due to operator error (e.g. SONGS) That's right, but legal battles and overregulation have both kept the cost of a nuclear power plant higher than they would be otherwise, so the hippies certainly take a share of the blame. No one said they were solely responsible
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
The future of solar is in PV, trough consentrators and solar heat. Ivanpah has thus far been very disappointing and while they've been able to keep the massive bird kills and boiler problems quiet, it seems to me the writing is on the wall for this generation of tower CSP. In general I'm very optimistic about wind and solar because of the current rate of technological improvement, the side benefits gained from other fields (e.g. blade design) and the vast available high quality sites in the U.S. and world. However, as even the 80% renewable models show, wind and solar alone aren't enough. So what else do we add to our mix? Personally, I don't care if we decide to invest in the grid and biopower, nuclear, or some natgas sequestration BS that makes GE billions, or just accepting effieiceny and availability changes etc. No matter what happens in the long term, the more wind and solar we online now the less-worse it can be later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:[...] birds struck by wind turbines [...] Environmental impact of wind power § Birds (Wikipedia). Could we drop this myth now, please?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Environmental impact of wind power § Birds (Wikipedia). Right after we drop the myth of nuclear plants = nuclear bombs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Right after we drop the myth of nuclear plants = nuclear bombs. Huh? I don't think anyone in this thread seriously suggested that "nuclear plants = nuclear bombs"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Right after we drop the myth of nuclear plants = nuclear bombs. Are you really disputing that proliferation is a risk for many reactor designs? Not every reactor is a CANDU.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Huh? I don't think anyone in this thread seriously suggested that "nuclear plants = nuclear bombs"? Trabisnikof posted:Are you really disputing that proliferation is a risk for many reactor designs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Pander posted:Hi have you met? Do you seriously get how "proliferation is a risk for many reactor designs" does not equal "nuclear plants = nuclear bombs"? We actually use nuclear power plants to generate the material to build nuclear weapons. Is that a risk for all designs? No. Is it a risk that is easily mitigated? Yes. Does it exist? Yes. I don't get how ideology can blind people so completely to reality.... edit: if someone is freaking out about how if we build more nuclear plants we'll start a nuclear war, you should explain why that'll never happen because of all the safeguards, the IAEA, and how nuclear war is kinda passé anyway. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
It's actually a risk for only a very small number of designs, and not at all for reactors intended for electrical production. To produce plutonium-239 (the nuclear bomb type) you need to neutron irradiate uranium-238 for short periods of time. The goal is to make each uranium atom capture one neutron and transmutate into plutonium-239. The difficulty is that plutonium-239 is capable of capturing a second neutron and changing to plutonium-240, which is a poison for nuclear bombs; it fissions too fast and causes what's called "pre-detonation" or a nuclear "fizzle". It's suspected that this occurred to one of North Korea's nuclear tests where the seismic signal of the explosion was much larger than what a conventional explosion could cause, but much smaller than you would expect of even a small nuclear bomb. In a light water reactor, the pressure vessel is typically loaded with fuel and then bolted closed, remaining closed for a number of years before the next scheduled service and fuelling outage. In this length of time quite a lot of plutonium is created from the u-238, but a far too high percent of it is pu-240 to be useful in nuclear bombs. Given there's only one neutron difference between them, separation of pu-240 from pu-239 is a technical feat that's so difficult not even the United States bothers to do it. They're researching it right now, but they've not really found an effective way to do it on a viable scale. The best and only real way to create pu-239 for bombs is to have a purpose built reactor and irradiate u-238 for precisely controlled lengths of time, which is exactly how every nuclear nation who has made their own pu-239 has gotten it. It's all been made in research reactors. Theoretically, it could be done with a reactor that does on-power refuelling, but this would be immediately obvious to any observer who would just have to stand there and notice them constantly cycling fuel in and out of one particular fuel channel. It is also possible to make nuclear bombs out of u-235, but this requires high enrichment (which is the concern with Iran's nuclear enrichment program), but this fear can be mitigated by selling fuel to whoever we don't trust to make it themselves and pre-poisoning it with pu-240, so it will work just fine in reactors, but if they try to use it for bombs they'll run into the same problem the US has yet to solve. Note, I'm not advocating selling fuel to assholes, just that if we need to, it can be done in a way to mitigate the proliferation risk. edit: chemical symbol for plutonium is pu, not p. 
ductonius fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
ductonius posted:It's actually a risk for only a very small number of designs, and not at all for reactors intended for electrical production. That's a great explanation of how the current administrative and technological controls makes it a rather easily controlled and very limited risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof: I was mostly joking. The timing of comments between you and CI was too good to pass up. Ductonius' explanation was pretty cool. Proliferation has been a subject I've studied and forgotten so many times I don't think it'll ever stick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
It looks like there's finally some good info on how Ivanpah is doing, and somehow I just found out Ivanpah doesn't use molten salt to keep generating overnight, that's a really weird oversight/design decision. Apparently BrightSource is coming to include it in their newer plants, if anyone contracts them to build any, but I remember reading about how that was part of the design of these kinds of plants years ago so I'm not sure what's up there. I also didn't know that they used natural gas to get it going in the morning which I thought was odd, as you'd think there's a lot you could do with a bunch of super hot sunlight. The thing does seem to be a bit of a bird frier, but that seems an overstatement, killing 100-300 birds a month sounds gruesome but, I mean, there's a lot of birds out there and the plants are pretty big to the point where the bird mortality rate on the area of the plant is greater than 0 even without a bunch of mirrors on it. It seems the larger issue is that PV is plummeting in price even at utility grade. I feel like I'm missing something for why PV is suddenly plummeting in price and rising in efficiency; it can't all just be subsidies. I was rather surprised to find out that in the process of getting solar panels on my house that the drat things seem like they can generate about as much electricity as we use in a month, and we use quite a bit over here. I was also promised PV roofing/siding material that was already cheap and 5 minutes away from mass production a few years ago, what the hell happened to that poo poo? Regardless, it seems like from my admittedly limited point of view since we can't get nuclear to go anywhere and pretty much every other source of energy is dirty or has huge drawbacks, and infrastructure spending in general is just hosed and will be for the foreseeable near future, we're going to end up with PV everywhere from local to utility, coupled with battery banks (and ultracapacitors if we can ever figure out how to manufacture graphene) to smooth out the uneven generation curve. Boten Anna fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:It seems the larger issue is that PV is plummeting in price even at utility grade. I feel like I'm missing something for why PV is suddenly plummeting in price and rising in efficiency; it can't all just be subsidies. I was rather surprised to find out that in the process of getting solar panels on my house that the drat things seem like they can generate about as much electricity as we use in a month, and we use quite a bit over here. Swanson's law. The real answer is economies of scale, the learning curve and a technology that haven't quite plateaued yet, One thing out of left field that dropped prices a good bit a few years back was reduction in installation costs. Solar PV is kinda interesting in that it messes with the business models of established fossil fuel plants. Output peaks at the time of day when demand is high so sometimes it can drive electricity cost way down and suddenly your peaker plant isn't making much money. You still need those plants of course but they're more expensive to run which creates an incentive for more people to put up solar PV and around it goes. Penetration isn't high enough for us to really see how it will play out yet but at some point down the line utilities in some of the sunnier states will start moaning about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Swanson's law. The real answer is economies of scale, the learning curve and a technology that haven't quite plateaued yet, One thing out of left field that dropped prices a good bit a few years back was reduction in installation costs. Yeah this last part is a little bit more of what I'm worried about. From the perspective of "hey let's do things efficiently and not cook the planet" it seems like getting local residential/commercial solar power going is great, and that the utilities should be stepping in to upgrade their infrastructure to work more as a broker than a way to distribute centrally generated electricity. However this shift in business model, and likely the necessary reliance on public money (I know I'd rather pay taxes for a well-maintained brokering infrastructure than pay a for-profit electric bill but I'm also not a tax hawk rear end in a top hat, not to mention subsidizing widespread PV installation) is the kind of thing that will be kicked against by tax hawks and those with a controlling interest in power generation and profits thereof, even though "sit around with thumbs up asses doing nothing" is the worst possible option. This does lead me to question, what are the environmental impacts of manufacturing PVs? Do they use materials, chemicals, or chemical processes that have a large aggregate impact? Are they recyclable when they wear out? Do they really wear out in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Yeah this last part is a little bit more of what I'm worried about. From the perspective of "hey let's do things efficiently and not cook the planet" it seems like getting local residential/commercial solar power going is great, and that the utilities should be stepping in to upgrade their infrastructure to work more as a broker than a way to distribute centrally generated electricity. However this shift in business model, and likely the necessary reliance on public money (I know I'd rather pay taxes for a well-maintained brokering infrastructure than pay a for-profit electric bill but I'm also not a tax hawk rear end in a top hat, not to mention subsidizing widespread PV installation) is the kind of thing that will be kicked against by tax hawks and those with a controlling interest in power generation and profits thereof, even though "sit around with thumbs up asses doing nothing" is the worst possible option. In California they've just announced they're changing the way the price of electricity gets calculated to help cover the costs of infrastructure that low electricity users (and solar owners) weren't paying their fair share. So things like that and requiring solar users to buy at retail and sell at wholesale helps too. quote:This does lead me to question, what are the environmental impacts of manufacturing PVs? Do they use materials, chemicals, or chemical processes that have a large aggregate impact? Are they recyclable when they wear out? Do they really wear out in the first place? I'm not an expert but I know PV construction is not good for the environment, however I think most of thee studies out there show its still better than continued fossil fuel use. I don't think they're that recyclable but idk and they do slowly lose effectiveness but the newer ones are way better than the old ones about it. Here's a random Good Company report that's probably got better cites than I do: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/solar_panel_lifecycle.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In California they've just announced they're changing the way the price of electricity gets calculated to help cover the costs of infrastructure that low electricity users (and solar owners) weren't paying their fair share. So things like that and requiring solar users to buy at retail and sell at wholesale helps too. The California rate changes were a big "gently caress you" to conservationists and solar power users of all kinds. Considering the kind of environmental issues California is currently facing, it was a completely tone deaf decision that doesn't raise any additional funding (most users will pay less) but encourages the wasteful users to keep ignoring their resource usage. Our financial needs for infrastructure are very real, but it is clear that we need to approach solutions with conservation in mind. The alternative is unsustainable - not only because of the environmental damage, but because spurring usage also spurs the need for ever more infrastructure. The loss of consumption disincentives - whether they be electricity taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. - is uniformly a step in the wrong direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In California they've just announced they're changing the way the price of electricity gets calculated to help cover the costs of infrastructure that low electricity users (and solar owners) weren't paying their fair share. So things like that and requiring solar users to buy at retail and sell at wholesale helps too. As much as it's personally impactful, paying a chunk of money every month for access to the grid/brokering regardless of usage while having panels plugged into the grid does seem fair. The current grid needs a lot of improvements, not to mention ongoing maintenance as it is, so whether it's taxes or a charge for accessing the grid's services, we'll have to chip in to that somehow. However, the wholesale prices seem a bit of a rip from what I've seen (I swear I saw $0.01/kwh once) but a lot of those figures are negotiated behind closed doors or bandied about as a threat to end net metering (which in practice basically means selling excess solar energy at retail) agreements. I'm not sure the wholesale thing is entirely fair at this time, as reducing peak demand is a pretty huge boon to the grid and centralized generation, and deserves time of use consideration that it's generally not. A lot of the problems seem to be only-the-next-quarter-matters thinking, where it'd be quite an investment and shift in infrastructure to upgrade grids as more efficient broker systems and maybe even incentivize installations themselves (and maybe even install small PV farms themselves for reliability as to not rely entirely on the customer base) that won't pay off until expensive peak generators can be tuned down and decommissioned. This will be a big payoff, but it will take years of development and cost eating as well and shifts in a hundred year old business model, which are the things that modern private business are categorically godawful at. It looks like according to that report, the biggest environmental impact is the manufacture of the support brackets and steel borders and such. While the PV cells themselves aren't saints, whether they can be processed for recycling is just something that we don't have enough dumped recent-gen solar panels to look at seriously. They cite this blog entry (http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/solar-industry-creates-scheme-to-recycle-solar-panels-in-europe.html) that claims it takes 1/3 of the energy to make a solar panel from a recycled one based off of units that have been replaced due to flaws or damage, which makes sense. While I suppose there are drawbacks, this does make me wonder why PV roofing and siding hasn't taken off yet as it's much cheaper than manufactured panels. What I don't see on that report though is if PV cell manufacture uses any materials or chemical processes that are particularly rare or high-impact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:This does lead me to question, what are the environmental impacts of manufacturing PVs? Do they use materials, chemicals, or chemical processes that have a large aggregate impact? Yeah, if someone could actually provide a good answer to this question, I'd be pretty interested. Multiple people in this thread have asserted that solar cells are really terrible for the environment, but when asked to support their claim, they don't come back with anything substantial. I think the only objections so far have been that solar modules may have lead-tin solder in them to make connections in the wiring of the module. Lead-tin solder doesn't have to be used in the assembly of the cell. Another objection was that one of the chemical byproducts in the purification of silicon is apparently bad. I asked for a comparison of the hazard of the byproducts with those of other manufacturing processes, you know, so that you could meaningfully say whether it is so bad or not, and I did not hear back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:What I don't see on that report though is if PV cell manufacture uses any materials or chemical processes that are particularly rare or high-impact. Most solar cells are silicon, and use manufacturing techniques that were adopted from the silicon integrated circuit industry. So the techniques aren't as common as those used to smelt aluminum or whatever, but it isn't like they were invented in some research lab 10 years ago. What is important in the synthesis of the silicon solar cell material is the chemical and structural purity of the silicon, and much effort goes into the purification. Electronics-grade silicon may be the purest material known to man. Solar cell silicon doesn't need to go through that much purification, but it is quite pure when compared to most other materials or chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, if someone could actually provide a good answer to this question, I'd be pretty interested. Multiple people in this thread have asserted that solar cells are really terrible for the environment, but when asked to support their claim, they don't come back with anything substantial. Here's an in depth rating of solar cell manufacturers: http://www.solarscorecard.com/2014/2014-SVTC-Solar-Scorecard.pdf And about recyclability: quote:Most PV modules sold in Europe are covered by a pre- funded Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to ensure safe and responsible disposal. No PV modules in the USA come with EPR. Three PV manufacturers (Trina, Yingli, and Up Solar) have written letters to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) seeking action on EPR for PV modules in the USA. Over the past three SVTC surveys, 14 companies have said they would support public policy for an EPR scheme for PV modules. quote:Twelve companies manufacture PV modules with amounts of cadmium or lead below regulatory thresh- olds set by the European Union, the world’s most strin- gent standard. This means that the maximum concentra- tion found in any homogenous material that makes up these PV modules is less than 0.01% for cadmium and 0.10% or less for lead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
What's actually in PVs besides a lot of silicon? Like what kinds of metals or chemicals are used at the business end of the device, where it actually converts sunlight into electricity?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:What's actually in PVs besides a lot of silicon? Like what kinds of metals or chemicals are used at the business end of the device, where it actually converts sunlight into electricity?  This website has a ton of info: http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/screen-printed But basically, most of the nasty stuff is process based (chemical etching) rather than a part of the final product quote:Phosphorous Diffusion
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here's an in depth rating of solar cell manufacturers: http://www.solarscorecard.com/2014/2014-SVTC-Solar-Scorecard.pdf That doesn't mean much to me. It's just a comparison between different solar cell manufacturers and doesn't get into specifics. It doesn't really answer the question of whether solar cell manufacturing creates a lot of pollution. Boten Anna posted:What's actually in PVs besides a lot of silicon? Like what kinds of metals or chemicals are used at the business end of the device, where it actually converts sunlight into electricity? In the solar cell, it is mostly silicon, and it is the silicon in which the sunlight -> electricity conversion takes place. Dopants like boron and phosphorous aid in the extraction of generated electricity in the cell from the silicon and into the wires--however, only small portions (maybe 1/100 - to 1/1000) of the silicon cell by volume are doped to "high" concentrations (high here meaning 1 boron or phosphorus atom per 100-1000 silicon atoms. So, 1/10^4 - 1/10^6 of the cell itself is boron or phosphorus. We use metal wires to carry the electricity out of the cell, and these are made with aluminum, copper, or silver and are deposited on top and on the back of the silicon. Silver was used historically because it enabled simpler manufacturing than aluminum or copper. Also used are layers of dielectrics, various oxides and nitrides deposited on top of the cell, which are engineered to help the solar cell collect, and not reflect, incoming sunlight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:40
|
|