Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#2Behind a paywall, and doesn't seem to be available on Alexandra's library…
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#3I'm honestly at a loss as to why some people (and organizations) are hell-bent on hampering attempts to decarbonize, and amplifying whatever tiny negatives they can whether they're real or not, as though nothing less than 100% perfect is worth replacing the awful status quo.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#4Should've focused on grid capacity, grid scale storage and copper mining which are real problems instead of inventing fake ones :/
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#5I'm honestly at a loss as to why some people (and organizations) are hell-bent on hampering attempts to decarbonize, and amplifying whatever tiny negatives they can whether they're real or not, as though nothing less than 100% perfect is worth replacing the awful status quo.
Because some people make billions by utilizing or selling "free" energy from fossil fuels? Companies extract these, they often don't pay for the energy (just the cost of extraction) and can sell them at huge profits. The cost of pollution is then also not paid by them.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#6I'm honestly at a loss as to why some people (and organizations) are hell-bent on hampering attempts to decarbonize, and amplifying whatever tiny negatives they can whether they're real or not, as though nothing less than 100% perfect is worth replacing the awful status quo.
Regarding people, I'd guess that this is mostly caused by cognitive dissonance between the size of the own carbon footprint and the need to decarbonize. Resolving that dissonance would require either to accept that decarbonization is necessary and therefore a lifestyle change or that decarbonization is not necessary and therefore the current lifestyle is okay.
Regarding organizations: They're probably either driven by the people above or money...
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#7I'm honestly at a loss as to why some people (and organizations) are hell-bent on hampering attempts to decarbonize, and amplifying whatever tiny negatives they can whether they're real or not, as though nothing less than 100% perfect is worth replacing the awful status quo.
I'll bite: the problem is that renewable in itself doesn't mean decarbonation: if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad.
So there are things that are not just “not perfect” but actually harmful, and you can't just blindly deploy “not perfect” things.
The main reason why people focus on renewable without getting into the details of whether or not it improves thing, is because it gives the impression of addressing the problem without changing the status quo (mass-consumption society, individual cars, disposable packaging, the search for endless growth…)
The western world's energy and resource consumption isn't sustainable, no matter how you get the energy from, and “decarbonation”, like recycling, is just a fallacy that's been invented to avoid addressing this issue.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#8I'm honestly at a loss as to why some people (and organizations) are hell-bent on hampering attempts to decarbonize, and amplifying whatever tiny negatives they can whether they're real or not, as though nothing less than 100% perfect is worth replacing the awful status quo.
Because some people make billions by utilizing or selling "free" energy from fossil fuels? Companies extract these, they often don't pay for the energy (just the cost of extraction) and can sell them at huge profits. The cost of pollution is then also not paid by them.
That is certainly true, but it's not a full explanation.
I recently was at an information event from our local electricity provider about wind energy projects. And there are those people... There was a conversation going on like: "The people I talked to don't want these things." Event moderator: "What are the reasons?" Guy: "They simply don't want them."
And I am pretty sure that was no fossil fuel lobbyist. It was just a guy who is against things. And there are plenty of those.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#9Should've focused on grid capacity, grid scale storage and copper mining which are real problems instead of inventing fake ones :/
These fake problems were invented already and this article tries to debunk them. Nothing wrong with that, on the contrary I'd say, and pointing out there are other real problems doesn't really change that?
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#10I'm honestly at a loss as to why some people (and organizations) are hell-bent on hampering attempts to decarbonize, and amplifying whatever tiny negatives they can whether they're real or not, as though nothing less than 100% perfect is worth replacing the awful status quo.
I'll bite: the problem is that renewable in itself doesn't mean decarbonation: if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad. So there are things that are not just “not perfect” but actually harmful, and you can't just blindly deploy “not perfect” things.…
> if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad.
That is an urban legend and not supported by any evidence. Full solar lifecycle emissions are around an order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels.