Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization • Hacker News Board

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#11

Post by stinos » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:23 AM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #7

weevil wrote: post #3

I'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.

Is that true for the complete lifetime (which is what matters in the end) of, say, a PV installation in one's home? Or even for the complete PV industry?

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#12

Post by mathieuh » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:25 AM UTC

weevil wrote: post #3

I'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.

It's become a culture war issue. In the UK London introduced a so-called Ultra-Low Emissions Zone recently, and Wales has dropped 30 mph speed limits down to 20, which prompted the right-wing populist government to come out as being "on the side of drivers" and to call decarbonisation schemes "tyrannical". They've now gone full swivel-eyed loon and are rowing back many climate change commitments.

It seems to me that, in the UK at least, as the two main parties align more and more on economic and social issues that they are needing to find new wedge issues to differentiate themselves.

Not sure if this is also the case in countries with PR governments.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#13

Post by aziaziazi » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:25 AM UTC

hkwerf wrote: post #6

weevil wrote: post #3

I'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 b…

Agree. Also decarb/lifestyle shouldn’t be yes/no, maybe the target should be something like: lifestyle 70% ok and yo support that long term, decarb at scale X (which is not necessarily huge)

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#14

Post by hannob » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:26 AM UTC

baq wrote: post #4

Should've focused on grid capacity, grid scale storage and copper mining which are real problems instead of inventing fake ones :/

Mining is actually one of those other renewable "problems" that is, well, somewhat real, but way overblown in many discussions.

I mean, yes, we will need some new mines. We'll have to mine different things. But overall, renewables will reduce mining. A lot. Why? Most mining today is fossil fuel mining.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#15

Post by flgb » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:27 AM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #7

weevil wrote: post #3

I'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.…

That’s a complete myth and just more of the same ‘concern trolling’ on renewables that is hampering decarbonization

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#16

Post by lynx23 » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:31 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #8

Gasp0de wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Yeah, its called free will, you know. I dont have to like everything, period.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#17

Post by V__ » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:31 AM UTC

stinos wrote: post #11

littlestymaar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Is that true for the complete lifetime (which is what matters in the end) of, say, a PV installation in one's home? Or even for the complete PV industry?

It is not, it's not even close. It's better by a factor of 10 to 20. [1]

[1] https://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estima...

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#18

Post by throwaway60742 » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:32 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #8

Gasp0de wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

People don't want to pay for it. The cost of the wind/solar project itself is not the full story - you also need energy storage, and that's very expensive. You also need to rebuild the electrical grid to handle the peak power output to be able to store it.

In EU countries, at least part of these very significant costs are paid for by everyone - not just the company operating the wind/solar projects who profit from it. Some people don't want to have higher taxes just so a business gets profit.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#19

Post by robertlagrant » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:32 AM UTC

mathieuh wrote: post #12

weevil wrote: post #3

I'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.

It's become a culture war issue. In the UK London introduced a so-called Ultra-Low Emissions Zone recently, and Wales has dropped 30 mph speed limits down to 20, which prompted the right-wing populist government to come out as being "on the side of drivers" and to call decarbonisation schemes "tyrannical". They've now gone full swivel-eyed loon and are rowing back many climate change commitments. It seems to me that,…

ULEZ isn't decarbonisation. It mostly targets diesel cars due to NO. And it doesn't ban them; it just costs £12/day to drive there. So suddenly millions of drivers, who bought diesel cars because that was the thing they were supposed to buy according to the government, now own cars that are worth -£2000/year.

It might seem that everything is along political lines because you view it that way. There are non-political reasons to get annoyed at things.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#20

Post by theK » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 9:36 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #8

Gasp0de wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

I have a pet theory about that. The theory is that it is not the facts or the topic of Eco-Things.

I think generally we are at a point where it is too easy for normal people to be against things and eco friendly things are just the lowest hanging fruit. Normal people nowadays are much more stressed with the world at large, overstimulated by doomscrolling all night, obesse or unhealthy, locked in some financial treadmill, etc, etc...

In such a situation it is easy to see a wind farm next door as an attack on your landscape or the needs of EV mobility as overly complicated and so on and so on.

So its not the facts that matter, it is the lives of the 80% of the population that have just taken a dive for the worst over the last 20 years.

EDIT: preface