Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 157 posts

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#101

Post by jacquesm »

hef19898 wrote: post #100
jacquesm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flat roof is very doable, I have 34 out of 50 panels here on less than 10 degree slope on a flat roof. What's nice about it is that even though it isn't optimal when the sun is out it works very well when the sky is overcast, sometimes even better than the panels that are oriented towards the sun.

Good news! And since our house is pretty much running north-south, with an unobstructed view of the sun until around, say, mid-afternoon, the aide of our roof facing east should be quite suitable (to get more sun on it, we'd have to remove all the trees, moat of which are 30+ years old, something we don't want to do). One day, there will panels on that roof!

Neat, if you need any mounting tips let me know, I've had a few 'trial-and-error' runs at it.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#102

Post by matthewdgreen »

unglaublich wrote: post #75
hef19898 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going niclear is such a FUD anti-renewables campaign, it is almost loughable people still fall it. New nuclear plants take decades to build, and are extremely expensive. So no, no significant nuclear capacity increase. All that campaign does, is making it harder for renewables, and thus easier for fossil fuels. Quite ingenious so, if you think about it.

"Going nuclear" has been _the_ fossil fuel alternative for decades. It has been the only scalable, proven, safe energy base load generation competitor to fossil fuels. The competition between those forms of energy is going back way before the advent of windmills and solar panels. The fossil fuel industry has a huge interest in spreading FUD around nuclear, and the few accidents have been maximally exploited to hamper…

The fossil fuel industry in 2023 loves nuclear, mainly because the capital costs are so high it doesn't represent serious economic competition with cheap fossil sources. There is a theoretical world where we come to a political consensus, then build out nuclear to France-like levels with massive government spending and intervention. But this requires political consensus that the fossil fuel industry (correctly) recognizes is unlikely in most countries.

The major exception to the above rule is China, but even that (massive!) government-sponsored nuclear buildout is only expected to reach https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-27/china-nuc...

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#103

Post by hef19898 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #102
unglaublich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Going nuclear" has been _the_ fossil fuel alternative for decades. It has been the only scalable, proven, safe energy base load generation competitor to fossil fuels. The competition between those forms of energy is going back way before the advent of windmills and solar panels. The fossil fuel industry has a huge interest in spreading FUD around nuclear, and the few accidents have been maximally exploited to hamper…

The fossil fuel industry in 2023 loves nuclear, mainly because the capital costs are so high it doesn't represent serious economic competition with cheap fossil sources. There is a theoretical world where we come to a political consensus, then build out nuclear to France-like levels with massive government spending and intervention. But this requires political consensus that the fossil fuel industry (correctly) recog…

Thank you! To save some of China's face here: they also push(ed) wwind and solar like crazy. And coal, but that's a different issue.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#104

Post by js8 »

bondant wrote: post #59
throwaway60742 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way they are misinformed, look at German power mix. Germany - the most vocal proponents of wind/solar - is the most polluting country in the whole EU. > Coal and gas plants are closing because they cannot compete on price with solar/wind + battery storage. That did not happen anywhere in Europe. New gas plants are being constructed right now, and coal powerplants had to be restarted when Germans dropped nuclear. >…

> Germany - the most vocal proponents of wind/solar - is the most polluting country in the whole EU. Are they? Looks like it's Poland who is generating the most CO2 for electricity production. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-i...

I frequently hear that talking point (about Germany) from my fellow Czechs, and it's incredible, because we need more fossil fuels than Germans and also are poorer. (Even more paradoxically, more than a decade back, Czechia was ahead of Germany in solar power.) The conservatives have just taken over.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#105

Post by wkat4242 »

jacquesm wrote: post #86
wkat4242 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And three mile island and Fukushima. Nuclear has some serious concerns that are clearly not addressed enough. Usually this is when the low death toll is brought up but it's not just about deaths. It's about environmental destruction. And the potential to do so in the far future through its waste. I don't think we should move away from nuclear altogether but use it as a buffer only for the times when the real green so…

And Windscale (whitewashed to 'Sellafield') and an endless series of near-catastrophes.

Oh yeah totally, they had a meltdown too. Though it was an idiotic operation at that time, with such a cavalier attitude to safety that I should hope will not be repeated in this day and age. They even opposed the air filters that were introduced anyway and reduced a lot of the contamination during the meltdown.

I didn't remember to mention it because it was not an energy generation installation that melted down but a military one for nuclear weapon manufacturing.

About those filters, a quote from wikipedia:

> They became known as "Cockcroft's Folly" as many regarded the delay they caused and their great expense to be a needless waste. During the fire the filters trapped about 95% of the radioactive dust and arguably saved much of northern England from becoming a nuclear wasteland. Terence Price said "the word folly did not seem appropriate after the accident"

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#106

Post by winter_blue »

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'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.

Thank you for pointing this out. It is indeed quite puzzling.

What's even more puzzling is: I felt exactly the same way about anti-vaxxer movement. Although, the anti-vax movement is far worse in the sense that there's literally no human who benefits from it. With climate change, there's a huge fossil fuels lobby that benefits financially from the lies/misinformation around climate change. But, I don't know who benefits from this anti-vax nonsense.

Anti-vax lies literally killed people. In the US, it ironically, even with the party that championed anti-vax lies (i.e. the Republican Party), the only effect these lies had was that they literally caused additional unneeded deaths of GOP voters. Not sure why a rational GOP would champion that, but yea I have no idea. It's insanity and madness. It's evil too, in a sense.

To have some sane/rational explanation of these things would be amazing.....

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#107

Post by jandrese »

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…

The ugly truth is that propaganda works, especially over long time periods. The fossil fuel industry has been funding propaganda for decades now, longer than most people have been alive. They commissioned studies about climate change in the 50s and knew exactly what was going to happen and how it would affect their businesses so they got ahead of it with continuous ad campaigns and political activism.

This has been going on for so long we are now in an era where for a sizable percentage of the population truth no longer matters. That was the long term goal all along, once climate change became otherwise undeniable the people would be disassociated from reality and still support the fossil fuel industry.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#108

Post by [deleted] »

winter_blue wrote: post #106
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'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. Thank you for pointing this out. It is indeed quite puzzling. What's even more puzzling is: I felt exactly the same way about anti-vaxxer move…

[deleted]

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#109

Post by [deleted] »

unglaublich wrote: post #32
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.

The irony: we borrow money against our future selfs assuming endless economical growth. But when we extract finite natural resources and use up a finite pollution buffer, we do not pay our future selfs the opportunity costs.

[deleted]

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#110

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

throwaway60742 wrote: post #42
kjksf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the reason then those people are misinformed. Coal and gas plants are closing because they cannot compete on price with solar/wind + battery storage. The cost advantage is not true everywhere but the future is clear. Coal and gas will not become cheaper. Solar and wind is most expensive today it'll ever be. Storage in particular is so early in the cycle that we can expect the cost will drop at least in half…

No way they are misinformed, look at German power mix. Germany - the most vocal proponents of wind/solar - is the most polluting country in the whole EU. > Coal and gas plants are closing because they cannot compete on price with solar/wind + battery storage. That did not happen anywhere in Europe. New gas plants are being constructed right now, and coal powerplants had to be restarted when Germans dropped nuclear. >…

> Germany - the most vocal proponents of wind/solar

According to whom. There is lots of pushback against renewables - in particular wind- in Germany. It takes something crazy like 7 years to approve a wind farm here. The current government is trying to improve the situation. But I would strongly question the premise of your comment e.g. Denmark seems a lot more successful.

Post reply on HN