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

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#121

Post by hef19898 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #117
hef19898 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You zave no idea about energy consumption along a supply chain, if you actually believe any of this.

> You zave no idea about energy consumption along a supply chain, if you actually believe any of this. This has nothing to to with supply chain, but with the fact that the Nederlands and Seattle aren't especially sunny places…

Then you shoupd tell the goverment in the Netherlands, they seem to believe they got 14% of their electricity from solar in 2022:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/the-netherlan...

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#122

Post by Detrytus »

hef19898 wrote: post #79
Detrytus wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Coal and gas plants are closing because they cannot compete on price with solar/wind + battery storage. First of all, I'm not aware of any large scale battery storage facilities anywhere, they are prohibitively expensive. Second, coal and gas plant's main cost, at least in EU, is carbon tax. So the fact that they can't compete on price is a result of political decision, not of any shortcomings of the technology it…

Gas can't compete, because gas is too expensive. Coal actually could compete, it usually was the second type of power plant able to sell on the electricity markets, becasue CO2 certificates are just dirt cheap, way to cheap to move the needle, and coal as fuel was the least expensive (sun and win being free).

CO2 certificates are not "dirt cheap", for Polish coal-based power plants they amount to 59% of the cost of producing electricity.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#123

Post by scythe »

jeffbee wrote: post #69

Plot twist: the research fueling these concerns was also published in major journals. Maybe the journals should get together and all their editors can decide to not publish research such as whether plants absorb heavy metals if you grow them in a medium shredded solar panels. Because that's obviously misleading bullshit. "We removed the metal frames, electric cables, and plastic debris (Fig. 1) and then crushed the p…

>Maybe the journals should get together and all their editors can decide to not publish research such as [insert literally anything here]

This is a terrible idea. Scientific publishers should not be in the business of restricting the domain of scientific research. Only democratic public institutions can have that responsibility, and they should use it as little as possible.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#124

Post by littlestymaar »

hef19898 wrote: post #119
littlestymaar wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Helsinki is around, judging from looking at a chart on a phone screen, 20-30% more expensive than Munich per kWh produced using solar.. And still, Helsinki still is cheaper by a factor of roughly 2 than the average spot market kWh prices in 2022. The price doesn't have anything to do with the carbon footprint though… > Also, Finland installed a ton of solar lasr year, so I guess if someone is doing sometjing someon…

Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions (maintenance being the only source). And it is absolutely possible, and done. Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. And those expect, and get, returns. Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality... Disclaimer: Obviously, installing PV around the arctic circle is better during summer than winter...

> Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions

Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it?

> Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects.

Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a common sentence when discussing NFTs so I'm not sure how convincing you think it is.

Each euros that goes to solar in Finland and doesn't get to hydro, wind, biomasse or whatever, is wasted. Wasted in terms of energy production, and have a much bigger carbon footprint per kWh, but hey it's trendy (mostly because it makes total sense in California, the cultural center of the Western world).

> Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality...

Funny indeed.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#125

Post by littlestymaar »

rypskar wrote: post #118
littlestymaar wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your figures have nothing to do with deploying solar panels in northern US / Europe. These are average numbers, that includes the panels deployed in Arizona or Australia. Solar is a good idea when you put in it the right place (like a desert), but not when you put in in the British Isles or in Denmark, that's the point I'm making.

>>right place (like a desert) The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place. They are even using solar on Svalbard [0] with good results 9 months a year [0] https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2019/11/28/archipelago-of...

> The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place.

Panels are less efficient when hot (which is a problem), but they are even less efficient when the sun is low on the horizon, which is the case even in summer in Denmark, and when there are clouds. These a reason why the most efficient plants aren't actually in Denmark but in Arizona…

> with good results 9 months a year

Nothing in your link allows assessing how good the results are supposed to be. The fact that, without any quantitative elements, you assume the results presented here to be “good” tells a lot about your confirmation bias.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#126

Post by hef19898 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #124
hef19898 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions (maintenance being the only source). And it is absolutely possible, and done. Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. And those expect, and get, returns. Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality... Disclaimer: Obviously, installing PV around the arctic circle is better during summer than winter...

> Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it? > Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a co…

Nobody in Europe installs solar because of California... Strabge idea. As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not.

And regardless of NFTs, people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest. If it does, people invest. And that is proof that solar works out financially. Even in Finland.

Funny as well, how people use the "market" as argument for anything working, only to turn around and totally ignore it if the market confirms something they don't want to believe.

Reality is, Finland becomes a market for solar, believe it or not. That also being the case for utility scale projects, means it is financially viable. Those arw verifiable facts. Now you can choose to ignore them, or not, I don't care. What I care about is HN turning into a olace where people ignore facts and realizy, just to confirm their points. We can do better around here, because if not, there is no point in sticking around here anymore.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#127

Post by hef19898 »

Detrytus wrote: post #122
hef19898 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas can't compete, because gas is too expensive. Coal actually could compete, it usually was the second type of power plant able to sell on the electricity markets, becasue CO2 certificates are just dirt cheap, way to cheap to move the needle, and coal as fuel was the least expensive (sun and win being free).

CO2 certificates are not "dirt cheap", for Polish coal-based power plants they amount to 59% of the cost of producing electricity.

Still cheap enough to make coal one of the cheapest source on electricity markets, measured in generation cost per kWh. Since coal is the dirtiest fuel we have, those certificates should be expebsive enough to price out coal most of the time. That would be an ingenious combination of setting incenzives for market players im way that the result of market activities benefits everyone.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#128

Post by itishappy »

okr wrote: post #120
theK wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 treadm…

It is easy to judge other people, why they have a nimby opinion. Show me your property, if it has windmills or photovoltaic on them. Then it would be an intellectually honest conversation.

That sounds hypocritical. If you're against wind and solar on some principle, I'd hope you apply that to your own life, not just others.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#129

Post by littlestymaar »

hef19898 wrote: post #126
littlestymaar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it? > Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a co…

Nobody in Europe installs solar because of California... Strabge idea. As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not. And regardless of NFTs, people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest. If it does, people…

> As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not.

You're making a fallacy here, that it's either coal or PV. It's not. In tropical and subtropical places, solar make sense, else where you're better off with anything else that's not fossil. In fact, PV is not even a good substitute for coal, because coal plants can't be turned on and off easily twice a day (unlike gas turbines).

> people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest.

People investing in NFTs is a proof that NFTs make economical sense then? People invest because they believe, no matter if those believes are grounded or not, so using the existence of market as a proof of something working in completely self-referential believes confirmation.

> Funny as well, how people use the "market" as argument for anything working, only to turn around and totally ignore it if the market confirms something they don't want to believe.

Funny to see that people use the market as a justification for things working, when we have plenty of evidences of markets for things that made no economic sense (crypto, NFT, tulips, etc.).

> What I care about is HN turning into a olace where people ignore facts and realizy, just to confirm their points. We can do better around here, because if not, there is no point in sticking around here anymore.

Please be the change you want to see in the world then, and stop drinking cool-aid and using rhetorical fallacy instead of arguments…

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#130

Post by hef19898 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #129
hef19898 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in Europe installs solar because of California... Strabge idea. As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not. And regardless of NFTs, people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest. If it does, people…

> As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not. You're making a fallacy here, that it's either coal or PV. It's not. In tropical and subtropical places, solar make sense, else where you're better off with anything else that's not fossil. In fact, PV is not even a good substitute for coal, because coal plants can't be turned on and off easily twice a day (u…

Institutional investeros investing in long-term projects, here PV, are devidedly not the same category of people investing in NFTs... God, this truely is somewhat pointless.

Summary: You say PV in Finland isn't feasible. People building PV, and profiting from it, disagree. Those people put their money where their mouth is. Same goes for the Netherlands. I'll stop now, if you want the sky to be red and clouds be purple, sure, belive that... I linked to a comprehensive report on solar in Europe elsewhere, all you do is moving goal posts and repeating false claims...

Not that I think you'll read this, but here you go:

https://api.solarpowereurope.org/uploads/5222_SPE_EMO_2022_f...

Pages for Finland:

37 & 38, 43: Finland will achieve its NCEP tarhets a lot earlier

52: Finland will be a GW solar market in 2025

These reports, they are publoshed annually, turned out to be largely correct since tgey are published. While the IAEA is usually of by almost an order of magnitude, underestimating solar growth, these folks are sometimes a bit too pesimistic. Good thing, I did read one of there reports again, the last one was before Covid...

Post reply on HN