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

131–140 of 157 posts

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#131

Post by wkat4242 »

jacquesm wrote: post #113
wkat4242 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In NL we apparently almost had a major incident at Petten. https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/bijna-meltdown-kernreactor-pette... And that's the one that is public, there is at least one more that is still under wraps and possibly more than that. Nuclear is only as safe as the people running it and that is a major issue even before you bring in economics. You can't treat safety as a cost in installations like these and inev…

Wow I had no idea of that one. I actually lived pretty close to there.

Seems like the incidents happened in part because the operators couldn't see in the dark after a power outage, and the emergency torch had been taken by someone to fix their car... :X You can't make this stuff up.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#132

Post by inglor_cz »

hef19898 wrote: post #91
inglor_cz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The not-so-tiny negative that some professionals here in CZ mention is disreputable Chinese vendors. "Oh yeah, we will give you 10 years warranty for your panels, buy! Cheap!" Only the necessary seals are shoddy and the panel dies much sooner from water incursion. At which moment you find out that the producer has gone out of business, so no recourse. This is not a fault of the technology per se, rather of humanity a…

The list of top ten solar pnel vendors / brands is one online search away, e.g. here: https://solarpowernerd.com/top-solar-panel-manufacturers/ Buy from a "bankable" brand, and you are good to go. Bankable, as in bank are willing ot finance GWp sized utility projects using modules from those manufacturers. And as you see, those big ones are around for quite a while. Sure, I have never seen an industry as plagued by s…

Thank you. I have been considering solar for my home too, but this problem is making me hesitate; the investment is still considerable, at least for me at this moment.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#133

Post by robertlagrant »

tpm wrote: post #115
extraduder_ire wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the implication is that wherever you have your car, it's worth less because it costs money to drive it in london, which directly affects its resale value. Pretty indirect though.

Sure, but that also applies only to pre-Euro 6 diesel cars, so pretty old anyway.

7 years old. Basically it's a tax on people who don't have a new diesel. And on businesses who require vehicles to get goods in.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#134

Post by universa1 »

hef19898 wrote: post #66
froh wrote: post #45

oh is this the "infrasound problem" of photovoltaics? (where Bavaria effectively banned wind turbines because of "infrasound emissions" and the paper was later retracted for an off-by-1000 error)

And it gave the 10x height rule for the distance to build new wind turbines. What a great achievement! I do have the feeling so, as soon as the agricultural base of Bavarian conservatives can make more money per acre installing wind and solar power than by planting crips, they are going to be the first to jump at it.

The time is now, you just are not allowed to convert most agricultural into solar farms...

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#135

Post by hef19898 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #132
hef19898 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The list of top ten solar pnel vendors / brands is one online search away, e.g. here: https://solarpowernerd.com/top-solar-panel-manufacturers/ Buy from a "bankable" brand, and you are good to go. Bankable, as in bank are willing ot finance GWp sized utility projects using modules from those manufacturers. And as you see, those big ones are around for quite a while. Sure, I have never seen an industry as plagued by s…

Thank you. I have been considering solar for my home too, but this problem is making me hesitate; the investment is still considerable, at least for me at this moment.

Yeah, I know. Guess why we din't have it yet. With larger projects, the labor costs decrease per Wp installed, making larger projects cheaper per Wp, and thus the ROI is much better.

One should not save money on cheap panels so. Neither shoupd you import yourself, only buy from brands that have an EU legal presence, import themselves and are in the business for decades (JA, Jinko, Trina and Canadian Solar come to mind). If the brand has some large utility projects runnning (either their own as suppliers, doesn't really matter) even better, that means they have contractual agreents with large, repeat customers, basically assuring support for guarantee cases down the road. Be mindful so, not all are very customer friendly when it comes to claims, so take one with a solid startegy for the roof top / consumer market.

I spent some time at one of those mentioned, years ago.

The ROI for private installation gets better all the time so, Wp prices fall, panel capacity increases, resulting in cheaper and larger installations on the same surface. No idea whwre labour is nowadays, propably through the roof with availability in 2030s or so.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#136

Post by robertlagrant »

tpm wrote: post #71
robertlagrant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Millions? The number of daily non-compliant cars entering the ULEZ zone went from 36k in March 2019 to 12k in December 2020 according to Wikipedia. I seriously doubt the expansion did hit millions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone

> The number of daily non-compliant cars entering the ULEZ zone went from 36k in March 2019 to 12k in December 2020 according to Wikipedia. I seriously doubt the expansion did hit millions.

ULEZ was a tiny central part of London. New ULEZ is...all of London[0].

[0] https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ule... - the map shows the red outlined congestion charge zone (old ULEZ) vs the new blue area (new ULEZ)

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#137

Post by hef19898 »

universa1 wrote: post #134
hef19898 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it gave the 10x height rule for the distance to build new wind turbines. What a great achievement! I do have the feeling so, as soon as the agricultural base of Bavarian conservatives can make more money per acre installing wind and solar power than by planting crips, they are going to be the first to jump at it.

The time is now, you just are not allowed to convert most agricultural into solar farms...

Ah, yes. Land usage classifications. I never heard of a farmer sellong land, not even a square meter, to anyone. As farmland that is, the second it is reclassified as housing the same farmers part with the land without hesitation!

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#138

Post by petre »

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.

They get funding from Big Oil, Russia etc.

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/big-oils-electric-fight-aga...

https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/462...

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#139

Post by jacquesm »

wkat4242 wrote: post #131
jacquesm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NL we apparently almost had a major incident at Petten. https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/bijna-meltdown-kernreactor-pette... And that's the one that is public, there is at least one more that is still under wraps and possibly more than that. Nuclear is only as safe as the people running it and that is a major issue even before you bring in economics. You can't treat safety as a cost in installations like these and inev…

Wow I had no idea of that one. I actually lived pretty close to there. Seems like the incidents happened in part because the operators couldn't see in the dark after a power outage, and the emergency torch had been taken by someone to fix their car... :X You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, that's how it happened (I heard it from a person that was closer to the source). And because you can't make this stuff up I don't think it is possible to responsibly operate a nuclear reactor because the normalization of deviation is impossible to guard against over the career span of a typical human. Everywhere people work they make mistakes and do stupid stuff and over time this accumulates to the point where the 'experts' are themselves the danger but because they've done it for so long nobody can do a better job than they can in the short term. And then there is aging gear, embrittlement and a thousand other things that can (and do) go wrong.

You can't fix human nature and that's the root cause of many of these problems. And because of that I'm very much against nuclear power, no matter what the short term advantages may seem to be. Sooner or later every plant needs to be de-commissioned, will have an incident or will end up as a target or a casualty of something or other. Multiply that by the number of power plants that you'd need to make the world reliant on nuclear power and the number of accidents would quickly rise above what is acceptable (if we're not already there).

Nuclear proponents are quick to argue that this was all with old technology and newer designs are safer but people are still the same and even new technology resulting in working installations will eventually see those same installations age.

Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization

#140

Post by svnt »

orwell_bruh wrote: post #56
svnt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let it out. Let the last pieces of your clinging to an identity in crude oil products fall away. Gaia still loves you. Hydrocarbon technology never cared in the first place. No one blames you for being deceived.

Yes, I identify as someone with reliable heating and power who eats real food, has many children and like to go on vacation from time to time. Btw, it's not me being deceived but eventually you'll figure that out, I am sure.

> Yes, I identify as someone with reliable heating and power who eats real food, has many children and like to go on vacation from time to time.

Is this false dichotomy you’ve communicated something you’ve cultivated because you are afraid of what would happen without these things, or because without consideration for other viewpoints you chose to value your comfort and tiny world-view over a clearer understanding of reality?

Having written it out, there is no need for you to respond, really. It is just fear either way.

Post reply on HN