Behind a paywall, and doesn't seem to be available on Alexandra's library…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?shar...
Thanks
Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
151–157 of 157 posts
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. Your argument that solar panels cost more in electricity to build and deploy could also be made about nuclear. I agree that we should build more nuclear power plants but do you have evidence that they require less infrastructure than solar? A nuclear power plant seems more expensive to build than a field full of panels. Uranium mining and refining is cheap…
> Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. No, and this vision is the problem. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, are other options that can make sense depending on the context (of course you don't want to start a nuclear program from scratch, but if you already have a nuclear industry and you're in northern Europe, then it makes much more sense than solar).
I understand. Here in the US 70% of my electricity comes from coal and gas. My county literally passed a law banning solar projects a few years ago because of fear mongering about renewables. The alternative to solar is the status quo of coal and gas. To build out nuclear energy, you would not only have to take decades to build up the infrastructure and capacity but also convince locals that nuclear energy is a viable alternative when enough people were able to convince the local government that large scale solar projects are harmful to environment.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
A continental-scale mix (wind, solar...) is an efficient way to reduce the impact of intermittency on electricity production, and therefore storage ( https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... ). V2G ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ) and gas turbines burning green hydrogen (generated by water electrolysis using over-produced electricity) are ramping up.
There is a good chance that with present day technology we could satisfy all of our energy needs using HVDC transmission lines. The main problem is that these are going to be easy infrastructure to attack in case of war or through terrorism.
True, however continental-scale grids interconnecting more and more interdependent nations/states are needed whatever the type of energy source used (even nuclear), and at least as exposed to terrorism as long-haul (U)HVDC lines.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I know, and the point is? Still no trace of millions of drivers.
The point is the study you cite is on that tiny inner bit, compared to the giant outer bit.
I expressly mentioned the expansion in my original post, so it should be clear I understand the difference, and the millions are still nowhere to be found.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#155Earlier 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.…
This is exactly what TFA addresses.
Not at all! (see ZeroGravitas'[1] comment if you want to read it without the paywall instead of making a fool of yourself…)
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
And yet, the solar panels I installed on my Seattle house a decade ago generated enough power to pay for themselves in six years. Solar works great here. Overcast skies are not a problem: solar panels don't care which direction the photons come from, and they work more efficiently at cooler temperatures.
> And yet, the solar panels I installed on my Seattle house a decade ago generated enough power to pay for themselves in six years.
That tells something about your local electricity market though, not about the energy or CO2 emission efficiency.
Re: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic toxicity and waste slowing decarbonization
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. No, and this vision is the problem. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, are other options that can make sense depending on the context (of course you don't want to start a nuclear program from scratch, but if you already have a nuclear industry and you're in northern Europe, then it makes much more sense than solar).
I understand. Here in the US 70% of my electricity comes from coal and gas. My county literally passed a law banning solar projects a few years ago because of fear mongering about renewables. The alternative to solar is the status quo of coal and gas. To build out nuclear energy, you would not only have to take decades to build up the infrastructure and capacity but also convince locals that nuclear energy is a viabl…
> I understand. Here in the US 70% of my electricity comes from coal and gas. My county literally passed a law banning solar projects a few years ago because of fear mongering about renewables. The alternative to solar is the status quo of coal and gas.
But sometimes solar is not the alternative to the status quo, that's what I meant. By in many places of the US, solar is actually a viable choice though, and banning it there is as stupid as subsidizing it near the polar circle (something we actually do in Europe…).
> but also convince locals that nuclear energy is a viable alternative when enough people were able to convince the local government that large scale solar projects are harmful to environment.
In Europe the biggest, and by far, source of opposition to nuclear comes from renewable energy proponents, even in countries where it doesn't make sense (especially solar). That's how we got Germany to get rid of their perfectly functional nuclear plants, spending tons of money investing in inferior solutions (for the context), and consuming millions of tons of coal in the meantime. Similarly idiotic to your county banning solar…