Yes we can

[Old Rocks]

Cadmium Coatings
Cadmium coatings are applied to iron, steel, brass and aluminium and give excellent resistance to corrosion in most conditions and especially in marine and alkaline environments. Cadmium, like zinc, also provides sacrificial protection to a substrate such as steel by being preferentially corroded when the coating is damaged and small areas of the substrate are exposed. In addition to corrosion protection, cadmium coatings provide a low coefficient of friction and therefore good lubricity, predictable torque characteristics, good electrical conductivity, protection from galvanic corrosion (in particular when in contact with aluminium), easy solderability, low volume corrosion products and reduced risks of operating mechanisms being jammed by corrosion debris for many components in a wide range of engineering applications throughout industry.

Cadmium coatings are particularly useful in the electrical, electronic, aerospace, mining, offshore, automotive and defence industries where they are applied to bolts and other fasteners, chassis, connectors and other components.

Electroplating accounts for over 90 per cent of all cadmium used in coatings but mechanical plating and vacuum or ion deposition have some commercial significance. The coating is normally specified in thickness' between 5 and 25 µm depending on the severity of the atmosphere. Chromate post-treatment of the coating can increase coating life.

All the information on Cadmium - Coatings

A lot more chance of cadmium getting into the ecosystem from this use than from solar panels.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the amount of chromium on your car?

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you use lead bullets? Far more chance of lead getting into the environment from that than from solar panels.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.teck.com/media/2013-Products-Cadmium_Metal_SDS-T2.5.pdf

DANGER! Toxic if swallowed. Fatal if inhaled as freshly generated cadmium oxide fume. May cause cancer through inhalation of dust/fume. Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Causes damage to organs through single exposure or prolonged / repeated inhalation of dust or particularly fume. May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life.

https://beta-static.fishersci.com/c...cuments/sds/chemicals/chemicals-c/S25249A.pdf

Very toxic to aquatic life.

http://dept.harpercollege.edu/chemistry/msds/Lead metal foil sheets Fisher.pdf

Potential Health Effects Eye: Causes eye irritation. Skin: Causes skin irritation. May be absorbed through the skin. Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Ingestion of lead compounds can cause toxic effects in the blood-forming organs, kidneys and central nervous system. Symptoms of lead poisoning or plumbism include weakness, weight loss, lassitude, insomnia, and hypotension. It also includes constipation, anorexia, abdominal discomfort and colic. Inhalation: May cause respiratory tract irritation. Inhalation of fumes may cause metal fume fever, which is characterized by flu-like symptoms with metallic taste, fever, chills, cough, weakness, chest pain, muscle pain and increased white blood cell count. May cause effects similar to those described for ingestion. Chronic: Possible cancer hazard based on tests with laboratory animals. Chronic exposure may cause reproductive disorders and teratogenic effects. Chronic exposure to lead may result in plumbism which is characterized by lead line in gum, headache, muscle weakness, mental changes.

 

[fncceo]

You left out Israel. Why u no like Israel?

Too many 'you know who' there.

 

[eagle1462010]

While more than just Solar panels can cause damage to individuals and/or the Environment, Solar panels DO CONTAIN HAZARDOUS materials in the manufacturing process and disposal or recycle at the end of life of the solar panel.

The mining of Silica needed to make the panel is done with strip mining which the OP has used to say coal bad.........solar good......Yet strip mining is done in the same way to get the material needed for Solar panels making the OP a Hypocrite.

As already pointed out, Silicosis is a Deadly disease from the chronic exposure to the Dust in mining of the Silica all over the Far East and Africa WHERE THERE ARE LITTLE TO NO EPA REGULATIONS for the safety of the workers.......Causing many to suffer and die getting the material to make the Solar Panels. As I have already pointed out there are other areas like Concrete that do the same.

Another thing...........the process of making the panels has Hazardous chemicals used and as byproducts of process. Also the process of making the panels emits pollution to make them. Especially in countries that have LOW TO NO EPA STANDARDS.

So.........in a nut shell............Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining in regards to how you are saving the planet.

 

[eagle1462010]

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yet manufacturing all those solar panels, a Tuesday report shows, can have environmental downsides.

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

China has already seen a backlash. Panel manufacturer Jinko Solar, for example, has faced protests and legal action since one of its plants, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, was accused of dumping toxic waste into a nearby river.

Solar manufacturers in the United States are subject to both federal and state rules that dictate, for example, how and where they can dispose of toxic wastewater. In Europe recent regulations mandate the reduction and proper disposal of hazardous electronic waste.

Because recycling is limited, Mulvaney said, those recoverable metals could go to waste: "Companies that are reporting on a quarterly basis, surviving on razor-thin margins—they're not thinking 20, 30 years down the road, where the scarcity issue might actually enter the conversation."

The silicon used to make the vast majority of today's photovoltaic cells is abundant, but a "silicon-based solar cell requires a lot of energy input in its manufacturing process," said Northwestern's You. The source of that energy, which is often coal, he added, determines how large the cell's carbon footprint is.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you take joy in posting lies? Here is what was really said;

This is incorrect. This text is selectively quoted from an essay written by scientist David Hughes, and published in 2009 in an anthology edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon.

On his blog Mr Homer-Dixon writes: “The poster is fraudulent. I didn’t write the text, the text itself is selectively quoted, and the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless.”

The full quote from the book is:

“The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

So Mr Hughes was saying only that placing windmills in bad places may mean they don’t generate enough energy to “pay back” the energy it cost to produce them, not that all turbines will fail to do so.

Mr Homer-Dixon adds, “it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations”.

A 2014 study which looked at the same issue found that 2-megawatt wind turbines installed in Northwest USA paid for themselves in 5-6 months.

A 2010 analysis of fifty separate studies found that the average wind turbine, over the course of its operational life, generated 20 times more energy than it took to produce. This level was “favourable” in comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar power.

Many wind turbines have a designed service life of 20 years, although the actual operating lifespan of a turbine can vary depending on the environment they are in, and the maintenance strategy applied to them.

By Abbas Panjwani


Overblown: Wind turbines don’t take more energy to build than they will ever produce

 

[eagle1462010]

Do you take joy in posting lies? Here is what was really said;

This is incorrect. This text is selectively quoted from an essay written by scientist David Hughes, and published in 2009 in an anthology edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon.

On his blog Mr Homer-Dixon writes: “The poster is fraudulent. I didn’t write the text, the text itself is selectively quoted, and the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless.”

The full quote from the book is:

“The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

So Mr Hughes was saying only that placing windmills in bad places may mean they don’t generate enough energy to “pay back” the energy it cost to produce them, not that all turbines will fail to do so.

Mr Homer-Dixon adds, “it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations”.

A 2014 study which looked at the same issue found that 2-megawatt wind turbines installed in Northwest USA paid for themselves in 5-6 months.

A 2010 analysis of fifty separate studies found that the average wind turbine, over the course of its operational life, generated 20 times more energy than it took to produce. This level was “favourable” in comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar power.

Many wind turbines have a designed service life of 20 years, although the actual operating lifespan of a turbine can vary depending on the environment they are in, and the maintenance strategy applied to them.

By Abbas Panjwani


Overblown: Wind turbines don’t take more energy to build than they will ever produce

Round 2 lol

I never said I didn't like windmill power......if you live in a place with steady wind..........

Anyways..........takes a lot of steel and manufacturing to build those things.............spin away.........LOL

 

[JGalt]

You left out Israel. Why u no like Israel?

Too many 'you know who' there.

Palestinians? I agree.