Our Solar/Alt Energy Future

[Flash]

"This school is made from sustainable materials, runs on #solar, & produces enough energy to power itself & the 50 homes around it."

I bet that is a lie. Maybe under the rare perfect sunny day in a country that is normally clouded over a lot but not anywhere near a regular basis. And it was probably at great tax payer subsidized cost that will never be recovered.

Typical Moon Bat stupidity.

 

[Flash]

For the same reason electric cars, are sort of silly in cold weather regions, this is a really dumb idea in a lot of places. . .

Cloudiest Places in United States - Current Results

Weather information for places in the United States that are most often cloudy.

www.currentresults.com

See the yellow and red parts of this map? Those are the areas of the nation, which have sunny days, enough of the time, to make this not a dumb idea.

(maybe purple. . . depending on how much you use your car, and how efficient this tech is. This tech is useless everywhere else.)

Good map that shows the stupidity of solar.

That red area is the only place in the US where solar is viable and competitive with fossil fuels. Yellow wouldn't even be viable if there wasn't for filthy government subsidizes and stupid unnecessary artificial increased cost in fossil fuels.

I live in the "Sunshine State" and solar is not even close to be viable. Being an Engineer I know how to calculate the real economic cost and it never works out. I would get solar if it was viable but it always comes up short.

 

[MisterBeale]

That red area is the only place in the US where solar is viable and competitive with fossil fuels.

IMO? I think it depends upon the efficiency of the battery, and how efficient they can make the solar panels, and how much use of the electric devices you are using.

I think it also will depend on how durable they can make these solar panels last. This type of tech is EXTREMELY damaging to the environment. CO2 is natural. Plants use it as their food, it is part of the natural life cycle. OTH? The chemicals and minerals needed for wind and solar? Is SO bad for life systems.


But yeah, I live in an area that has as much overcast weather as the Northwest. I see maybe a half dozen to a dozen cloudless skies a month.

We are great on wind, most weeks . . . sun? Not so much.

 

[Synthaholic]

For the same reason electric cars, are sort of silly in cold weather regions, this is a really dumb idea in a lot of places. . .

Cloudiest Places in United States - Current Results

Weather information for places in the United States that are most often cloudy.

www.currentresults.com

See the yellow and red parts of this map? Those are the areas of the nation, which have sunny days, enough of the time, to make this not a dumb idea.

(maybe purple. . . depending on how much you use your car, and how efficient this tech is. This tech is useless everywhere else.)

Then don't buy one, Douchebag.

 

[MisterBeale]

Then don't buy one, Douchebag.

Your comments on this issue, have the same energy, as that famous quote by Henry Ford.

 

[Flash]

IMO? I think it depends upon the efficiency of the battery, and how efficient they can make the solar panels, and how much use of the electric devices you are using.

I think it also will depend on how durable they can make these solar panels last. This type of tech is EXTREMELY damaging to the environment. CO2 is natural. Plants use it as their food, it is part of the natural life cycle. OTH? The chemicals and minerals needed for wind and solar? Is SO bad for life systems.


But yeah, I live in an area that has as much overcast weather as the Northwest. I see maybe a half dozen to a dozen cloudless skies a month.

We are great on wind, most weeks . . . sun? Not so much.

Here in Florida our four months of summer are mostly clouded over because it is the rainy season. Sunny in the morning but by noon it gets cloudy almost every day. We get overcast days in the winter. Only the fall and spring are fairly cloud free.

Solar is a Moon Bat's wet dream. Take away the stupid government subsidies and it all goes away because it is not economically viable.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Our_Technology – Greenfluidics

greenfluidics.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

Wrong. Doing practically anything generates more toxic waste than nukes by volume. However, the use of solar panels generates none. Only their manufacture, which is obviously a major concern that's being addressed far more quickly than the radioactive waste problem nukes still create that will likely never be resolved and keeps getting far more costly every year.

Here's the facts on nuclear waste, which is very interesting -

 

[sparky]

The chemicals and minerals needed for wind and solar? Is SO bad for life systems.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/

Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.

Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.

The long road to electric cars in the U.S.




<<<<snip>>>>


Nitrogen Trifluoride Now Required in GHG Protocol Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories



New measurement techniques have revealed much higher atmospheric concentrations of NF3 than expected, which can be partially attributed to the fact that industrial losses of the gas had been underestimated. NF3 emissions are increasing rapidly – rates of industrial production increased 40-fold between 1992 and 2007 alone . This is particularly alarming because NF3 has a 100-year global warming potential of 17,200, meaning that it is 17,200 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in trapping atmospheric heat over a 100-year time span – much higher than most other GHGs.



~S~

 

[Grumblenuts]

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/

Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.

Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.

The long road to electric cars in the U.S.




<<<<snip>>>>


Nitrogen Trifluoride Now Required in GHG Protocol Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories



New measurement techniques have revealed much higher atmospheric concentrations of NF3 than expected, which can be partially attributed to the fact that industrial losses of the gas had been underestimated. NF3 emissions are increasing rapidly – rates of industrial production increased 40-fold between 1992 and 2007 alone . This is particularly alarming because NF3 has a 100-year global warming potential of 17,200, meaning that it is 17,200 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in trapping atmospheric heat over a 100-year time span – much higher than most other GHGs.



~S~

Your first source being complete crap:

Here's a good substitute:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1212346110

Given the available information on production rates, we calculated that the ratio of emissions to production has decreased significantly since the introduction of NF3 in SC+ manufacture, probably because of efficiency gains in manufacturing and end use, and a shift toward semiconductor production in more modern facilities that use NF3 with very high efficiency (∼98%). Our integrated global analysis therefore probably masks significant variability in emissions performance across the globe and among industrial sectors, which makes estimating the emissions saving over use of C2F6 challenging and uncertain. Nonetheless, our analysis suggests that the savings in recent years from the shift to NF3 are substantial.

That is, NF3 production actually increased from nothing to something in the 90s to replace industry cleaning and etching CFCs which were widely recognized as the far worse short-term threat. Regardless of all the speculation as to the past and future rates of NF3 release into the atmosphere, we're able to measure its total accumulation.. which is only ~1 ppt so far (vs. ~420ppm CO2 currently.)

10^6ppt = 1 ppm

0.0000000001% NF3 vs. 0.0420% CO2

Now I sincerely hope that helps you relax enough to stop pulling your
out..

 

[elektra]

It's coming quicker than people think. The solutions are there.

no it doesnt

 

[Synthaholic]

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Why we’re talking about the Texas power grid again

 

[SaxonJackson]

Another obsolete talking point. I've already linked to a company that recycles lithium. There are also about 5 other battery types other than lithium. And lithium is abundant, with trillions of pounds in the oceans alone. Someone will figure out to extract it. It's not necessary for ocean life.

So we don't want to mine oil or do any fracking or mine coal because it's "bad for the environment" but we can mine all the other necessary components that make up the various battery types even if he have to mine it from the ocean. Am I missing anything?

You are aware that to mine ANYTHING requires heavy equipment that, in turn, requires gasoline or diesel. Right?

 

[Synthaholic]

Am I missing anything?

Yes. Millions of brain cells.

 

[elektra]

Solar and wind increase the use of oil and coal

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's coming quicker than people think. The solutions are there.

That is why India is moving towards the addition of between 600 to 1200 gigawats of additional coal fired capacity.

I am not putting this down, but it's a drop in a very large bucket.

 

[MisterBeale]

BONUS: Quiet-part-loud of the week​

US Vice President Kamala Harris with a major Freudian slip this week, claiming they want to reduce population…

 

[elektra]

It's coming quicker than people think. The solutions are there.

I am sure that India is being forced to accept Solar, in order to stay in good graces with the IMF and the World Bank. Solar is nothing compared to Nuclear Power. This year in the USA the largest increase in power, which surpasses all wind and solar being installed is Nuclear Power. No comparison.

India is going Nuclear and they are going big.

india nuclear power - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

India has 22 nuclear reactors in operation in 8 nuclear power plants, with a total installed capacity of 7,380 MW1. The nuclear power plants in India include Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, Tarapur Nuclear Reactor, Kalapakkam Nuclear Power Plant, and Narora Nuclear Reactor23. In addition, 10 more reactors are under construction with a combined generation capacity of 8,000 MW14. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) is responsible for the generation of electricity through nuclear power5.

 

[badger2]

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/

Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.

Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.

The long road to electric cars in the U.S.




<<<<snip>>>>


Nitrogen Trifluoride Now Required in GHG Protocol Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories



New measurement techniques have revealed much higher atmospheric concentrations of NF3 than expected, which can be partially attributed to the fact that industrial losses of the gas had been underestimated. NF3 emissions are increasing rapidly – rates of industrial production increased 40-fold between 1992 and 2007 alone . This is particularly alarming because NF3 has a 100-year global warming potential of 17,200, meaning that it is 17,200 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in trapping atmospheric heat over a 100-year time span – much higher than most other GHGs.



~S~

Pulverization/separation technology will likely overtake lithium recycling with microorganisms (Acidothiobacillus, efficiency 99%). There's no reason NF3 cannot be included in an automated recycling plant for batteries/solar panels.

The biggest mistake will be to give (any [italics]) lithium back to the ChiComs.

 

[toobfreak]

Our Solar/Alt Energy Future​

Say, if we can give children a gender-change operation, maybe we can give the planet an alt-energy-change operation?

We just have to get rid of all of the non-democrat vermin out there!

Save Earth for the good democrats like U and aye.