Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't believe all batteries require rare earths. Li batteries don't to my knowledge. Alkaline batteries likewise don't.
Even lead-acid batteries don't require any rare earths.
Lithium, lead, nickel, cadmium, silver, gold, cobalt, iridium, palladium, etc., are all rare earth elements needed by batteries.
In order to manufacture a solar PV panel, 19 mineral products and metals are utilized. Out of these, eight metals face supply challenges owing to a lack of supply diversity, the complex nature of economies caused by co-production and geopolitical risks. These metal requirements differ widely based on the type of solar PV technologies. The elemental requirements of the specific solar technology are given below: Crystalline silicon (c-Si) - Ag, Ni, Al, Cu and Fe Amorphous silicon (a-Si) - Ni, Cr, Ge, Mo, Al, Cu and Fe Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) – Ni, Cr, Mo, Cd, Al, Te, Cu and Fe Copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) – Ni, Cr, Mo, Al, Cu, In, Fe, Ga and Se
Depending on the solar PV technology, there are a number of different element/metal(s) which in turn are derived from a diverse set of ore bodies. Out of the 15 to 20 ores that cater to a range of industrial applications, there are 8 ore bodies which supply the elemental needs of solar PV technologies. These ore bodies are gold ore, nickel ore, chromium ore, molybdenum ore, zinc ore, copper ore, aluminum ore and Iron ore.
-{...}
A key feature of renewables is the usage of rare earth metals. These metals are critical to the renewable energy technology manufacturing value chain. The name “rare earth” is a consequence of seeming scarcity in 18th century in an ore first discovered near Ytterby, Sweden. However it is the availability of economically extractable concentrations that makes them rare.
It's conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. The reduction in solar radiation is not offset by the lower albedo of the solar panel. Therefore, large solar farms induce a regional cooling.
Although it's not a perfect analysis there is some common sense to it. Conservation of energy does not necessarily mean heat to heat or radiation to heat. In the case of solar panels radiation is transferred both to heat and also work which is not necessarily temperature inducing. I don't think we could stave off warming by covering the planet with solar panels however.... The sun grows infinitesimally more bright with each passing second.... This is a process we can need the control nor stop.I love it when solar radiation doesn't warm the planet.
It's like magic!!!
Almost as magic as lower albedo not offsetting your imaginary cooling.
To do this right, we are going to have to switch our whole grid from point source to distributed. That will require a decade or more of work. Then there is the building of the grid into areas with high solar and wind potential. The building of energy storage, batteries, pumped hydro, liquid air, ect. that will require the work of many different disciplines. Yes, some trades and disciplines will suffer. How many people are crying about buggy whip manufacturers today?
Coal is used for many other things besides fuel source. In fact, carbon is becoming a popular health supplement. Scientists need coal to make artificial diamonds.Coal is already on its way out. It only makes up 12% of energy production in Arizona. Can solar replace most of it, I think so. But it won’t be able to do more than that. It will never replace nuclear and natural gas, which are already very clean and efficient.
You still can address the fact that solar can’t produce anything at nighttime.
Solar could make up 100% of all “new” generation for the next decade, and it still won’t come close to nuclear and natural gas.
Comedy gold.In fact, carbon is becoming a popular health supplement.
I've covered every major Pillar elektraThe US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study
Feb 7, 2022
Solar makes more financial sense than coal
The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....
Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:
Electrek’s Take
Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..
The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study
Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.electrek.co
Explain in layman’s terms how it’s cheaper? I’ve asked you in the other thread, cricketsThe US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study
Feb 7, 2022
Solar makes more financial sense than coal
The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....
Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:
Electrek’s Take
Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..
The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study
Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.
again you Male Blmbo/one-line Troll.Explain in layman’s terms how it’s cheaper? I’ve asked you in the other thread, crickets
Except how it’s cheaper. You should call Germany and let them know
So you can’t put it in layman’s terms huh. Regurgitate someone elseagain you Male Blmbo/one-line Troll.
(top of the board when you posted/trolled/**** in your pants.)
10/2020: Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA
"renewables" are thee most economic? Not in terms of the amount of land they literally destroy. 1000's of square miles. Cutting down trees, cactus, destroying the wildlife? Not in terms of cost, $100 trillion is the cost the democrats have stated, the cost that the advocacy groups state, the...www.usmessageboard.com
`
It's just math.It's like magic!!!
You have not covered anything.
How is solar or wind efficient and more economical than coal? In your own words, because you know, you are the expert hence you dont need links.again you Male Blmbo/one-line Troll.
(top of the board when you posted/trolled/**** in your pants.)
10/2020: Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA
"renewables" are thee most economic? Not in terms of the amount of land they literally destroy. 1000's of square miles. Cutting down trees, cactus, destroying the wildlife? Not in terms of cost, $100 trillion is the cost the democrats have stated, the cost that the advocacy groups state, the...www.usmessageboard.com
`
And if I put it in my own words you'll say that's just my opinion.How is solar or wind efficient and more economical than coal? In your own words, because you know, you are the expert hence you dont need links.
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah
Catch 22, you cowardAnd if I put it in my own words you'll say that's just my opinion.
Catch 22.
No, you Dishonest Low IQ clown, it's on YOU to refute a solid documented link.
The issue is an actual price issue, not a "How".
So a link is the best answer.
But I have explained in many threads in the section.
You are just a Contrary A-hole MAGAt trying to switch all burdens to me while providing no info yourself.
Your game is over Goofy.
Put up some meat or documented refutation loser!
No, large solar plants heat the atmosphere to a level that is not natural.It's conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. The reduction in solar radiation is not offset by the lower albedo of the solar panel. Therefore, large solar farms induce a regional cooling.
But DURR was probably the best you could come up with.
