3 ms·

A one-time dirty process for a future steady source of clean energy. Isn't it still much better than continually burning fossil fuels? And if we're counting ext

A one-time dirty process for a future steady source of clean energy. Isn't it still much better than continually burning fossil fuels? And if we're counting extraction costs, don't discount the extraction cost to get fossil fuel and build fossil fuel processors (car engines, power plants, etc).

542458 11y ago
> A one-time dirty process If only it was. Neither solar panels nor wind turbines last for a very long time, and the recycling processes don't exist on an efficient or clean scale for either yet.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Most panels have a rated life of 25 years and deteriorate slowly. That provides plenty of time for the recycling to be built. It's also comparable to the design lifetime of most types of non-renewable power plant.
  - ssmoot 11y ago
    I'm not qualified to answer either way. But my grandfather worked at a coal fired plant. I've been to the strip mine. I've seen the trains that run continuously to truck it in. From a layman's perspective it seems like an incredibly efficient process. Is there any chemical refinement going on at all? All that I saw looked mechanical (but I was very young). I would guess that it would take many years of Solar before it broke even, in an environmental impact sense, with "cleaner" coal. I think ultimately solar probably wins. But the initial cost seems like it must be orders of magnitude higher. That said, I'd get solar if I could. Just not my highest home-improvement priority and I'd have to do something about the trees shading the south side of my roof. I like my trees. :-( OTOH it would be nice if there were a high power (~2KV), affordable (<$2,000?), silent wind turbine solution to supplement our grid power.
    - breischl 11y ago
      Deciduous trees on the south side of your house are great for energy efficiency. The shade reduces summer cooling costs, and then the leaves drop so you get solar heat in the winter. You should definitely think about it carefully before cutting them down to install solar panels.
      - davegardner 11y ago
        Unless you live in the southern hemisphere, in which case you want to plant them on the north side of your house. On a somewhat related note, rooftop solar panels have also been shown to have good insulation benefits[1]. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11002131 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11...
        breischl 11y ago
        True, you want the trees and panels on whichever side of the house is sunniest. Since the GP was talking about "trees shading the south side of my roof" I'm guessing that he's in the northern hemisphere. Or maybe he's just really bad at siting solar panels, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. :)
    - pjc50 11y ago
      There isn't chemical refinement in the same way as there is with oil. But there are mine tailings, ash, a surprising amount of radioactive thorium in the ash(1), sulphur (usually neutralised by trucking in limestone and out gypsum (2)), and of course vast quantities of carbon dioxide. "Clean" coal does not and cannot really address the CO2 even if it has been cleaned up in the other ways. There are various estimates of the breakeven time, but even the most conservative ones put it under ten years. You don't have to get your own solar if it's not convenient, that's what the grid is for. 1: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Anything we do we have to undo, and undo always costs more. It's not a perfect solution (nothing ever is), but we really ought to be bridging the gap with nuclear. You're right, we will have to bite the bullet to have enough renewable capacity in the future. All I'm arguing is that we know both the risks of action and inaction. It's hard to get a sense of environmental damage from inside a comfortable air-conditioned building.

542458 11y ago

> A one-time dirty process If only it was. Neither solar panels nor wind turbines last for a very long time, and the recycling processes don't exist on an efficient or clean scale for either yet.

pjc50 11y ago
Most panels have a rated life of 25 years and deteriorate slowly. That provides plenty of time for the recycling to be built. It's also comparable to the design lifetime of most types of non-renewable power plant.
- ssmoot 11y ago
  I'm not qualified to answer either way. But my grandfather worked at a coal fired plant. I've been to the strip mine. I've seen the trains that run continuously to truck it in. From a layman's perspective it seems like an incredibly efficient process. Is there any chemical refinement going on at all? All that I saw looked mechanical (but I was very young). I would guess that it would take many years of Solar before it broke even, in an environmental impact sense, with "cleaner" coal. I think ultimately solar probably wins. But the initial cost seems like it must be orders of magnitude higher. That said, I'd get solar if I could. Just not my highest home-improvement priority and I'd have to do something about the trees shading the south side of my roof. I like my trees. :-( OTOH it would be nice if there were a high power (~2KV), affordable (<$2,000?), silent wind turbine solution to supplement our grid power.
  - breischl 11y ago
    Deciduous trees on the south side of your house are great for energy efficiency. The shade reduces summer cooling costs, and then the leaves drop so you get solar heat in the winter. You should definitely think about it carefully before cutting them down to install solar panels.
    - davegardner 11y ago
      Unless you live in the southern hemisphere, in which case you want to plant them on the north side of your house. On a somewhat related note, rooftop solar panels have also been shown to have good insulation benefits[1]. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11002131 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11...
      - breischl 11y ago
        True, you want the trees and panels on whichever side of the house is sunniest. Since the GP was talking about "trees shading the south side of my roof" I'm guessing that he's in the northern hemisphere. Or maybe he's just really bad at siting solar panels, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. :)
  - pjc50 11y ago
    There isn't chemical refinement in the same way as there is with oil. But there are mine tailings, ash, a surprising amount of radioactive thorium in the ash(1), sulphur (usually neutralised by trucking in limestone and out gypsum (2)), and of course vast quantities of carbon dioxide. "Clean" coal does not and cannot really address the CO2 even if it has been cleaned up in the other ways. There are various estimates of the breakeven time, but even the most conservative ones put it under ten years. You don't have to get your own solar if it's not convenient, that's what the grid is for. 1: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

Anything we do we have to undo, and undo always costs more. It's not a perfect solution (nothing ever is), but we really ought to be bridging the gap with nuclear. You're right, we will have to bite the bullet to have enough renewable capacity in the future. All I'm arguing is that we know both the risks of action and inaction. It's hard to get a sense of environmental damage from inside a comfortable air-conditioned building.