3 ms·

Solar power is still a tiny part of global power and even in terms of growth its not dominate. Not a single industrial country is anywhere close to use solar as

by nickik 7y ago

Solar power is still a tiny part of global power and even in terms of growth its not dominate. Not a single industrial country is anywhere close to use solar as their primary power source. Their are massive unsolved problem when it comes to energy distribution and storage. People love to quote prices of the cells, ignoring the larger end to end cost. Solar power will have to be replaced much, much faster then a nuclear plant. Replacing 1000s of km² of solar is a massive problem in itself. France used nuclear to go to zero carbon power in the 70s its truly a sad state when 50 years later we are still saying 'solar is gone soon replace coal', the same thing that Jimmy Carter was advocating. This was and is the fundamental failure of environmental policy and environmentalist have not a small part of the responsibility for the situation.

aargh_aargh 7y ago
Not to speak of the costs of waste disposal. https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+panel+waste https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+panel+waste
- bb88 7y ago
  I found this article illuminating on that topic: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/04/the-latest-weak-attacks-on-evs-and-solar-panels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
  - kragen 7y ago
    Even the Grauniad article is giving far too much credit to the waste concerns; it talks a lot about the risks of cadmium leaching, for example, but the panels in current massive deployment don't contain cadmium. (By contrast, cadmium was a common anti-corrosion cladding metal for ships 50 years ago, and while it caused environmental problems, it was far from an environmental disaster. We aren't talking about PCBs or mustard gas here.)
  - nickik 7y ago
    > About 80% of a solar panel module can be recycled Operative word here is 'can'. The reality is that this is not happening for the most part and there is no standard solution in sight. > The Electric Power Research Institute notes that long-term storage of used panels until recycling technologies become available may be the best option for dealing with this waste stream. Ultimately, it’s an issue that will need to be addressed as solar panels become more widespread and reach the end of their 25-plus year lifespan, much like the issue of nuclear waste. But it’s an issue that we should be able to resolve with smart policies and technologies. Unlike with nuclear waste, this is not actually regulated or managed, most of solar cell waste is simple general electronics waste and gets resold to Africa where kids can get to take it apart. Solar also produces about 1000x more waste in volume. In comparison not a single gram of the wast from nuclear escapes into the environment. Its all captured and accounted for, and in most countries already financed by part of the electricity price. The US already has a huge saving account with money (that is politically deadlocked). I really don't see how this is a defense. > But that’s only a problem for broken panels, which are relatively rare except perhaps in the wake a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. In a disaster area, leaching of metals from some broken solar panels is the least of a city’s problems. I agree that that is not to bad of a concern. This articles seems to basically say, 'well, Michael Shellenberger, was right' BUT technology can eventually solve this. This is incredibly weak defense when it comes to the nuclear critics. They are right on some of the EV stuff, but that's not what we are talking about.
    - kragen 7y ago
      > Operative word here is 'can'. The reality is that this is not happening for the most part and there is no standard solution in sight. The reality is that the vast majority of solar panels are still in operation, not junked, so they are being reused rather than recycled, which is even better. > Unlike with nuclear waste, this is not actually regulated or managed Well, not any more than things like concrete. You can still get fined for littering if you dump broken solar panels. But there's no reason it should be regulated or managed; broken solar panels are less toxic than things like concrete, chicken bones, fluorescent light tubes, and brass pot scrubbers, and enormously less toxic than things like used cars and CRT TVs. (Even the tiny fraction of solar cells that are the CdTe thin-film type contain only a tiny amount of cadmium or tellurium.) Spent fuel from nuclear reactors, by contrast, is extremely dangerous, and it makes sense to treat it specially. > most of solar cell waste is simple general electronics waste No, that is not true. The usual kind of solar cells are not circuit boards; they are silicon chips, although much larger than the usual kind, and mostly polycrystalline rather than monocrystalline. They are covered by a sheet of glass which is many times heavier than the cells themselves. I am curious where you picked up such remarkable misconceptions about electronics recycling.
kragen 7y ago
> Solar power is still a tiny part of global power and even in terms of growth its not dominate. Not a single industrial country is anywhere close to use solar as their primary power source This demonstrates how poor the humans are at reasoning about exponentials. In September 1918, the flu was still a tiny part of global mortality; not a single industrial country was anywhere close to having flu as their primary cause of death. By December it had killed several percent of the global population. > Their[sic] are massive unsolved problem when it comes to energy distribution and storage I think you mean transmission, not distribution, presumably because you don't know the difference. There actually aren't. > People love to quote prices of the cells, ignoring the larger end to end cost Nowadays people instead love to quote the prices established in power purchasing agreements won by competitive bidding; these hit a new low this week of US$15.67 per MWh in Qatar https://archive.fo/UBWWi https://archive.fo/UBWWi but there are projects in many equatorial parts of the world hitting similar lows. > Solar power will have to be replaced much, much faster then a nuclear plant Although the most common solar modules are sold as having a 25-year lifespan, they typically continue to work after that time with modest power degradation. Solar cells made in the 1970s are still in use today. Unlike the situation with nuclear plants, there is no known danger in leaving obsolete solar panels in use. Typical nuclear plant design lifetimes are 30–40 years, though some new plants have design lifetimes of up to 60 years. > Replacing 1000s of km² of solar is a massive problem Yes, but it's a much cheaper massive problem to solve than replacing the 50 or more nuclear power plants that would be needed to produce the same 250 GW as 1000 km² of solar panels, assuming a typical 25% capacity factor (that's 1000 GWp). At today's prices we're talking about something like 400 billion dollars; this is comparable to the US$200B Qatar spent to prepare for the World Cup or the US$400B budget for the Siberian gas pipeline. > This was and is the fundamental failure of environmental policy I would rather say that the fundamental failure of environmental policy is a failure to think through possibilities and consequences using knowledge and reason, instead acting based on gut feeling. Your comment betrays a similar lack of knowledge and reasoning. I suggest you level up your game before you lose all your money in a pyramid scheme.
- nickik 7y ago
  > I think you mean transmission, not distribution, presumably because you don't know the difference. Any and all problems from production source to consumption fall under the category of energy distribution. That includes long range transmission, storage, last mile and so on. > This demonstrates how poor the humans are at reasoning about exponentials. In September 1918, the flu was still a tiny part of global mortality; not a single industrial country was anywhere close to having flu as their primary cause of death. By December it had killed several percent of the global population. Environmentalist have predicting the raise of solar since 1970. Around 15-20 years ago they started arguing 'its actually cheaper' and 'exponential growth is coming'. Maybe humans are bad at exponentials, but they are also bad at predicting when exponentials will happen. And as far as I can tell growth of solar has not been on that aggressive of a curve. If you want to see exponential growth of energy policy go look at the first 20 years of nuclear. > I would rather say that the fundamental failure of environmental policy is a failure to think through possibilities and consequences using knowledge and reason, instead acting based on gut feeling. Your comment betrays a similar lack of knowledge and reasoning. I suggest you level up your game before you lose all your money in a pyramid scheme. The difference is that my ideas are actually proven in reality. You know the thing we live in. And it has been done with technology from the 70s. So its a simple fact that if the political will exists a massive nuclear build out can be achieved very quickly and historic data is also totally clear on the fact that nuclear plants, like basically everything else, get massively cheaper if built in high volume. Carbon energy production had a solution and it had it for 50 years. As anybody knows, carbon that escapes earlier in time is more harmful. Countries like France have done a huge service to humanity by not polluting for the last 50 years. And not admitting the complete and utter failure of environmental policy in light of this fact is just denial. If nuclear had been adopted on a large scale, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Your solution basically says 'well hopefully this 5-10 industries will be able to show exponential scales in the next 30 years' because only if that happens to you have even a small chance at actually reaching 2050 goals. > 250 GW > 400 billion dollars If we want 250 GW of reliable power at the times we need them will require lot more then just panels. For that same money we could just build the same basic nuclear plant over and over again, literally at the same location as current coal plants. Requiring almost no broader infrastructure change. A fraction of environmental disruption. A fraction of land use. A fraction of overall resource use. And I would be willing to be, less overall cost. France build close to 50 GW in the 70s.

by nickik 7y ago

aargh_aargh 7y ago

Not to speak of the costs of waste disposal. https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+panel+waste https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+panel+waste

bb88 7y ago
I found this article illuminating on that topic: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/04/the-latest-weak-attacks-on-evs-and-solar-panels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
- kragen 7y ago
  Even the Grauniad article is giving far too much credit to the waste concerns; it talks a lot about the risks of cadmium leaching, for example, but the panels in current massive deployment don't contain cadmium. (By contrast, cadmium was a common anti-corrosion cladding metal for ships 50 years ago, and while it caused environmental problems, it was far from an environmental disaster. We aren't talking about PCBs or mustard gas here.)
- nickik 7y ago
  > About 80% of a solar panel module can be recycled Operative word here is 'can'. The reality is that this is not happening for the most part and there is no standard solution in sight. > The Electric Power Research Institute notes that long-term storage of used panels until recycling technologies become available may be the best option for dealing with this waste stream. Ultimately, it’s an issue that will need to be addressed as solar panels become more widespread and reach the end of their 25-plus year lifespan, much like the issue of nuclear waste. But it’s an issue that we should be able to resolve with smart policies and technologies. Unlike with nuclear waste, this is not actually regulated or managed, most of solar cell waste is simple general electronics waste and gets resold to Africa where kids can get to take it apart. Solar also produces about 1000x more waste in volume. In comparison not a single gram of the wast from nuclear escapes into the environment. Its all captured and accounted for, and in most countries already financed by part of the electricity price. The US already has a huge saving account with money (that is politically deadlocked). I really don't see how this is a defense. > But that’s only a problem for broken panels, which are relatively rare except perhaps in the wake a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. In a disaster area, leaching of metals from some broken solar panels is the least of a city’s problems. I agree that that is not to bad of a concern. This articles seems to basically say, 'well, Michael Shellenberger, was right' BUT technology can eventually solve this. This is incredibly weak defense when it comes to the nuclear critics. They are right on some of the EV stuff, but that's not what we are talking about.
  - kragen 7y ago
    > Operative word here is 'can'. The reality is that this is not happening for the most part and there is no standard solution in sight. The reality is that the vast majority of solar panels are still in operation, not junked, so they are being reused rather than recycled, which is even better. > Unlike with nuclear waste, this is not actually regulated or managed Well, not any more than things like concrete. You can still get fined for littering if you dump broken solar panels. But there's no reason it should be regulated or managed; broken solar panels are less toxic than things like concrete, chicken bones, fluorescent light tubes, and brass pot scrubbers, and enormously less toxic than things like used cars and CRT TVs. (Even the tiny fraction of solar cells that are the CdTe thin-film type contain only a tiny amount of cadmium or tellurium.) Spent fuel from nuclear reactors, by contrast, is extremely dangerous, and it makes sense to treat it specially. > most of solar cell waste is simple general electronics waste No, that is not true. The usual kind of solar cells are not circuit boards; they are silicon chips, although much larger than the usual kind, and mostly polycrystalline rather than monocrystalline. They are covered by a sheet of glass which is many times heavier than the cells themselves. I am curious where you picked up such remarkable misconceptions about electronics recycling.

kragen 7y ago

> Solar power is still a tiny part of global power and even in terms of growth its not dominate. Not a single industrial country is anywhere close to use solar as their primary power source This demonstrates how poor the humans are at reasoning about exponentials. In September 1918, the flu was still a tiny part of global mortality; not a single industrial country was anywhere close to having flu as their primary cause of death. By December it had killed several percent of the global population. > Their[sic] are massive unsolved problem when it comes to energy distribution and storage I think you mean transmission, not distribution, presumably because you don't know the difference. There actually aren't. > People love to quote prices of the cells, ignoring the larger end to end cost Nowadays people instead love to quote the prices established in power purchasing agreements won by competitive bidding; these hit a new low this week of US$15.67 per MWh in Qatar https://archive.fo/UBWWi https://archive.fo/UBWWi but there are projects in many equatorial parts of the world hitting similar lows. > Solar power will have to be replaced much, much faster then a nuclear plant Although the most common solar modules are sold as having a 25-year lifespan, they typically continue to work after that time with modest power degradation. Solar cells made in the 1970s are still in use today. Unlike the situation with nuclear plants, there is no known danger in leaving obsolete solar panels in use. Typical nuclear plant design lifetimes are 30–40 years, though some new plants have design lifetimes of up to 60 years. > Replacing 1000s of km² of solar is a massive problem Yes, but it's a much cheaper massive problem to solve than replacing the 50 or more nuclear power plants that would be needed to produce the same 250 GW as 1000 km² of solar panels, assuming a typical 25% capacity factor (that's 1000 GWp). At today's prices we're talking about something like 400 billion dollars; this is comparable to the US$200B Qatar spent to prepare for the World Cup or the US$400B budget for the Siberian gas pipeline. > This was and is the fundamental failure of environmental policy I would rather say that the fundamental failure of environmental policy is a failure to think through possibilities and consequences using knowledge and reason, instead acting based on gut feeling. Your comment betrays a similar lack of knowledge and reasoning. I suggest you level up your game before you lose all your money in a pyramid scheme.

nickik 7y ago
> I think you mean transmission, not distribution, presumably because you don't know the difference. Any and all problems from production source to consumption fall under the category of energy distribution. That includes long range transmission, storage, last mile and so on. > This demonstrates how poor the humans are at reasoning about exponentials. In September 1918, the flu was still a tiny part of global mortality; not a single industrial country was anywhere close to having flu as their primary cause of death. By December it had killed several percent of the global population. Environmentalist have predicting the raise of solar since 1970. Around 15-20 years ago they started arguing 'its actually cheaper' and 'exponential growth is coming'. Maybe humans are bad at exponentials, but they are also bad at predicting when exponentials will happen. And as far as I can tell growth of solar has not been on that aggressive of a curve. If you want to see exponential growth of energy policy go look at the first 20 years of nuclear. > I would rather say that the fundamental failure of environmental policy is a failure to think through possibilities and consequences using knowledge and reason, instead acting based on gut feeling. Your comment betrays a similar lack of knowledge and reasoning. I suggest you level up your game before you lose all your money in a pyramid scheme. The difference is that my ideas are actually proven in reality. You know the thing we live in. And it has been done with technology from the 70s. So its a simple fact that if the political will exists a massive nuclear build out can be achieved very quickly and historic data is also totally clear on the fact that nuclear plants, like basically everything else, get massively cheaper if built in high volume. Carbon energy production had a solution and it had it for 50 years. As anybody knows, carbon that escapes earlier in time is more harmful. Countries like France have done a huge service to humanity by not polluting for the last 50 years. And not admitting the complete and utter failure of environmental policy in light of this fact is just denial. If nuclear had been adopted on a large scale, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Your solution basically says 'well hopefully this 5-10 industries will be able to show exponential scales in the next 30 years' because only if that happens to you have even a small chance at actually reaching 2050 goals. > 250 GW > 400 billion dollars If we want 250 GW of reliable power at the times we need them will require lot more then just panels. For that same money we could just build the same basic nuclear plant over and over again, literally at the same location as current coal plants. Requiring almost no broader infrastructure change. A fraction of environmental disruption. A fraction of land use. A fraction of overall resource use. And I would be willing to be, less overall cost. France build close to 50 GW in the 70s.