3 ms·

Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs. Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh wa

Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs. Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars). Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk. It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.

volkl48 5y ago
> Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel, so is your argument here that manufacturing anything uses electricity and therefore coal? That doesn't seem like a good argument. Especially given that a nuclear plant tends to involve a huge quantity of concrete (which gives off major amounts of greenhouse gases and requires mining as well). > will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. The lifespan of a commercial panel is 25-30+ years (most look to be warrantied to 25) Failure rates appear to be very low, per NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-degradation.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-de... And in reality, many will continue producing power longer than that, just at a lower rate than their original nameplate capacity. I expect most of those solar farms will wind up in service for many decades. Claiming that their lifespan is 10 years is something I feel needs some sort of supporting evidence.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  > I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel Silicon is produced by carbothermic reduction of silica in arc furnaces. Charcoal can be used, though (and is use by some producers; I think the porosity helps silicon monoxide gas react with the carbon.)

volkl48 5y ago

> Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel, so is your argument here that manufacturing anything uses electricity and therefore coal? That doesn't seem like a good argument. Especially given that a nuclear plant tends to involve a huge quantity of concrete (which gives off major amounts of greenhouse gases and requires mining as well). > will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. The lifespan of a commercial panel is 25-30+ years (most look to be warrantied to 25) Failure rates appear to be very low, per NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-degradation.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-de... And in reality, many will continue producing power longer than that, just at a lower rate than their original nameplate capacity. I expect most of those solar farms will wind up in service for many decades. Claiming that their lifespan is 10 years is something I feel needs some sort of supporting evidence.

pfdietz 5y ago
> I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel Silicon is produced by carbothermic reduction of silica in arc furnaces. Charcoal can be used, though (and is use by some producers; I think the porosity helps silicon monoxide gas react with the carbon.)