5 ms·

Great article, but any opinion about the solar industry that diverges from the marketing is a recipe for downvotes and harassment. Best to keep quiet and preten

Great article, but any opinion about the solar industry that diverges from the marketing is a recipe for downvotes and harassment. Best to keep quiet and pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean, while capitalists and marketers sweep the ugly truth under the rug by branding them with one political agenda or another. Most people aren't scientists and they have louder mouths and shorter tempers than do scientists.

thelastgallon 3y ago
> pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean Death/TWH is a good metric. Do you have sources to claim solar and wind are not actually clean? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago
  That’s a good metric for safe. I think clean is best looked at in terms of something like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh. In which case wind and solar are only beat by nuclear. Then there’s lifecycle (levelized) cost per MWh, where wind and solar are way ahead of nuclear, and mostly have an edge on gas CCs.
  - thelastgallon 3y ago
    > like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh Oh yes, the big "scare" of it costs more (in terms of carbon) to manufacture. Does it cost zero carbon emissions for fossil fuels? Fossil fuels after all have to be explored, extracted (from 10s of thousands of feet from the bottom of the ocean) , shipped, shipped to refineries, shipped from refineries (40% of global shipping is fossil fuels), methane leaks from all this extraction of coal and oil, flaring. And all this comes free of carbon emissions? From the article you cited: Making solar cells requires a lot of energy. Fortunately, because these cells generate electricity, they pay back the original investment of energy; most do so after just two years of operation, and some companies report payback times as short as six months. Thats ten years back, Solar panels have been continuously advancing since then, quite possibly payback now is a couple of months or less. Perhaps read the source you cited instead of scaremongering?
    - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
      I think you might be confusing me and my comment with the person we are both responding to. I agree that wind and solar are clean and safe compared to almost all alternatives. And much cheaper than nuclear. Edit to add: and yes, the energy payback on solar is great.
      - thelastgallon 3y ago
        Sorry about that, didn't realize i'm not at the right thread level.
        sunshinesnacks 3y ago
        No worries. It is getting confusing in here :)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  Sure. Here's the first result from a Google search. It has links to research as well. https://spectrum.ieee.org/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think https://spectrum.ieee.org/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-... But did I really need it? Why would you expect one solution to be the most efficient in all possible environments? Could it be because of marketing? Seems like I was right on the money. Downvoted and then shouted out with marketing materials. Are you a chemist, out of curiosity? I got my degree at ASU.
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
    That’s an almost 10 year old article, about an industry that has grown almost 10x. Some of the referenced material includes work from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, which has (intentionally or not) spread misleading information about things like hexavalent chromium in PV panels (spoiler: there is no Cr VI in PV). IEEE Spectrum has some decent stuff, but they also recently had an article about the top ways to reduce global CO2 being adjust thermostats a few degrees and build new coal plants that operate a little more efficiently.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      Is it the only article saying this? I'm happy to keep Googling for you guys, but seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. Is solar best suited for ALL environments? Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Surely you don't think so?!
      - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
        > seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. I assumed your main point was something along the lines of any claims that solar is clean are lies, > Best to keep quiet and pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean We could probably go back and forth citing articles and search results, but I’ll say that I agree with this recent ~peer reviewed article~ [comment] in a decent journal and leave it there: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 As to your last 3 questions, they seem hyperbolic and/or inflammatory. I don’t think solar is the best solution everywhere. I don’t think we should clear huge portions of the rainforest for solar. And I never said or implied those things. Edit: looks like the article I linked maybe was not peer reviewed. Still a good article, though.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  You can focus on power output and if you're looking to clean that part by dirtying another, then you've won the debate. But that's not clean energy. You're not fooling any chemists with that logic. Clean energy takes into account the input side of the reaction. Mining lithium is filthy, emits carbon, introduces a waste cycle that we have no solution for, and distributes toxic waste across continents, especially Asia, in the current market, and across oceans. This is like the push for recycling plastics that lead to the giant plastic collection in the Pacific. Turns out shipping plastic is worse than burying it. Turns out mining lithium is worse than mining gas. Turns out you'll still mine gas for electric vehicles because you still need tires and roadways. What will you do with the excess gasoline? Have you thought about that? I'm just asking questions, but hopefully you have some answers for these questions because so far what I'm seeing is that people are advocating for electric, solar, etc. while offering no solutions for roadways, tires, etc. Meaning your plan is to mine lithium AND oil. To mine solar AND coal. To mine uranium AND burn gas. And those aren't clean solutions. Those are problems. Those are highly profitable problems.

thelastgallon 3y ago

> pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean Death/TWH is a good metric. Do you have sources to claim solar and wind are not actually clean? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

sunshinesnacks 3y ago
That’s a good metric for safe. I think clean is best looked at in terms of something like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh. In which case wind and solar are only beat by nuclear. Then there’s lifecycle (levelized) cost per MWh, where wind and solar are way ahead of nuclear, and mostly have an edge on gas CCs.
- thelastgallon 3y ago
  > like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh Oh yes, the big "scare" of it costs more (in terms of carbon) to manufacture. Does it cost zero carbon emissions for fossil fuels? Fossil fuels after all have to be explored, extracted (from 10s of thousands of feet from the bottom of the ocean) , shipped, shipped to refineries, shipped from refineries (40% of global shipping is fossil fuels), methane leaks from all this extraction of coal and oil, flaring. And all this comes free of carbon emissions? From the article you cited: Making solar cells requires a lot of energy. Fortunately, because these cells generate electricity, they pay back the original investment of energy; most do so after just two years of operation, and some companies report payback times as short as six months. Thats ten years back, Solar panels have been continuously advancing since then, quite possibly payback now is a couple of months or less. Perhaps read the source you cited instead of scaremongering?
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
    I think you might be confusing me and my comment with the person we are both responding to. I agree that wind and solar are clean and safe compared to almost all alternatives. And much cheaper than nuclear. Edit to add: and yes, the energy payback on solar is great.
    - thelastgallon 3y ago
      Sorry about that, didn't realize i'm not at the right thread level.
      - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
        No worries. It is getting confusing in here :)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
trimethylpurine 3y ago
Sure. Here's the first result from a Google search. It has links to research as well. https://spectrum.ieee.org/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think https://spectrum.ieee.org/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-... But did I really need it? Why would you expect one solution to be the most efficient in all possible environments? Could it be because of marketing? Seems like I was right on the money. Downvoted and then shouted out with marketing materials. Are you a chemist, out of curiosity? I got my degree at ASU.
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago
  That’s an almost 10 year old article, about an industry that has grown almost 10x. Some of the referenced material includes work from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, which has (intentionally or not) spread misleading information about things like hexavalent chromium in PV panels (spoiler: there is no Cr VI in PV). IEEE Spectrum has some decent stuff, but they also recently had an article about the top ways to reduce global CO2 being adjust thermostats a few degrees and build new coal plants that operate a little more efficiently.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Is it the only article saying this? I'm happy to keep Googling for you guys, but seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. Is solar best suited for ALL environments? Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Surely you don't think so?!
    - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
      > seem to be intentionally ignoring my point. I assumed your main point was something along the lines of any claims that solar is clean are lies, > Best to keep quiet and pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean We could probably go back and forth citing articles and search results, but I’ll say that I agree with this recent ~peer reviewed article~ [comment] in a decent journal and leave it there: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 As to your last 3 questions, they seem hyperbolic and/or inflammatory. I don’t think solar is the best solution everywhere. I don’t think we should clear huge portions of the rainforest for solar. And I never said or implied those things. Edit: looks like the article I linked maybe was not peer reviewed. Still a good article, though.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
You can focus on power output and if you're looking to clean that part by dirtying another, then you've won the debate. But that's not clean energy. You're not fooling any chemists with that logic. Clean energy takes into account the input side of the reaction. Mining lithium is filthy, emits carbon, introduces a waste cycle that we have no solution for, and distributes toxic waste across continents, especially Asia, in the current market, and across oceans. This is like the push for recycling plastics that lead to the giant plastic collection in the Pacific. Turns out shipping plastic is worse than burying it. Turns out mining lithium is worse than mining gas. Turns out you'll still mine gas for electric vehicles because you still need tires and roadways. What will you do with the excess gasoline? Have you thought about that? I'm just asking questions, but hopefully you have some answers for these questions because so far what I'm seeing is that people are advocating for electric, solar, etc. while offering no solutions for roadways, tires, etc. Meaning your plan is to mine lithium AND oil. To mine solar AND coal. To mine uranium AND burn gas. And those aren't clean solutions. Those are problems. Those are highly profitable problems.