7 ms·

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

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 Edit: looks like the article I linked maybe was not peer reviewed.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
    Claims that solar has a negative carbon footprint in high sun low cloud environments are founded. Most other claims about solar are indeed lies at worst, and hyped at best. The article you linked to; the reviewers and authors are one and the same and they all work for the same company. It's a perfect example of my point. These are blatant marketing materials. I could link to any number of posts on HN that cover bribery in science journalism.
    - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
      Good catch on the article. Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”. But there are certainly editors involved, but that’s maybe no different from the editorial you posted. But calling it “blatant marketing materials” seems hyperbolic. Similar to implying that I advocate for cutting down vast areas of rainforest. And are you suggesting that the authors of that article bribed the editors? They didn’t even pay an open access fee (likely were not allowed to due to US DOE funding). Can you even point out lies or hype in the article?
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        It's beside the point. The point is that corporations are pedaling a "gas bad solar good" blanket statement where anyone that asks for critical thinking on the issue is immediately downvoted, like I have been. Meanwhile my forest is being leveled for solar. It's not a win for anyone but the moneymakers.
- thelastgallon 3y ago
  > Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Where are rainforests being cleared for solar? You are just making up stuff. 40 million acres in US are used for Ethanol (with subsidies!!) just for a small fraction of the transportation energy. Solar can go on rooftops on all kinds of buildings, there is at least 10x parking area if not building. They can go on top of lakes and conserve water from evaporation. Vertical panels work perfectly with farming with zero land use. They can go next to highways[1]. They can go on landfills, superfund sites, deserts and so on.. [1]https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-beside-highways-is-a-no-brainer/ https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-besi...
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    10 miles from my home vast swathes of state owned forest are being cleared for solar. Have you considered that you might be unintentionally helping rich people destroy the environment?
trimethylpurine 3y ago
All sources anyone will cite I will shoot down faster than you've shot down this article. The fact of the matter is that nearly all publication is influenced by some source of funding. Including the "use solar for everything" camp. So let's be realistic, and scientific, first and foremost. Start by accepting that most of what most people know about solar is marketing. Unless they happen to be environmental chemists, at least by education, if not profession. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-env... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environmen... I can keep going... If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. It is a hope for the future based on an assumption that adoption and technological advancement will eventually create a negative carbon scenario. But we're far from that scenario today.
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago
  The first link is from a think tank started by a Koch brother and appears to have a history of being funded by coal and denying climate change, second is an editorial, and the 3rd discussed cobalt and nickel problems and does not even mention LFP (which in my opinion makes it either too old, biased, or uninformed to be relevant).
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    The downvote on the comment you replied to is from a random guy on the internet. Should I care more about that than you care about the articles I posted? Or maybe the bigger picture is that what matters is how much we as individuals and as a society care about stringent qualifications for what we call science? Hopefully you see the irony in your response now.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Your claim was: If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. Your three links do not support that claim, they all iterate around toxic waste by products of concentrate processing - which is a real problem but not a carbon problem, and a problem that for now is of a lesser order than toxic waste by products of copper mining. None of this deep science, more material process engineering. The solutions to the issues in your three links are to move processing to first world nations that have a greater incentive to make better tailings dams, to transition mining trucks away from fossil fuels and onto local electricity from solar and hydrogen - you'll see if you look about that processing is already moving an that companies such as Rio Tinto are already transitioning to renewable electricy generation.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
It hasn't grown 10x because it's cleaner. Growth and environmental impact are independent of each other. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to claim. I don't see where solar is cleaner, except that the cells are more efficient in theory (we won't know for another 30 years). Manufacturing is still the same. Let me know if I missed something.

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
  Claims that solar has a negative carbon footprint in high sun low cloud environments are founded. Most other claims about solar are indeed lies at worst, and hyped at best. The article you linked to; the reviewers and authors are one and the same and they all work for the same company. It's a perfect example of my point. These are blatant marketing materials. I could link to any number of posts on HN that cover bribery in science journalism.
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
    Good catch on the article. Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”. But there are certainly editors involved, but that’s maybe no different from the editorial you posted. But calling it “blatant marketing materials” seems hyperbolic. Similar to implying that I advocate for cutting down vast areas of rainforest. And are you suggesting that the authors of that article bribed the editors? They didn’t even pay an open access fee (likely were not allowed to due to US DOE funding). Can you even point out lies or hype in the article?
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      It's beside the point. The point is that corporations are pedaling a "gas bad solar good" blanket statement where anyone that asks for critical thinking on the issue is immediately downvoted, like I have been. Meanwhile my forest is being leveled for solar. It's not a win for anyone but the moneymakers.
thelastgallon 3y ago
> Should we clear vast swathes of rainforest in the name of the omnipotent power of solar? Where are rainforests being cleared for solar? You are just making up stuff. 40 million acres in US are used for Ethanol (with subsidies!!) just for a small fraction of the transportation energy. Solar can go on rooftops on all kinds of buildings, there is at least 10x parking area if not building. They can go on top of lakes and conserve water from evaporation. Vertical panels work perfectly with farming with zero land use. They can go next to highways[1]. They can go on landfills, superfund sites, deserts and so on.. [1]https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-beside-highways-is-a-no-brainer/ https://electrek.co/2023/08/31/why-putting-solar-panels-besi...
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  10 miles from my home vast swathes of state owned forest are being cleared for solar. Have you considered that you might be unintentionally helping rich people destroy the environment?

trimethylpurine 3y ago

All sources anyone will cite I will shoot down faster than you've shot down this article. The fact of the matter is that nearly all publication is influenced by some source of funding. Including the "use solar for everything" camp. So let's be realistic, and scientific, first and foremost. Start by accepting that most of what most people know about solar is marketing. Unless they happen to be environmental chemists, at least by education, if not profession. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-env... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environmen... I can keep going... If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. It is a hope for the future based on an assumption that adoption and technological advancement will eventually create a negative carbon scenario. But we're far from that scenario today.

sunshinesnacks 3y ago
The first link is from a think tank started by a Koch brother and appears to have a history of being funded by coal and denying climate change, second is an editorial, and the 3rd discussed cobalt and nickel problems and does not even mention LFP (which in my opinion makes it either too old, biased, or uninformed to be relevant).
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  The downvote on the comment you replied to is from a random guy on the internet. Should I care more about that than you care about the articles I posted? Or maybe the bigger picture is that what matters is how much we as individuals and as a society care about stringent qualifications for what we call science? Hopefully you see the irony in your response now.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Your claim was: If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. Your three links do not support that claim, they all iterate around toxic waste by products of concentrate processing - which is a real problem but not a carbon problem, and a problem that for now is of a lesser order than toxic waste by products of copper mining. None of this deep science, more material process engineering. The solutions to the issues in your three links are to move processing to first world nations that have a greater incentive to make better tailings dams, to transition mining trucks away from fossil fuels and onto local electricity from solar and hydrogen - you'll see if you look about that processing is already moving an that companies such as Rio Tinto are already transitioning to renewable electricy generation.

trimethylpurine 3y ago

It hasn't grown 10x because it's cleaner. Growth and environmental impact are independent of each other. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to claim. I don't see where solar is cleaner, except that the cells are more efficient in theory (we won't know for another 30 years). Manufacturing is still the same. Let me know if I missed something.