Solar is so awesome we generate millions of pounds of waste, and that is just in CA

[Robert A Whit]

http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wastes-184714679.html

4500

[fj1200]

That's kind of cool. I think consumers should make far more uninformed choices.

[bingster]

According to the article, these wastes are created during the manufacturing of the solar panels, not from the usage. I don't know how much waste a typical factory creates to determine if these factories create more or less waste than usual. You also need to take into account how much carbon and green house emissions are cut by the usage of these panels.

I'll admit, this is a shocking article, but I don't find it conclusive.

[cadet]

According to the article, these wastes are created during the manufacturing of the solar panels, not from the usage. I don't know how much waste a typical factory creates to determine if these factories create more or less waste than usual. You also need to take into account how much carbon and green house emissions are cut by the usage of these panels.

I'll admit, this is a shocking article, but I don't find it conclusive.

Depends on the type of energy system you're replacing with solar. Nuclear does jack to the environment, and is in fact one of the most environmentally friendly. Hydroelectric isn't as good, but it still works fantastically.
In fact, the only bad power plants are really the ones that burn fossil fuels.

It's always bothered me that we don't do more with solar... It's the easiest to get, kinda. You do need a ton of panels to make a good amount of power. But still, you start shoving panels on top of every house...

Not to go off on a rant, but do you guys even know how they work? I thought they were going to be extremely complicated when i first started looking. But in a nut shell, you put two types of metals next to each other. When light hits the one, electrons bounce off of it and get absorbed into the second. (they have to be the right kind of metals with certain electrical properties, but still). Essentially, anyone could make one...

[bingster]

Depends on the type of energy system you're replacing with solar. Nuclear does jack to the environment, and is in fact one of the most environmentally friendly. Hydroelectric isn't as good, but it still works fantastically.
In fact, the only bad power plants are really the ones that burn fossil fuels.

It's always bothered me that we don't do more with solar... It's the easiest to get, kinda. You do need a ton of panels to make a good amount of power. But still, you start shoving panels on top of every house...

Not to go off on a rant, but do you guys even know how they work? I thought they were going to be extremely complicated when i first started looking. But in a nut shell, you put two types of metals next to each other. When light hits the one, electrons bounce off of it and get absorbed into the second. (they have to be the right kind of metals with certain electrical properties, but still). Essentially, anyone could make one...

Cool! Science. Have they experimented with other types of materials? Maybe they can find a combination that doesn't create so much waste.

My feeling regarding nuclear has "evolved". I'm still worried about the eventual melt down that you know is going to happen sometime. And speaking of waste, I don't think any other energy has more dangerous waste than a nuclear reactor. My feelings are mixed on this subject. I read they have lots of them in other countries and it's had very positive effects on the environment.

From my limited reading on this subject, however, a smart grid is the most important innovation we need to tackle some day. We may have demonstrated that to the world during the Superbowl.

[Robert A Whit]

This thread may have a half life of say 6 posts. LOL

First I learned of this on Yahoo news I believe.
Second, the waste is toxic. What more can be said.
Third, nuclear power plants don't melt down for certain. The type that melted down in Russia has never been built in the USA. The plants in the USA are built to high standards and of course with huge amounts of safety built in. They won't blow up. Look at the Fed use of Nuclear in aircraft carriers and submarines. They won't build anything other than nuclear for both ships. Clearly nuclear is safe.

Solar panels are somewhat efficient where the sun shines a lot. Snow and clouds hurts their efficiency.

Worse yet, CA law won't let a homehowner disconnect from a public utility once on it.

Sun of course is worth nothing when it is dark. This means toxic batteries must be in the home to then supply DC which then is converted to what is known as pulsating DC.

AC is a sine wave and things designed for AC won't work on DC. Rectifiers chop half the wave making it pulsate only on one half the wave.

Wind turbines won't work with less than the right amount of wind. Since they can't be depended on, the utility company must have a source that they can depend on and make contracts if they don't use their own hydro plants. Those plants are very efficient. You find them at huge dams.

But to the point, if PGE has plenty of it's own power, it would not want to buy power from windmills but in CA the law forces them to pay above market rate no matter the needs of PGE or it's customers. In short, by law one company is forced to buy from another company.

Isn't CA law wonderful? :rolleyes:

[bingster]

This thread may have a half life of say 6 posts. LOL

First I learned of this on Yahoo news I believe.
Second, the waste is toxic. What more can be said.
Third, nuclear power plants don't melt down for certain. The type that melted down in Russia has never been built in the USA. The plants in the USA are built to high standards and of course with huge amounts of safety built in. They won't blow up. Look at the Fed use of Nuclear in aircraft carriers and submarines. They won't build anything other than nuclear for both ships. Clearly nuclear is safe.
Just because they haven't, doesn't mean they never will. If something goes wrong, we will have bigger things to worry about than toxic waste. Guess we've already forgotten about Japan?
Solar panels are somewhat efficient where the sun shines a lot. Snow and clouds hurts their efficiency.

Worse yet, CA law won't let a homehowner disconnect from a public utility once on it.
I don't believe that. Link?
Sun of course is worth nothing when it is dark. This means toxic batteries must be in the home to then supply DC which then is converted to what is known as pulsating DC.
Is this an issue? What harm is it causing?
AC is a sine wave and things designed for AC won't work on DC. Rectifiers chop half the wave making it pulsate only on one half the wave.
How does that affect power usage?
Wind turbines won't work with less than the right amount of wind. Since they can't be depended on, the utility company must have a source that they can depend on and make contracts if they don't use their own hydro plants. Those plants are very efficient. You find them at huge dams.

But to the point, if PGE has plenty of it's own power, it would not want to buy power from windmills but in CA the law forces them to pay above market rate no matter the needs of PGE or it's customers. In short, by law one company is forced to buy from another company.
This just makes sense to me. They should buy more from eco friendly power sources and continue the trend to create more of these power sources.
Isn't CA law wonderful? :rolleyes:

In my lifetime I have seen huge benefits from government regulations here in California. When I was a kid, we had "smog alerts". These were days when even the average person felt like they were just transported to mile high stadium and forced to run a couple of miles. It was physically difficult to breath on those days.

I've lived in California my whole life and haven't heard a "smog alert" in at least 30 years. With continued population growth, the only solution is greener energy going forward.

p.s. I really liked your post. Lots of good information.

Also, check out this recent article regarding Japan "phasing out nuclear power"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/11/japan-reverse-nuclear-phase-out

[cadet]

Cool! Science. Have they experimented with other types of materials? Maybe they can find a combination that doesn't create so much waste.

My feeling regarding nuclear has "evolved". I'm still worried about the eventual melt down that you know is going to happen sometime. And speaking of waste, I don't think any other energy has more dangerous waste than a nuclear reactor. My feelings are mixed on this subject. I read they have lots of them in other countries and it's had very positive effects on the environment.

From my limited reading on this subject, however, a smart grid is the most important innovation we need to tackle some day. We may have demonstrated that to the world during the Superbowl.

Radiation is a little overblown by the populace, It's actually safer then people realize.
1 X-ray is equal to a few hours watching tv. Doctors only really wear the big jackets when doing the scan due putting up with the energy on a daily bases.
Read this, I think you'll enjoy it. http://phys.org/news145561984.html

[bingster]

Radiation is a little overblown by the populace, It's actually safer then people realize.
1 X-ray is equal to a few hours watching tv. Doctors only really wear the big jackets when doing the scan due putting up with the energy on a daily bases.
Read this, I think you'll enjoy it. http://phys.org/news145561984.html

That's incredible! I have to believe there's something wrong with that thing or it would make the news. Guess I'm cynical. If it's true, our problems are over?
It's too hard to believe.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=616719#post616719)
This thread may have a half life of say 6 posts. LOL

First I learned of this on Yahoo news I believe.
Second, the waste is toxic. What more can be said.
Third, nuclear power plants don't melt down for certain. The type that melted down in Russia has never been built in the USA. The plants in the USA are built to high standards and of course with huge amounts of safety built in. They won't blow up. Look at the Fed use of Nuclear in aircraft carriers and submarines. They won't build anything other than nuclear for both ships. Clearly nuclear is safe.
Just because they haven't, doesn't mean they never will. If something goes wrong, we will have bigger things to worry about than toxic waste. Guess we've already forgotten about Japan?

Well, cars don't suddenly jump and down, airplanes don't suddenly take themselves off, I suppose using your logic, they might do that.
We have no nuclear powerplants that can do what that one did in Japan. There is this fear of our nuclear plants that makes no sense at all. I think you noticed the Feds still build ships using nuclear, don't you?

Solar panels are somewhat efficient where the sun shines a lot. Snow and clouds hurts their efficiency.

Worse yet, CA law won't let a homehowner disconnect from a public utility once on it.
I don't believe that. Link?

You live in this state. Call PGE and ask them.

Sun of course is worth nothing when it is dark. This means toxic batteries must be in the home to then supply DC which then is converted to what is known as pulsating DC.
Is this an issue? What harm is it causing?

My gosh, does this mean my argument for nuclear prevails? See, that is one of my points about nuclear. We have never had any injuries due to our nuclear plants melting down or blowing up.

I have shown but one home in CA that was off the grid. But it never was on the grid. A huge custom home with several hundred acres in the Sierra Nevada Mountains was full solar. I saw it in action. Way out in a garage, the owner had rows of truck or ship batteries. His was far from the home. But most don't live that way and would have batteries in their homes. Yes, lead acid batteries can pose risks.

AC is a sine wave and things designed for AC won't work on DC. Rectifiers chop half the wave making it pulsate only on one half the wave.
How does that affect power usage?

Only to the extent you can run down batteries. I wanted people to understand that you can't save AC current. You can SAVE DC current. Solar panels are not AC, they are DC. I figured somebody might want to learn and since I studied electricity for several years, both in high school and college, they might want to know how it works.

Wind turbines won't work with less than the right amount of wind. Since they can't be depended on, the utility company must have a source that they can depend on and make contracts if they don't use their own hydro plants. Those plants are very efficient. You find them at huge dams.

But to the point, if PGE has plenty of it's own power, it would not want to buy power from windmills but in CA the law forces them to pay above market rate no matter the needs of PGE or it's customers. In short, by law one company is forced to buy from another company.
This just makes sense to me. They should buy more from eco friendly power sources and continue the trend to create more of these power sources.

Suppose when you managed a store and to help out some company, you had to purchase products from Company B at much higher prices when for lower prices you can get the same products from Company A? Or in PGEs case, buy when they don't want or need to buy! Are you saying your business understanding is not too good?

I also spoke in another post of the way those windmills kill endangered birds. I suppose you don't mind killing eagles.

Isn't CA law wonderful? :rolleyes:
In my lifetime I have seen huge benefits from government regulations here in California. When I was a kid, we had "smog alerts". These were days when even the average person felt like they were just transported to mile high stadium and forced to run a couple of miles. It was physically difficult to breath on those days.

Uh huhh, now they call them spare the air days. We had several over the past 30 days. And at this time of year????? I don't know why but I suspect you once lived in the Los Angeles area. I have at no time in my many years living in the Bay area seen such days as you speak of.

I've lived in California my whole life and haven't heard a "smog alert" in at least 30 years. With continued population growth, the only solution is greener energy going forward.

What? We had several spare the air days in the past 30 days. We in the Bay area have never suffered the way those living in the Los Angeles area suffers. I have been in that area when you no longer could see the hills. But in the Bay Area, admittedly at one point seeing our hills was somewhat diminished. I am glad as you are to have cleaner air.

p.s. I really liked your post. Lots of good information. <!-- edit note -->
Well thank you. I hope to be informative.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by cadet http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=616728#post616728)
Radiation is a little overblown by the populace, It's actually safer then people realize.
1 X-ray is equal to a few hours watching tv. Doctors only really wear the big jackets when doing the scan due putting up with the energy on a daily bases.
Read this, I think you'll enjoy it. http://phys.org/news145561984.html (http://phys.org/news145561984.html)






That's incredible! I have to believe there's something wrong with that thing or it would make the news. Guess I'm cynical. If it's true, our problems are over?
It's too hard to believe.

Bingster, are you aware of Mare Island next to Vallejo?

I worked on a building there that was to be used to store used up Nuclear power packs for submarines. I have seen Navy workers refuelling a nuclear submarine there. You can imagine how wide the deck of a nuclear sub is can't you? I have some figures here but just to suffice they are not real wide ships. The powerpacks for one of them is heavy for sure, but the diameter of one is not real large.

I may try to get figures on the aircraft carriers too but even in them, nuclear is not huge like the land based nuclear plants.

Do you know how one works?

[Nukeman]

That's incredible! I have to believe there's something wrong with that thing or it would make the news. Guess I'm cynical. If it's true, our problems are over?
It's too hard to believe.Quick lesson.. The Hyperion reactor uses basically liquid lead to power the turbine through heating and boiling, that is why it wont melt when the reactor starts to cool the lead begins to solidify and encase the reactive material.

if I'm not mistaken the source is Thorium.. thorium is more plentiful than Uranium, doesn't have to be enriched, and does not reach critical mass.. The other main advantage to Thorium is that there is NO weapons grade ore produced from the by products..

If you go back to the beginning of the nuclear age in the US the ONLY reason we went with Uranium reactors was due to the nuclear weapons program. During the enrichment process it is a small jump to go from the 20% enrichment to the 90+ for weapons. Most think that it takes more to reach that point but the enrichment process accelerates exponentially..

Thorium reactors could solve all our energy needs for thousands of years. A thorium reactor is about 1/4 the size of a uranium reactor plus you don't need the huge cooling systems..

Media, movies and misinformed envirowakos have really done a number on the nuclear industry and its a shame due to the actual safety record and the simple change that Thorium could bring.

keep in mind that all the nuclear waste in the US used to date will fit in a few acres of land.. Can the same be said about the waste for any other industry?

[cadet]

Quick lesson.. The Hyperion reactor uses basically liquid lead to power the turbine through heating and boiling, that is why it wont melt when the reactor starts to cool the lead begins to solidify and encase the reactive material.

if I'm not mistaken the source is Thorium.. thorium is more plentiful than Uranium, doesn't have to be enriched, and does not reach critical mass.. The other main advantage to Thorium is that there is NO weapons grade ore produced from the by products..

If you go back to the beginning of the nuclear age in the US the ONLY reason we went with Uranium reactors was due to the nuclear weapons program. During the enrichment process it is a small jump to go from the 20% enrichment to the 90+ for weapons. Most think that it takes more to reach that point but the enrichment process accelerates exponentially..

Thorium reactors could solve all our energy needs for thousands of years. A thorium reactor is about 1/4 the size of a uranium reactor plus you don't need the huge cooling systems..

Media, movies and misinformed envirowakos have really done a number on the nuclear industry and its a shame due to the actual safety record and the simple change that Thorium could bring.

keep in mind that all the nuclear waste in the US used to date will fit in a few acres of land.. Can the same be said about the waste for any other industry?

^^This guy works in Nuke Med. He know's his stuff. (in case you're wondering why he should be accredited to what he's saying)

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=616719#post616719)
This thread may have a half life of say 6 posts. LOL

First I learned of this on Yahoo news I believe.
Second, the waste is toxic. What more can be said.
Third, nuclear power plants don't melt down for certain. The type that melted down in Russia has never been built in the USA. The plants in the USA are built to high standards and of course with huge amounts of safety built in. They won't blow up. Look at the Fed use of Nuclear in aircraft carriers and submarines. They won't build anything other than nuclear for both ships. Clearly nuclear is safe.
Just because they haven't, doesn't mean they never will. If something goes wrong, we will have bigger things to worry about than toxic waste. Guess we've already forgotten about Japan?

Well, cars don't suddenly jump and down, airplanes don't suddenly take themselves off, I suppose using your logic, they might do that.
We have no nuclear powerplants that can do what that one did in Japan. There is this fear of our nuclear plants that makes no sense at all. I think you noticed the Feds still build ships using nuclear, don't you?
Yea, they had a bunch of them in a row, right on top of the most active fault line in the world, but California's is right on top of a fault line on the opposite side of the same tectonic plate. Don't we share the same danger?
Solar panels are somewhat efficient where the sun shines a lot. Snow and clouds hurts their efficiency.

Worse yet, CA law won't let a homehowner disconnect from a public utility once on it.
I don't believe that. Link?

You live in this state. Call PGE and ask them.
I don't have PGE, and I don't want to call them. I still don't believe it, sorry.
Sun of course is worth nothing when it is dark. This means toxic batteries must be in the home to then supply DC which then is converted to what is known as pulsating DC.
Is this an issue? What harm is it causing?

My gosh, does this mean my argument for nuclear prevails? See, that is one of my points about nuclear. We have never had any injuries due to our nuclear plants melting down or blowing up.

I have shown but one home in CA that was off the grid. But it never was on the grid. A huge custom home with several hundred acres in the Sierra Nevada Mountains was full solar. I saw it in action. Way out in a garage, the owner had rows of truck or ship batteries. His was far from the home. But most don't live that way and would have batteries in their homes. Yes, lead acid batteries can pose risks.
I was just referring to the battery danger. I wonder how much of a danger that poses.
AC is a sine wave and things designed for AC won't work on DC. Rectifiers chop half the wave making it pulsate only on one half the wave.
How does that affect power usage?

Only to the extent you can run down batteries. I wanted people to understand that you can't save AC current. You can SAVE DC current. Solar panels are not AC, they are DC. I figured somebody might want to learn and since I studied electricity for several years, both in high school and college, they might want to know how it works.

Wind turbines won't work with less than the right amount of wind. Since they can't be depended on, the utility company must have a source that they can depend on and make contracts if they don't use their own hydro plants. Those plants are very efficient. You find them at huge dams.

But to the point, if PGE has plenty of it's own power, it would not want to buy power from windmills but in CA the law forces them to pay above market rate no matter the needs of PGE or it's customers. In short, by law one company is forced to buy from another company.
This just makes sense to me. They should buy more from eco friendly power sources and continue the trend to create more of these power sources.

Suppose when you managed a store and to help out some company, you had to purchase products from Company B at much higher prices when for lower prices you can get the same products from Company A? Or in PGEs case, buy when they don't want or need to buy! Are you saying your business understanding is not too good?

I also spoke in another post of the way those windmills kill endangered birds. I suppose you don't mind killing eagles.
I get the business point of view, but I'll bet they also get subsidies at the same time. This is where you and I will always part ways because I think control of our power and natural resources need to go hand in hand with proper government control.
Isn't CA law wonderful? :rolleyes:
In my lifetime I have seen huge benefits from government regulations here in California. When I was a kid, we had "smog alerts". These were days when even the average person felt like they were just transported to mile high stadium and forced to run a couple of miles. It was physically difficult to breath on those days.

Uh huhh, now they call them spare the air days. We had several over the past 30 days. And at this time of year????? I don't know why but I suspect you once lived in the Los Angeles area. I have at no time in my many years living in the Bay area seen such days as you speak of.

I've lived in California my whole life and haven't heard a "smog alert" in at least 30 years. With continued population growth, the only solution is greener energy going forward.

What? We had several spare the air days in the past 30 days. We in the Bay area have never suffered the way those living in the Los Angeles area suffers. I have been in that area when you no longer could see the hills. But in the Bay Area, admittedly at one point seeing our hills was somewhat diminished. I am glad as you are to have cleaner air.

You're right about L.A. Nope, haven't heard one during this whole time. Maybe the fog in San Fran is holding in the smog, who knows?

p.s. I really liked your post. Lots of good information. <!-- edit note -->
Well thank you. I hope to be informative.


You should check out Cadet's link on small nuclear reactors. It's too good to be true if you ask me.
I am becoming more of a fan of nuclear reactors, I just think it's stupid to have one on top of a earthquake fault.

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by cadet http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=616728#post616728)
Radiation is a little overblown by the populace, It's actually safer then people realize.
1 X-ray is equal to a few hours watching tv. Doctors only really wear the big jackets when doing the scan due putting up with the energy on a daily bases.
Read this, I think you'll enjoy it. http://phys.org/news145561984.html (http://phys.org/news145561984.html)







Bingster, are you aware of Mare Island next to Vallejo?

I worked on a building there that was to be used to store used up Nuclear power packs for submarines. I have seen Navy workers refuelling a nuclear submarine there. You can imagine how wide the deck of a nuclear sub is can't you? I have some figures here but just to suffice they are not real wide ships. The powerpacks for one of them is heavy for sure, but the diameter of one is not real large.

I may try to get figures on the aircraft carriers too but even in them, nuclear is not huge like the land based nuclear plants.

Do you know how one works?


No, but it does sound interesting.

[bingster]

Quick lesson.. The Hyperion reactor uses basically liquid lead to power the turbine through heating and boiling, that is why it wont melt when the reactor starts to cool the lead begins to solidify and encase the reactive material.

if I'm not mistaken the source is Thorium.. thorium is more plentiful than Uranium, doesn't have to be enriched, and does not reach critical mass.. The other main advantage to Thorium is that there is NO weapons grade ore produced from the by products..

If you go back to the beginning of the nuclear age in the US the ONLY reason we went with Uranium reactors was due to the nuclear weapons program. During the enrichment process it is a small jump to go from the 20% enrichment to the 90+ for weapons. Most think that it takes more to reach that point but the enrichment process accelerates exponentially..

Thorium reactors could solve all our energy needs for thousands of years. A thorium reactor is about 1/4 the size of a uranium reactor plus you don't need the huge cooling systems..

Media, movies and misinformed envirowakos have really done a number on the nuclear industry and its a shame due to the actual safety record and the simple change that Thorium could bring.

keep in mind that all the nuclear waste in the US used to date will fit in a few acres of land.. Can the same be said about the waste for any other industry?

Wow! Looks like you have the most appropriate user name on this forum. Good information, now get out the word!

[Robert A Whit]

Want to mark it so I know what I have read so far.