Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is solar green?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
    Well, production of solar-PV requires a lot of dopants that are pretty nasty, and there's a lot of waste produced during the process. In addition, the frames and glass take a tremendous amount of energy. So the more accurate statement would be that solar is greenER than some other forms of power (like fossil.)
    Yep. http://www.solarscorecard.com/ attempts to rate panel manufacturers on a few 'green' attributes. (Wonder why LG gets a zero there for 'module toxicity'? I guess they haven't claimed their panels conform to RoHS yet?)
    17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

    Comment


    • Nope. Solar is green. The statement is accurate.

      "Green" as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

      Tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/green


      oilerlord's 9.23kW Plant

      Comment


      • Nope. Solar is green. The statement is accurate.

        Green as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

        Tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)
        oilerlord's 9.23kW Plant

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
          Well, production of solar-PV requires a lot of dopants that are pretty nasty, and there's a lot of waste produced during the process. In addition, the frames and glass take a tremendous amount of energy. So the more accurate statement would be that solar is greenER than some other forms of power (like fossil.)

          That's true of all forms of power. None are truly benign. Some, though, are much worse than others.

          +1. In one philosophical way of looking at it, it comes down to a matter of degrees, lifestyle choices and how far you want to chase things.

          I suppose I could be a vegetarian, live off the land, without clothing or shelter, recycle my poop into the soil and do all that without tools. That's probably close to the lowest entropy increase I could inflict on the universe and exist - at least for awhile - and I'd still impact my surrounding. I do not choose to live that way.

          So, it comes down to how much do I want to increase the disorder of the universe to decrease the disorder in my life (or, in the common notion, make my life "better").

          A farmer living off the land in the 19th century mid west of the U.S. was probably closer to what I describe, but still not at a theoretical, and also impossible minimum.

          Solar panels have nasty stuff in them for sure, but I've noticed such statements often degenerate into finger points about all forms of energy production being "bad" - and perhaps all or most such statements, because of entropy, more/less correct but with varying degrees of accuracy.

          Bottom line: There ain't no free lunch when it comes to impacting the environment. How much, and in what ways human activity changes things and thereby increasing the general rate of entropy increase by making life "better" cannot be avoided any more than the 2d law o thermodynamics can be violated. The best we can hope for is to slow the rate of entropy increase.

          One way to perhaps view the debate between pro nuke/conventional proponents and pro R.E. folks, aside from the silliness of the often all/nothing nonsense, is the difference in how each side views the best ways to limit or reduce the entropy increase, or if such a thing is a concern at all.

          The polarization that seems to be increasing just now isn't helping communication between sides.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
            That's probably close to the lowest entropy increase I could inflict on the universe and exist - at least for awhile - and I'd still impact my surrounding. I do not choose to live that way..
            Trailer park trash or a Hermit.
            MSEE, PE

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sunking View Post
              Trailer park trash or a Hermit.
              Trailer parks are a good place to be from. Fewer illusions there.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oilerlord View Post
                Nope. Solar is green. The statement is accurate.

                Green as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

                Tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)
                But the manufacturing of solar panels does contribute to a number of types of pollution, are not biodegradable, or totally recyclable, therefore solar does not meet the part of the definition.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                  Trailer parks are a good place to be from. Fewer illusions there.
                  Yeah I know. Lived in a tin can when I was a kid.
                  MSEE, PE

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sunking View Post
                    Yeah I know. Lived in a tin can when I was a kid.
                    That was the place my folks aspired to when I was a kid. Times change huh ?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                      But the manufacturing of solar panels does contribute to a number of types of pollution, are not biodegradable, or totally recyclable, therefore solar does not meet the part of the definition.
                      Since we're picking nits...read the definition again. The keyword is "or", not "and". Biodegradable, recyclable, or nonpolluting. As solar panels tend to preserve environmental quality as by being nonpolluting, by definition, they are green.
                      Last edited by oilerlord; 06-27-2016, 12:51 AM.
                      oilerlord's 9.23kW Plant

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                        But the manufacturing of solar panels does contribute to a number of types of pollution, are not biodegradable, or totally recyclable, therefore solar does not meet the part of the definition.
                        They, overall, tend to reduce pollution - which is why they are more green than, say, coal power.

                        Again, nothing - not even a tree - is completely green by the above definition. (Google what causes the "smoke" in the Smoky Mountains.)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                          They, overall, tend to reduce pollution - which is why they are more green than, say, coal power. Again, nothing - not even a tree - is completely green by the above definition.
                          Read the definition again.

                          Solar panels are green by definition because they tend to preserve environmental quality as by being nonpolluting. It really is that simple.
                          oilerlord's 9.23kW Plant

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oilerlord View Post

                            Read the definition again.

                            Solar panels are green by definition because they tend to preserve environmental quality as by being nonpolluting. It really is that simple.
                            I will say that solar is a very clean way to generate electrical power and along with other RE is a good direction to add to our portfolio of power generation in this country.

                            IMO what "is simple" is your ability to accept and be brain washed into believing that solar is the answer to all of our pollution and power requirements. Neither is true no matter how you define the word "Green".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                              I will say that solar is a very clean way to generate electrical power and along with other RE is a good direction to add to our portfolio of power generation in this country.

                              IMO what "is simple" is your ability to accept and be brain washed into believing that solar is the answer to all of our pollution and power requirements. Neither is true no matter how you define the word "Green".

                              I'm not defining the word "green", Merriam-Webster is.

                              You're making an assumption that I'm on an environmental crusade - and I assure you, that isn't the case. I take airline travel often, eat beef, and modified my TDI's exhaust so that it is no longer a "clean diesel" (which by the way is questionable if it ever was) and like a lot of people, have made the choice to live in a house that is connected to a coal-fired power grid. I've also made the choice to install solar, drive an EV as my primary vehicle, planted ~200 trees & shrubs in our yard, grow some of our own food, compost, have rain barrels, recycle when possible, etc.

                              I've never stated (or actually believe) that solar is the answer to "all of [the world's] pollution and power requirements". It has only offset some of my own pollution and power requirements.
                              oilerlord's 9.23kW Plant

                              Comment


                              • I think SunEagle is fighting a strawman. I don't know many people who think "solar is the answer to all of our pollution and power requirements".
                                17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X