Renewable Energy: There Ain’t No Free Lunch
When confronted with the revelation that systems need to be built to harness “free” energy, many people are perplexed as it is not something they have thought about. The reason, I suspect, is that the liberal media has dumbed down the science and inserted environmental propaganda in its place.
I recently had a chance to interview people attending the Rochester Earth Day Festival in Michigan. My first question: “What is renewable energy?” I followed that with a question on manufacturing the harnessing technology. Here is a compilation of the answers:
Wind and solar are far and away the #1 answer. Let me just take solar as an example of what I mean by necessary pollution as dictated by the Second Law. Although there are no emissions when in operation (although it shades a swath of ground that is itself an environmental impact — which is why politicians have essentially stopped further production of large-scale solar facilities in places like Southern California), there are plenty of emissions, energy usage, and chemical waste in the production.
For example, many solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. Even liberal outlets like the Washington Post have taken note:
“The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it,” said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University. Even recycling that compound takes huge amounts of energy, itself generating its own pollution.
Farther down the production line, the gaseous compound nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is required for thin film solar cells (and “environmentally friendly” energy-efficient LCD TVs). The problem? That gas is 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, the atmospheric concentration of nitrogen triflouride has quadrupled, and according to NASA is increasing at a rate of about 11 percent per year.
Thus my point — no technology in existence, either in the real world or in someone’s imagination, is exempt from the Second Law. There will always be necessary pollution no matter the technology. It’s just that the pollution will take on different forms and exist in different places. Some pollution like that in solar technology is produced far away from where the panels operate, masking its negative impact, an impact that the MSM has been slow to report on which in turn cloaks it from a public willing to believe in fairy tales painted green.
Truly renewable energy does not and cannot exist. Some technologies are more renewable, cleaner, greener, more sustainable, but none have zero environmental impact. In my opinion, the best way to compare all technologies on a level playing field is to account for all pollution created over its entire life cycle from mining raw material through manufacturing, construction, maintenance and finally decommissioning, and weigh that against the amount of energy generated by that technology over its lifetime. In all cases, the Second Law will be there staring you right in the face. Unless, of course, Congress tries to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With those running Congress these days, it wouldn’t be beyond them to try.
Try this – go to Google Images and type in “BROKEN WINDMILLS.” Look at all the images of windmill that were supposed to be producing power but have broken down and are not being repaired.
Many states and counties are trying to get those power companies out there to do something about it.
You would think if the windmills were making a profit the power companies would not let one windmill stand still. But why repair what is operating at a loss?
I agree with your analysis that the msm/American people are intellectually compatible with Alvin Greene.
There’s also the rare-earth metals needed for wind turbines — in China, the mining for those minerals has torn up the local environment. So much for “green technology.”
Typical Leftist and Democrats strategy for political power grab: Dumb down the electorate. Rewrite history i.e. all things evil are Republican/Conservative. Create the simple perception that something is “free” and only evil Capitalists and Rich People are keeping it from the hard-working little guy Real Americans. Rinse and Repeat until no real Physics and Science exists. After all, those contradictory laws are those of the evil Capitalist Rich People Republicans building their wealth on the backs of the poor.
Energy is not renewable … A quick look in the phiysics books will show you how dumb that statement is. Of course, liberals say a lot of dumb things.
Oil is natural, as natural as ethanol, sunlight or wind. No difference.
Professor it is not about the environment. It is about power.
If it was about the environment, we would be building giant CO2 scrubbers for coal fired energy plants. We would be building nuke power plants. We would not be killing tens of thousands of acres of fertile agri-land in CA just to save a darter fish. We would be extracting the trillions of cf of natural gas under our feet. We would have reacted to the Gulf spill a lot more effectively.
No, it is all about power. But the gullible (video) just don’t, won’t or can’t get it.
Thanks, Prof. Been saying this stuff for years, only to get that glazed over look followed by denial.
“The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it,”
ORLY!?! I’ve had gardens on three land fills now, and a very profitable farm on a former county site. I’ve never noticed a problem with reclaming these lands nor any difficulty with the produce thereof. Bottom line, if you hear an academic make a statement… He/she’s wrong. There is no dirt of any kind under this clowns fingernails. “Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University”, is an embarrassment to his profession and his “University”. I have to wonder if he’s actually seen any “material”, except in books of course.
The quote refers specifically to silicon tetrachloride, not to landfills generally. I’ll bet you’ve never had a garden on a landfill where there is silicon tetrachloride in the soil.
Wind turbines. It takes a 850 ton steel tower to support the generator. The steel is made by blending COAL and iron ore in a furnace. It takes thousands of tons coal in the steel making process. The concrete pads for the towers are a 1,000 tons. Lots of petrol is used to make cement. The carbon footprint and petrol consumption for wind tower construction is massive. I notice they do mountail top removal to prepare wind farms. Then they clear out all the trees.
Too true. I live in wind farm county and it astonishes me how “enlightened” green energy advocates can look at the scarred, eroded hillsides riddled with service roads and wire-strung substations and massive, visually and psychologically overpowering 50-story high (the new ones) turbines and not be offended and alarmed. An acquaintance on.a Sierra Club hike, speaking over the whining creaks of some older tubines, said “It’s not so bad. I could live with that in my back yard.”
Sure.
Until there are battery breakthroughs, the only viable alternative to fossil fuel is nuclear power. Simple observation shows that wind power will not be the answer. In the last couple years, my wife and I have driven many times across Altamont Pass in the San Francisco Bay area. It is one of the windiest places in California (outside Sacramento) and has a large number of windmills. More often then not most of the windmills are idle. Eventually reality is going to catch up with the “renewable energy” fad. A big fear I have is that the K-12 education establishment is a major impediment to our path.
The quantity of entropy in a closed system can never decrease: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.
The only way to “restore science to its rightful place,” as the libs put it, is to put it in the hands of engineers, like Dr. Kobus- practical scientists who deal with the real world. Soft ‘scientists’ like Michael Mann who deal in statistical jiggery-pokery barely even merit the title.
Another inconvenient truth for the green fantasists: gasoline has 80 times the energy density of even the best (lithium-ion) batteries. An electric car generates more net pollution than a conventional car of equivalent performance, unless your wall outlet is supplied by a nuclear plant or a dam.
Even if your wall outlet is supplied by nuke or hydro, you are still producing pollution. There is only so much electricity available from nuke and hydro. By using some of it up on your car, you are forcing the electric companies to replace that energy with something else and that something else will most likely end up being coal.
I’ve lost track of the number of enviro’s who would swear on their mothers graves that electric cars are polution free.
Good article. The renewable energy v. conventional forms of energy debate has lacked discipline. Its a good idea to compare the true cost of energy technologies but not just from an environmental perspective. One must also consider national security and economic development issues.
For example, does gasoline really cost #3.00/gallon. The true cost of a gallon of gas includes the subsidies oil companies receive (not reflected at the pump) payed for by tax payers as well as the national security costs. Taxpayers pony up $50 billion/year to cover the cost of patrolling the Straits of Hormuz to keep oil shipping lanes open. The U.S. pays over $300 billion/year to foreign countries for that oil. Some of that money goes into supplying weapons and training to our enemies we are fighting. An Iranian made IED may have been paid for by our oil purchase money. How do you monetize that? Its a real cost in blood, treasure and national security risk but not accounted for at the pump.
The global energy market is $6 Trillion and is expected to grow by 30-40 percent as populations grow and developing countries expand their economies. The world is moving towards low-carbon energy economies. China, Japan, and South Korea are puming tens of billions into clean energy technologies to gain strong global market share. What’s the cost to the U.S. if we don’t compete in this market? How do you monetize that?
On the environmental front the issue is localized risk v. global risk. The comparison of risks is based on what one believes about climate change. Managing pollution streams from production is easy – we do it all the time. If climate change is real – meaning that there will be at some point major changes in global weather and water patterns causing great costs – how do you compare those costs to localized environmental risk costs? Finally, how do you account for the true and full cost of the BP spill in the Gulf?
The debate needs to be fuller and more robust. And, all costs, accountable and external, need to be put on the table. We also must look to the future from an economic and national security perspective. The “renewable” energy market is real and growing world-wide. Should the U.S. lead, follow, or get out of the way? Do we want to continue to pay for both sides of the wars we are fighting in and for protection of our non-allies natural resources?
This debate needs to be framed in a time-horizon of at least 30 years – all costs and benefits should be on the table.
Even if 100% of the cost of patroling Hormuz was because of oil, that would only add a few pennies a barrel to the cost of oil.
As to global warming, there isn’t a shred of evidence that it is harmful. Even if the earth were to warm a degree or two, that would serve to lengthen the growing season throughout the world, resulting in more crops being grown. More people die during the winter due to the cold, than die in the summer due to heat. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes plants to grow bigger, stronger, and faster.
In short, there are no negative consequences to more CO2 and many positive ones.
low-carbon energy economies.
Pointless waste of effort and resources. There is no problem with carbon. It’s the building block of life and only .3% of the atmosphere.
Searching for faeries would be more productive a pursuit.
I think it was Bugs Bunny that said: “I never studied law” while he was suspended in mid air defying the ‘law’ of gravity.
Our government is the epitome of this comic genius. Arizona’s new law enforcing the federal government’s own law should be proof of this ‘axiom’.
Laws of physics are no exception. But let’s also remember that this administration has not been educated, they chose to be “indoctrinated”. There is a “fundamental” difference.
Thus it is all sophisticated rhetoric and so why do anything?
What an incredible waste of your time this essay was.
What not simply prove that motion is impossible?
Yes, we have to use power to create heat to survive winters,that or grow fur and hibernate.
The idea Oh Brilliant one is to seek. We will find nothing unless we look, that is unless you want to rely on random discovers like what propelled the last 400 years.
: )
They’ve been “seeking” for the last 50 years I know of and haen’t really found anything of subsatnce. All of the analyses are faily accurate on cost versus return on investment. Go ahead and build a tower for a half million and see how long it takes you to recoup your investment. We’ll all be dead and gone. I don’t care if they look, just use their own money to do it and leave me alone.
We live far off the grid so solar power was and is the only option for us, but we have never been happy with either the inputs required for our panels and batteries, to say nothing of the converter and controller as well as the necessary byproducts of their manufacture which you so well articulate. We could be smugly green if we were given to following the mania of It’s-Great-To-Be-Green but that sort of shameless duplicity based on pure ignorance of the basics of technology is beyond our capacity to employ. For people who chose to live off the grid, then, and only then, is it appropriate, indeed necessary, to utilize renewable resources.
We would have gone with wind as such seems less damaging during the manufacturing process than solar, but issues such as mean time between failure and what do you do when the wind ain’t blowing (important as we live in a canyon) pushed us to the worse of the two evils.
For most people most places renewable energy is not and will not become a viable option in the foreseeable future for the reasons you elucidated. This means, get the scubbers on line, use the coal we have and build modular nuclear plants along the design pioneered at Los Alamos.
Thanks, Prof
Sure. Try and explain Newton’s Second Law to a green-neck. Good luck! Repeal the 2nd law? Hey, The Rhinoceros Party of Canada once held repealing the law of gravity as part of its platform. Looks like they were ahead of their time.
“and that in and of itself is not renewable.”
Right but the energy source itself is renewable, and that is the whole Fing point. How are you still able to master a key board with so little mental ability? That is not rhetorical I actually want to know the answer. The second law actually states taht No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” I very much doubt anyone actually things a windmill just materializes out of thin air. In fact part of the green push is for increased production of solar panels. Which implies that there is a creation process of the materials. Both renewable and dirty technologies equipment. No one thinks we can just start photosynthesizing. Not to mention the grids we will need to build in order to transport the new energies. However, once that wind turbine or solar panel is in place the creation of the energy is clean and renewable. There is no Mercury being emitted from solar panels. I am not suggestion there will be no need for repairs as everything breaks down. Lets look at the side effects if a turbine or solar panel goes bad. Not much you just repair the item. Lets now look at coal or oil. Collapsed mines and the current gulf disaster. Which seems like a better idea???
Brian, is there any subject on the planet which you aren’t incredibly ignorant?
Yes it does take energy to build a coal plant, but given the difference in power densities, it takes thousands of times less energy per kilowatt of output to build that coal plant compared to either solar or wind.
The fact that your windmill or solar panel will expire from old age long before you can recover the energy needed to build, install, and operate it has been known for decades.
First, you are completely wrong back in 2000 the payback was 5 times as much energy as you put into a solar panel.http://www.solarbus.org/documents/pvpayback.pdf. Second, the fact that you would base your argument of such a burgeoning technology and facts that are decade old may be the most idiotic thing I have seen you post. Why would you say we have known this for decades when the technology is changing so rapidly. This makes me think that you are stuck back in the 80′s, and this makes sense when I consider most of your comments. Not to blow your mind to much, but once you get the solar panels up you can use them to create more solar panels. Try and keep up. I am not an expert in every field, but I am able to actually do some research before running my mouth. Further, I am always happy to admit when I am wrong.
18 Thomas
Sure. Try and explain Newton’s Second Law to a green-neck..
Isaac Newton died long before the Second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated. The 19th century scientist Clausius made the first statement about entropy. Clausius’s’ work was founded on Carnot’s investigations of steam engines earlier in the 19th century. What is interesting about the law of thermodynamics is that they came from scientists investigating earlier creations of engineers: steam engines.
BTW, wind energy easily wins over solar electric energy in terms of 1) economics, 2)net energy, 3)pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
BTW, wind energy easily wins over solar electric energy in terms of 1) economics, 2)net energy, 3)pollution.
–
Twice nothing is still nothing.
It still takes more energy to build a windmill and tower than you can reasonably expect to get out of the windmill.
MarkTheGreat:
Twice nothing is still nothing.It still takes more energy to build a windmill and tower than you can reasonably expect to get out of the windmill.
Here is documentation that says otherwise.The Difference Wind Makes (AWEA).
What documentation do you have for your claim?
2007 Outlook shows wind prices as being roughly competitive with other forms of wind energy. Granted, this data is three years old, but I currently purchase wind energy from my electric utility at about 7 cents/kwh, which is consistent with the graph on page 2.
my bad: “2007 Outlook shows wind prices as being roughly competitive with other forms of wind energy.”
To: “2007 Outlook shows cost of wind energy as being roughly competitive with other forms of electrical energy”
Gringo, you really need to learn the difference between propaganda and data.
There was no data in the article you cited, just absurd, unbacked claims.
As to other pieces I have seen on the web, they do things like calculate the payback of the generator itself. The don’t include the blades, the tower, the tower pad, the infrastructure needed to build and maintain the tower, the maintenance costs.
More absurdly, the assume that the turbine will be running 24/7. Most turbines are lucky to be running 10% of the time.
Document.
Google energy payback of wind turbines and you get similar results.
gringo, for once try thinking for yourself.
If the energy payback for wind turbines really was 3 to 8 months, you wouldn’t need govt subsidies to get people to build them. The ROI would be so enormously high that companies would be fighting each other for the right to put them up.
Since they aren’t, something is wrong with your data. Why don’t you try and figure out what it is.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/27c0ff92-7192-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F27c0ff92-7192-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html%3Fftcamp%3Drss&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grist.org%2Farticle%2F2010-06-07-iea-stunner-global-subsidies-dirty-energy-top-550-billion-year%2F&ftcamp=rss The world subsidized dirty technologies to the sum of 550 billion a year. If they are so much better than wind in solar why would they need to be subsidized. You logic is fail.
It still takes more energy to build a windmill and tower than you can reasonably expect to get out of the windmill.
Document, please.
Yep. You certainly have me there! What was I thinking? Laws of motion, laws of … other important stuff. Doh! Cheers!
Good luck trying to sell this idea to an American public whose eyes will immediately glaze over after reading “the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.” What does that have to do with harnessing the energy from the sun and the wind? That’s Green man, Obama, Al Gore, etc. say so….don’t confuse me with this science mumbo jumbo! Down with clean coal, oil, gas and….oh yeah…..nuclear. Drill baby Drill? Have you been watching the news man? You see all those oil encrusted pelicans, the oil slicks, the tar balls on those white sandy beaches? Anyone care to guess how much tougher it’s going to be to overcome this disaster and convince an already indoctrinated populace that “Green” is not a viable solution to our immediate problem? Especially with the science argument, no matter it’s absolute validity. Convince me I’m wrong…..please.
Can’t the Democrats simply repeal the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?
(Disclaimer for liberals: They can’t really do that!)
The following is a thinly disguised tongue-in-cheek missive (although not labeled as such) that I have thrown into the waters of various political sites to see what kind of nibbles I get…
‘In their infinite wisdom, progressives in Congress should pass legislation that repeals the laws of thermodynamics, especially those pesky ones concerning entropy. This would immediately allow the US to stop using all petroleum and fossil fuels, put BP and the like out of business as the first step in punishing them for their sins, and then we could easily switch all energy needs over to renewable energy sources.
After all, this is what progressives do… they are intellectually superior to everyone else, and they have repeatedly proven that inner motivations and theory are far more important than reality and reality-based feedback.
The semihemidemigod Obama has already promised that the seas would stop rising, so now changing the laws of physics should be just a bagatelle.’
I am amazed at the responses, which inevitably take my suggestion seriously and then either deride it or seek to expand on it (e.g., one idiot insisted that we “first need to have a comprehensive energy plan in place before we can pass laws like this”. Although I have an engineering degree, it still amazes me the abysmal level of mis-education exposed, upon which progressives build their fantasyland.
Not a bad piece.
Though your article was well put, there are other parts the fans of renewable nonsense also do not get: the even bigger picture.
You discuss the manufacturing of the technology, this is obviously way out of most peoples’ understanding. For MEMS, Solar panels, or any device related technology, the amount of energy that goes into making these chips/devices is much, much more than say home or auto or even the fun tram that goes 15 MPH and is subsidized $15 with taxpayer money for every rider as it is not an efficient means of travel. Manufacturing processes making the “new” hybrid motors consumes a lot of energy: in the chemicals, metal forming, plastics creation (oil), and in the lights and HVAC to house the workers.
Now, with the pinwheels and panels pulling in the energy from the wind and sun, another facet about the First and Second laws that is probably not focused on right now, as that would be a counter point: All the energy transfered from the wind and sun rob the atmosphere of the driving mechanisms that transfer the Energy (rain/clouds/etc) and turn it into immediately consumed power and waste HEAT. This waste heat is in the form of heat emitted from the panels, lost during DC/AC conversion, and from all the processes of transfer. Sure this happens with power plants today, however, power plants are not removing bulk energy from the atmosphere. Power plants take very concentrated forms of energy: gas, coal, nuclear and convert these into HEAT which powers systems that convert the energy into electricity.
It will take some time, however, we will begin noticing the subtle changes in weather, if we have not already began to see them now.
Solar panels are generally much darker and hence get much hotter than the surfaces they are covering.
Several months ago, when they made the first big cap and trade push, I saw a number of pro-green advertisements that trumpeted the fact that alternative energy provides 8 times more jobs than fossil fuel energy.
So, according to the greens,an 87.5% drop in labor productivity is a good thing.
They don’t know their physics, and they ain’t so hot when it comes to economics either. Would those new green jobs pay only 12.5% of the old ones? For that money, maybe we could hire a bunch of illegal immigrants to do it. Or we could hire typical environmentalists. After all, they have have about the same skill set.
I’d go with the illegals. At least they would have a work ethic.
The sun shines only in the day time. The wind blows sometimes, not always. There is no viable technology that will store the energy when it is available and release it when it is needed. If this technology was available, windmills and solar panels would be a large and profitable industry in spite of the high construction cost, as the wind and the sun are free.
Engineers tried unsuccessfully to devise energy storage schemes like large compressed air tank farms or lifting water up and storing the water in lakes so that electricity can be produced at a later time using the stored energy in the compressed air and water. In addition, there is no battery technology that can store the energy at a reasonable cost. Another issue is that the location of the renewable energy facilities is far from the centers of the demand which creates high transmission losses. What it means is that you need to have additional fusil or nuclear fuel plants to satisfy the demand for electric power WHEN IT IS NEEDED.
The whole wind and solar schemes that the Politicians are pushing is nothing but a hoax which is sold to the uninformed bublic.
I’ve read several reports recently that large solar panel farms are murder on insects. Apparantly the polarized light reflecting from all that glass looks to the bugs like the surface of a lake. They fly down, land on the hot panels, and get fried.
Of course all those carbonized bodies block sunlight from reaching the solar cell itself so they have to be regurally cleaned off. Increasing maintenance costs.
I am thoroughly stymied by the current intercourse over the Gulf tragedy,in that not a single opening argument that I have been able to find, has found the need nor the commpassion to even mention the loss of life necessitated by this disaster. I sincerely hope that the safety concerns or lack of for profit will never diminish the value and viability of human life.
Best layman’s explanation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
First law: You can’t win.
Second law: You can’t even break even.
Neither law cares whether the current administration repeals, amends or ignores them.
I believe islands like Haiti can be fully powered with renewable and affordable energy: so can individual town, cities and countries!
The entire world needs clean and affordable energy sources…. why has the information about their availability been hidden from the public?
I am not denying third world and developing nations the right to live with a far better, cleaner and more modern standard of living. I am asking you to get your mind around the volume of fuels – beyond my own meager comprehension – that would be required to sustain such development – and then to try and calculate the amount of chemical emissions spewing into Earth’s atmosphere.
Currently, many different sources of ‘cleaner fuels’ are being developed around the world. The hope seems to be that in time, these alternative sources will take over from some of our reliance on fossil fuels, which contribute to pollution and sickness. They are not inexpensive, and neither are they the complete answer to a worldwide need for a clean, renewable and affordable, alternative energy source.
There are other sources, not currently being discussed in the public forum.
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/
Dear Mr. Kobus,
I can only assume you are angling to exit your current career in Academia with a preference for the much higher paying jobs available with “big oil”. In general, you’ve made some useful statements regarding current sources of energy for electric and plug-in hybrids, but you have missed several major points:
1. The laws of conservation of mass and energy do not apply to an open system like the planet Earth. It applies to the Universe, assuming (and that is a pretty major assumption, even for someone such as yourself who is not an advanced astrophysicist) that the Universe is a closed system. The Earth, being an open system, can heat up to the very limit of the various elements contained herein. More specifically, you are improperly attempting to apply the aforementioned law of physics. You argued that no matter what way energy is produced, the polluting effects are the same (or worse, you say, for non-fossil fuel based energy production, which, I shall show, is completely absurd). You used “more chemical pollution” “broken windmills” and “shading the ground” as examples of your pollution and environmental damage. I can only assume you are joking when you cite the last two as actual problems that our nation faces. Seriously — it’s funny enough to be worthy of a headline in The Onion.
The ETRC (Extraction, Transport, Refinement, and Combustion) of diesel fuel is only marginally less polluting that regular fuel, if at all. The combustion of diesel fuel creates only 10-20 percent fewer CO2 emissions than that of regular gasoline. On the downside, it yields significant sulfur and NOx emissions, which cause (perhaps the even more environmentally deleterious effects of) acid rain.
2. While is does take energy and causes pollution to build wind turbines and solar arrays, it takes at least as much energy and causes more pollution to build AND FUEL coal and nuclear powered plants. Think of the massive mining operations necessary to extract coal from the Earth. Haven’t you ever seen the mile long trains of coal that arrive DAILY in coal-fired powered plants nationwide? Aside from that, the chemical and radioactive environmental side effects (and possible side effects) from the use of coal and nuclear are far worse than that of solar, wind, and hydroelectric technologies.
3. Heavy metals and Rare Earth minerals are used for making solar panels, however, all of the same pollutants are emitted from coal-fired power plants into the air that we all breathe in even greater quantities when coal is burned. Heavy metals are also released in far greater degrees inot the environment form coal mining. Much of the heavy metals and rare earths pollution that you speak of (from the manufacture of photovoltaics) comes directly from the burning of coal for power plants that provide electricity for the solar cell production facilities! As more power comes from non-coal power plants, the power needed to manufactur photovoltaic equipment further decreases, as do the negative environmental implications of this manufacturing process. I should also add that the rare earths and heavy metals used in industrial and large-scale home-based solar energy production (such as rooftop-mounted solar panels) are almost always recycled or otherwise properly disposed of.
Solar panels using relatively high quantities of heavy metals and rare earth minerals are not the way to go, not because coal is better, but because we have even less polluting and equally efficient renewable solutions. Currently, very low-cost, super-efficient reflective arrays that heat a central small (but highly effective) photovoltaic and/or liquid (such as plain water) to create a pressure differentials sufficient to drive a turbine have already been developed and are in use. As time progresses, more and more coal fired plants will be phased out and more solar and wind energy fields. In all honesty, we do not need any more coal-fired plants — we just need a smarter grid in order for small scale power generating operations to be able to give back to the grid in a more efficient way. We also need to improve power transmission technologies. We have the technology to replace coal with cheaper sources that are more reliable in the long run (due to the fact that the sun and wind will never run out as long as humans exist), and less polluting.
Here’s a quote to get your goat: “One of the most promising photovoltaic technologies is based on cadmium telluride, but cadmium is one of the worst heavy metals. Still, if we compare direct emissions from production of cadmium telluride cells with coal power plants, toxic emissions would be up to 300 times lower.” -Vasilis Fthenakis, an environmental engineer at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y.
Aside from the points you missed, above, I don’t know why you bring up politics in your post. This is not a political argument. Why should this have anything to do with Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs. conservative (or Liberal vs. Conservative)? This is (or should be) a public discussion about the prudent use of available resources in a manner that has the least negative effects on our homes, air, and homeland. What is in our nation’s and citizenry’s greatest interest? I doubt its in our interest to destroy our air and water supply. Which resources can we use that will cause the least amount of harm to ourselves, our friends, and our family? Certainly not coal. I think we agree on that. Oil is not much better. The extraction, transportation, and refinement of oil and the further distribution, storage, and consumption of oil-based fuels (including diesel) has also created huge swaths of unusable/uninhabitable land, water, as witnessed by the recent BP/Transocean oil platform disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, The Exxon Valdez spill, and countless such disasters that have taken place through the world, in between these two events — particularly in Africa but also here in the United States.
As a PhD candidate, I’m sure you understand the value of including, assessing, and adequately devaluing the STRONGEST elements of the other side of any given argument. Failing to do so does a disservice to your own argument and makes you look like a weak thinker — as does making ad-hominem arguments based on the fact that an entire group of (relatively well-educated) individuals support a given solution to a problem. most of those who oppose “liberals” don’t even view pollution (be it carbon emissions or chemical waste) as a problem, it seems inherent to your post that you do — so why side with them? Anyway, whether a person is a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the value of a particular argument. When you fail to assess a particular argument on its own merits, you fail to win your argument. Considering this, I wish you the best of luck to you in your current and future endeavors as a PhD candidate. Clearly, you’ll need all the luck you can get.
Certainly, but people need to acknowledge that adding Solar in their home is an purchase that will boost the longer term valuation of their house if / when they choose to sell. With the environment the way it is going we are unable to ignore any product that gives totally free energy at no cost to both the customer and more significantly the world!