Brainless environmental policy damaging the economy

[TimG]

Its over 2 bucks now. How will the economy look once its $5? How about $10?

Not likely to happen. The world is swimming in oil and natural gas. It will run out eventually but supply is not a problem for the foreseeable future.

We need our smartest and most innovative people to be focused on the problem so that one day energy can be almost free.

Free energy is a sci-fi trope. Highly unlikely in the real world. Fusion is our best bet but the complex equipment needed to make it practical will keep the price high.

The future of the human race depends on us having an abundant supply of cheap energy. That WILL not come from existing sources. We have work to do....

Existing sources are adequate for now. Nuclear is the candidate for the future. Solar and wind will be bit players unless there is a revolution in battery storage.

[PIK]

My understanding it would have to be in the 150 per ton range to do anything. But all of you miss the point, we produce very little and what we do no matter how big we do it , will not change anything at all.

[Smallc]

My understanding it would have to be in the 150 per ton range to do anything.

You misunderstand then.

[?Impact]

Fusion is our best bet ... Solar and wind will be bit players unless there is a revolution in battery sto

So you think the challenges facing fusion are lower than the challenges facing battery storage? I believe both avenues need to be pursued, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Solar also has the advantage of operating during the heavy industrial demand times. Yes we have to deal with overcast days, but it is still possible to get a high percentage of the power even under cloud cover and that is continually improving. No single solution will address all our power needs, but solar has the possibility of addressing about 50% without batteries and more with.

[TimG]

So you think the challenges facing fusion are lower than the challenges facing battery storage?

Batteries don't produce power on their own. If batteries were free it would completely change the economics of power production but that is not plausible.

I believe both avenues need to be pursued, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

That is the argument I use for the continued use of fossil fuels. The more sources of energy we have the more secure we will be. Solar and wind have a role to play but as incremental players unless batteries become a lot cheaper than they currently are. Edited October 6, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

unless batteries become a lot cheaper than they currently are.

Important to note that 'batteries' really means storage. Lots of technologies that can be used for storage traditional batteries (lead/acid, or any of the newer chemistries), pumped hydro, hydrogen, etc.

[Spiderfish]

So you think the challenges facing fusion are lower than the challenges facing battery storage? I believe both avenues need to be pursued, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Solar also has the advantage of operating during the heavy industrial demand times. Yes we have to deal with overcast days, but it is still possible to get a high percentage of the power even under cloud cover and that is continually improving. No single solution will address all our power needs, but solar has the possibility of addressing about 50% without batteries and more with.

It's unfortunate that the by-products of manufacturing solar cells is never discussed or factored into the equation, by-products such as hydrochloric acid, hydropfluoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone. And that's just for the cleaning and purification of the semiconductor surface. Then there's gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, silicone tetrachloride. The process of refining quartz into metallurgical-grade silicon happens in giant furnaces, and keeping them hot takes a lot of energy, which produces a lot of emissions—mostly carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

Then there's also the fact that most of the batteries, components, and solar panels themselves are manufactured in China. The main photovoltaic producing countries that produce today typically do the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers. And then there's getting all of those panels and components over to North America, which in itself generates a fairly significant carbon footprint.

It seems at this point that battery storage is the least of the concerns regarding the use of solar.

[?Impact]

It's unfortunate that the by-products of manufacturing solar cells is never discussed or factored into the equation

Absolutely, the entire footprint needs to be discussed. Naming a list of scary sounding chemicals however is pointless propaganda.

[TimG]

Important to note that 'batteries' really means storage. Lots of technologies that can be used for storage traditional batteries (lead/acid, or any of the newer chemistries), pumped hydro, hydrogen, etc.

Storage adds additional cost in terms of capital equipment and energy losses. This means energy sources that deliver the needed power when needed are preferable unless the cost of storage is so low it is inconsequential. Edited October 6, 2016 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

Absolutely, the entire footprint needs to be discussed. Naming a list of scary sounding chemicals however is pointless propaganda.

Hard to have an honest discussion on the matter when objective facts raised are described as pointless propoganda.

[?Impact]

Hard to have an honest discussion on the matter when objective facts raised are described as pointless propoganda.

Objective facts would be a comparison of total footprint of different technologies. Listing off names of chemicals is completely meaningless, there are no quantities per unit of power produced.

[Spiderfish]

Objective facts would be a comparison of total footprint of different technologies. Listing off names of chemicals is completely meaningless, there are no quantities per unit of power produced.

I think the point I was making may have escaped you, but thats ok.

Environmental policies and assessing environmental impacts involves more than just focusing on evil carbon. Carcinogenic and health impacts to humans and wildlife, pollution and toxic by-products, and overall risk assessments of potential damage to the ecosystem and water are part of the equation as well. Look no further than the resistance to nuclear power as a perfect example of this.

[?Impact]

I think the point I was making may have escaped you, but thats ok.

Again you totally ignore the point I was making, while pretending you don't. Yes, the entire footprint (overall risk assessment in your words) is very important. Naming scary chemicals, and now adding the even scarier carcinogenic label does absolutely nothing towards that goal. I could give the same label to other forms of energy, and rhyme of another list of scary chemicals, and I would accomplish the same nothing. You need to give a comparative analysis, otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.

[PIK]

In 10 -15 years when these house hold solar panels are done, where will they go. Impacts back yard might be good start..

[?Impact]

11 hours ago, PIK said:

In 10 -15 years when these house hold solar panels are done, where will they go. Impacts back yard might be good start..

Solar panels degrade less than 1% per year. After 25 years they still have about 80-85% of their capacity. I will take them in 75 years when they are done as long as you take the spent nuclear fuel.