Solar Panel - Are We Killing Our Planet?

edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 16:38
Last edited 08/08/2015 - 11:09

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-panel-makers-grappli…

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/14111…

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/01/solar-panels-toxic-emiss…

no one will recycle the panels (due to newer technology in 30 years time), go into massive land fill, when cracks…… massive clean up required.
Many third world country just dump the waste into river…..

look at plastic, only 2% recycled?
look at CPU semiconductor
look at AA batteries/ car batteries (now we introducing big house hold battery)

Have we ever learnt from the past?

Side notes — warning from the posting — for entertainment purpose
Forum topic looks similar to existing topic(s):•Qantas Red Planet Panel - Earn FF Points
If you are absolutely sure that it is not a duplicate, check the 'Not Duplicate' checkbox below

Addition: 8 August 2015
This question was raised in the room full of expert in this field - of the life cycle cost and sustainability. The answer provided was full research required to proof that. No one doing that research as no one willing to fund it at the moment, definitely not from manufacturer and installer. Public perception is very good towards it. At least those experts never used other "bad" energy source to make solar energy look good.

I was reviewing a technical paper stated solar energy is the cheapest - based on the lateset news stated cheaper than coal. I asked the author to put reference of life cycle cost to proof its the cheapest in its whole life. One week later the sentence was removed.

There good points stated in this thread when comparing other souce of energy but still not answering the final impact of solar energy. One article event mention the solar farm reflection actually kill the bird fly past it (free bbq?)

Main thing of this post is to bring awareness to those intend to do good to the planet to question more. Is this the right technology?

Thank you everyone for contributing the ideas and good points.

Electrical & Electronics

Comments

  • Woodyg22 on 05/08/2015 - 16:52
    +2

    Wind energy seems the go to me! 24/7 power

    Household batteries could actually be a huge thing, since it helps flatten out the peaks for power stations so they don't have to constantly operate in anticipation of sudden peak loads.

    • scrimshaw on 05/08/2015 - 16:55
      +2

      Wind energy! Pah. Not in my backyard.

      • Serapis on 06/08/2015 - 20:49
        +3

        Bunch of idiots, remember there was a case in Australia where a community succeeded in obtaining an injunction against a company building their windfarms, reasons ranged from adverse effects on their health to that it will reduce their land price because the view won't look as good… just don't remember the case name

        God I hate those people

      • newsynthetic on 06/08/2015 - 19:49
        +1

        Technically any man made structure will cause a "environment wind flow wave distortion causing immediate temperature rise". Wind power is still the way.

      • Serapis on 06/08/2015 - 21:03
        +1

        Peer reviewed study in US already done, no harmful effects. The study found 'Annoyance associated with living near wind turbines is a complex phenomenon related to personal factors.'

        Basically people complaining are just a-holes who don't like the windfarm. There is no substance to their complaints.

        Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature

        http://mobile.journals.lww.com/joem/_layouts/oaks.journals.m…

        • Euphemistic on 10/08/2015 - 11:45

          I'd much rather have a few windmills around than the disgraceful mess that is left of the hunter valley. Open cut mines destroying perfectly good farming land when a windmill can have a farm right around it.

    • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 02:10

      @Woodyg22

      Household batteries are already a solution. They are often installed by people who want full redundancy or who are disconnected from the grid.

      Battery storage is just expensive. When given the choice of installing more panels or installing batteries, most people go with panels.

      @edgar28
      Toxic waste from manufacture is paid back in the first three months on installation (when compared to coal). It is at the top of all three of your linked articles.

      As for recycling, a green crusader could buy up and store panels until it is economically feasible to recycle.

      @Serapis

      The only noise coming from a wind turbine should be the air conditioning unit, which keeps the generator, gear box and other electronics cool. Noise is wasted energy so no blade should ever make noise (especially sub-audible noises, as they need to be extremely ‘loud’ to be physically perceptible by humans).

      The health issue is more insidious than people lying. Many people have been convinced that wind farms actually cause health problems. Talk to someone in the industry if you want the story.

      On a different note, coal fired power stations are threatened by wind power. The initial cost to install wind plants is far lower. Maintenance, repair and operations are far lower. There is no fuel cost and wind can be built out in stages. (Certain natural gas fired plants can compete, solar and geothermal have their own problems and wave power isn't ready yet).

  • zancs on 05/08/2015 - 17:08
    +15

    Whinging about technology that will be on your roof for atleast 20 years? Go and internet warrior about plastic bottles that last you 5 minutes after purchase.

      • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 02:45
        +2

        Indoor air pollution from solid fuel [e.g. Wood Fire] use and urban outdoor air pollution [e.g. Coal, Oil] are estimated to be responsible for 3.1 million premature deaths worldwide every year and 3.2% of the global burden of disease.

        http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawat…

        Death rate per Terawatt Hour of various Energy Sources:

        Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
        Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
        Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
        Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
        Coal electricity- China 90
        Coal – USA 15
        Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
        Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
        Biofuel/Biomass 12
        Peat 12
        Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
        Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
        Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
        Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
        Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

        http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so…

        Notes:
        * Yes, this is from a blogger, but their numbers are pretty similar to those in paid journals.
        * As far as I can tell, these numbers ignore energy used in production.
        * Wood is not present in the graph as it is mostly used for heating and cooking, not industrial scale energy production.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 07/08/2015 - 03:34
        +2

        "… worried about technology that will ruin our future."

        Far out hombre, don't you realise that advances in technology (such as solar power) are the key to securing the future of humanity? There's certainly no way the Earth will be able to sustain the rapidly rising population without them. To some extent it could be argued that the jury is still out on massive-scale wind/wave energy generation, but to question the value of solar technology/panels on environmental grounds is bizarre in the extreme.

        As MsKeggs alludes to below, you seem to lack a fundamental capacity to logically weigh things up in terms of net loss and net gain; be that in terms of energy, environmental impact, monetary benefit, etc. Given that solar panels generally facilitate the conversion of sunlight into electricity that would otherwise be acquired via infinitely more environmentally detrimental means for 10 years or more, it is laughable to question their validity on environmental grounds.

      • Jackson on 08/08/2015 - 10:48

        Don't worry:

        Producing solar is still significantly cleaner than fossil fuels. Energy derived from natural gas and coal-fired power plants, for example, creates more than 10 times more hazardous waste than the same energy created by a solar

        From the business insider story you posted

  • retiredfeline on 05/08/2015 - 17:08
    +6

    Know any deals for tinfoil hats? :P

  • mskeggs on 05/08/2015 - 17:36
    +34

    I find these posts really, teeth grindingly ignorant.
    Solar panels produce a tiny amount of waste. The rooftop type common in Australia are almost pure silicon, which is harmless (I am sure somebody will scream silicosis, so I will say almost harmless).
    The alternative is what we are currently doing, digging millions of tonnes of coal from the ground that scars the landscape, adds massively to climate change, releases more radioactivity that all nuclear plants combined, and directly leads to the early death of over 1 million people per year (citation http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollut…)

    And you post some scare articles about renewables modest pollution. Shame on you!

      • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 02:55
        +2

        Asking questions, or Begging the Question, is a lazy way to discredit your opponent without responding to anything you opponent said.

        By 'asking questions' you are implying you are right, with no proof (your links actually answer most of your questions).

        'Asking questions' is a very effective way to persuade people, that's why it is often used in the media.

        I highly suggest you ignore any opinions which rely on 'asking questions' as part of their argument. If a person 'asking questions' knew then answer, they could concisely explain it to you instead of using a deceptive logical fallacy.

    • scrimshaw on 05/08/2015 - 17:44
      +1

      Toxic materials and waste do come from the production of solar panels. Most are made in China and regulation is very lax there, so it would not be surprising if these factories have been illegally dumping materials and allowing to run-off into rivers and waterways.

      Of course the argument on waste originating from the production of 'green technology' is choking our environment seems a little pointless when you consider that the production of anything really, usually involves waste and chemicals and energy (electrical) expenditure. The production of food, cars, plastics, all generate waste and require power. I don't see how people can complain about solar panels generating 1000 units of waste per unit when the car industry generates probably 10,000 units of waste per unit.

      • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 17:47
        -7

        not too worried about during production, it's lifecycle. How we dealing with the toxic chemical in 20 years time, if it does survive. Land fill?

        I was in renewable energy forum, I asked whether it will be recycled or build a new one, the professor replied without thinking, build a new one, due to technology advancement and expensive recycle cost. Meaning lifecycle cost out weight the benefit for long run?

        There was a research showing, production, if managed the waste properly (BIG IF here), it takes the solar panel to recover the carbon unit produced in one year. - So sounds acceptable, but no research for future handling.

    • Nickels n Dimes on 06/08/2015 - 14:27
      +3

      Solar Panel Life-Cycle Costing:

      First the quartzite is mined and refined into silicon, then further processed to make a silicon cell. Components are then assembled and shipped in bulk around the world to individual retailers. From there, the products are purchased and installed in people's homes where they will begin to pay back the energy used in their production. At the end of their lives - normally somewhere between 25 and 30 years, some components may be recycled, negating any energy used in the initial gathering, and others will need to be scrapped.

      Full details about the long term effects of disposing of all of the components in solar panels aren't yet available, since this is still a fairly recent technology and the rated lifetime for most residential systems is between 25 and 30 years. Despite this, the expected impact is fairly small because most of the constituent materials are either recyclable, or essentially composed of rock and sand.

    • StalkingIbis on 07/08/2015 - 12:36

      mskeggs 'who' are you and what do you do? You seem to have a very wide base of knowledge and im just curious :)

      • ankor on 07/08/2015 - 13:46
        +3

        She writes the quiz questions for millionaire hot seat, wheel of fortune, sale of the century and all that.

  • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 17:51
    -6

    For those who neg me it's ok, i'm asking for opinion anyway, just would like to let people start to think full life cycle impact

    if proven everything is good, i'm all for it.

    • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 02:59
      +1

      Hundreds of people have spent 40+ years of their life working on these problems.

      If you want to know more please ask. People keep negging you because many of your comments seem to imply these hard working engineers and scientists are full of ****.

  • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 18:00
    -2

    How many people understand solar panels?

    the efficiency is only 8-14% used for household, new one around 25% with silicon dome magnifying it.
    Is it the right technology or better off planting more trees?

    That's why all installer only talk about total output kW.

    • retiredfeline on 05/08/2015 - 18:05
      +8

      What does the efficiency matter when the input is free, i.e. sunshine? Planting more trees will not power your home. If you are going say this offsets CO2, you might not have heard that solar has already beaten coal for cost per kWh delivered, it's only the fossil fuel industry that's fighting a desperate rear-guard action. Don't fall for their propaganda.

      Please do your homework.

      • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 18:54

        Im asking is the free actually free if we need to clean up in the future.

        • mskeggs on 05/08/2015 - 21:04
          +20

          Please turn off the computer. You are using electricity now which is incredibly polluting to raise fatuous concerns about future possible issues. You are literally causing extra real pollution right now to spread inaccurate information about lower polluting technology in the future.

          The current system you use produces huge levels of pollution. It kills millions each year. If you replace it with solar or wind, those things will produce pollution too, but such a tiny, tiny amount compared to what you are doing now it is stupid to worry about.

          It is like people driving at 160kph through the city with no seat belt and complaining that second hand cigarette smoke is risky. Sure, the smoke has a small risk, but you are doing things that are orders of magnitude worse.

          I very much want solar and other renewables manufacturers to consider the environment with their operations, but the current fossil fuel systems is so grossly polluting that by comparison renewables pollution is trivial.

    • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 03:25

      I do.

      Efficiency only matters when assessing the financial viability of a solar plant. The pollution produce when manufacturing solar panels is equivalent to around three months of coal fired power at the same output.

      The output of a solar plant hasn't really changed over the last 10 years. Yes, solar panels are more efficient today. But power companies now require solar plants to run at ~70% efficiency to improve power quality.

      As for trees, coal pollution is extremely harmful. But we need coal power for at least the next 20 years. Once other technologies have been built out, we can move on.

      Installers only talk about kW as they are only installers. Many have no idea about the wider issues of the power industry. Even if they did, why would they risk arguing with a customer?

  • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 18:53
    -7

    Imagine every household has solar panel. One hail storm or earth quake or cyclone damages the panel. The rain water brings the toxic to your drinking water.

    • retiredfeline on 05/08/2015 - 23:43
      +8

      Imagine a country has a nuclear plant situated in an earthquake zone. One tsunami damages the plant, spilling radioactivity and making land uninhabitable. Fiction? This has already happened.

      So what if a few silicon panels get soaked in water? Do you know what the toxicity of silicon is? Certainly orders of magnitude lower than nuclear fuel or asbestos. Silicon oxide is basically sand. The chemicals used in the process are no longer in the semiconductors. Did you study any chemistry, I wonder.

      • edgar28 on 06/08/2015 - 10:56
        -2

        I would say 80% of population is not as knowedgeable as you, would not understand and blindly follow what the media said that it is good. But from history, so many has fallen into such trap.

        I am just asking, is this one of them. Clearly many other sources produced more pollution, but those company has proven the enviromental issue is well looked after and better off overall by other activities to offset them.

        • altomic on 23/08/2015 - 12:22

          So you're trying to make false and ill informed claims?

  • [Deactivated] on 05/08/2015 - 20:42
    +2

    Anyone here got panels? Care to share details about how they've affected your power bills? Costs of installation too?

    Very curious to hear OzBer experiences. /thread-hijack

    • mskeggs on 05/08/2015 - 20:55
      +14

      We got solar panels when there was a high feed in tariff in NSW. Paid about $12k out of pocket. They were paid off earlier this year.
      My 3kW system covers about half my usage. The other half is used at night.
      The way the finances work in NSW now, you want to get a system installed that will pretty much cover your maximum daytime use. If you have aircon and live in a warm place, that might require a 5kW system. You would be a very unusually high power user if you needed any more.
      The average Aussie house uses about 22kWh per day. That is about what a 4kW array generates, but most people use at least half their power at night.

      Because the feed-in-tariff, the amount the power company pays you for excess power you send to the grid, has declined to 6c or 8c per kWh, there is little point in getting a system bigger than you need (although it looks like the cost of batteries is set to sharply drop, so in future you could use the excess power to charge batteries and suck the power back out at night).

      Bottom line for me is I would install panels immediately if I moved to a new house. The savings take around 5 years to pay off with current prices/tariffs, but the panels will last at least 25 years, so after that time it is all free power.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/08/2015 - 20:58
        +2

        Thanks for sharing (appreciate your detailed post!) :)

      • ashikk on 06/08/2015 - 13:48

        @ mskeggs.

        Few questions:
        Do i need a council permission to install solar?
        how much is the ongoing servicing cost for eg maintenance and cleaning?
        Quote from origin energy for 4kW is around $4.5k (5% deposit and $176 for 24 months).
        From your experience, Any other things we need to know about solar.

        • mskeggs on 06/08/2015 - 18:35
          +5

          Do i need a council permission to install solar?
          Check with your council, but usually no unless you have a heritage listed building.

          how much is the ongoing servicing cost for eg maintenance and cleaning?
          nil. The rain does enough to clean any dust. All other items are maintenance free. Apart from the panels there is an electronic device called an inverter. This has a life span of around 10years so is likely to need replacing during the 25+ year life of the panels. Inverter costs continue to fall, so I think budgeting $1500 for a replacement is a reasonable bet.

          Quote from origin energy for 4kW is around $4.5k (5% deposit and $176 for 24 months).
          Origin offer a reasonable deal from a reputable company. My sister-in-law used them. They did have an issue with the brand of inverter they were installing failing a few years ago, but I gather they have sorted that. In any case they replaced the failed inverters free. Origin don't use the best quality stuff, but it is pretty cheap, and they will likely be around to honour a warranty.

          From your experience, Any other things we need to know about solar.
          Be cautious of 'too good to be true' deals, there are some unscrupulous installers. There is also a mob who sell gutters too who use high pressure in-home sales tactics which I think are unethical. I always recommend you use a local installer if possible. That way if something goes wrong you can usually get service. Some of the really cheap deals are just a guy in a room with Google maps selling over the phone, who them sub-contract out to the cheapest installer they can find. That isn't a recipe for a long term business.

        • ashikk on 06/08/2015 - 21:39

          @mskeggs: thank you for your insight!

    • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 23:30
      -4

      For financial purpose it's good, since heavily subsidised. Environmental? Not too sure yet until im convinced with the after used containment.

      • retiredfeline on 05/08/2015 - 23:46
        +5

        Do you know that the fossil fuel industry is far more heavily subsidised than the solar industry? Yet inspite of this, solar generates cheaper power, and even more so in other countries where the playing field is more level. You go on about toxic chemicals, but you don't know anything about semiconductors after processing. You seem to think the semiconductors are somehow uniquely polluting in manufacture. The fact is that industrial processes for pretty much anything involve some amount of nasty chemicals. They all have to be managed properly.

        • edgar28 on 06/08/2015 - 09:40
          -5

          If so i am happy. Please proof it with life cycle cost benefit. I.e. cost of land for landfill etc.

          Just need to show it to the world.

          I am reasonable person. Tripple bottom line proof of positive 1 cent will convince me

          Note: as mentioned by other post, not too worry about manufacturing process

        • ongrudy on 06/08/2015 - 10:12
          +1

          @edgar28:to be financially better than fossil fuel, it does not need to be positive 1 cent. It just need to be better than fossil fuel industry.

          So if fossil fuel is negative 10 cents, it just needs to be negative 9 cents to be financially better.

        • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 03:28
          +5

          @edgar28:

          http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/powerplants/cleanplan/p…

          There you go. Only 103 pages. Enjoy.

    • shadowarrior on 06/08/2015 - 10:01
      +2

      I am from QLD. On our old 3BR townhouse, with no panels, small family, our quarterly electricity bills were $650+
      We recently built a new house (4br+study+media) with a 3kW system. Way bigger than the old townhouse, more aircon units/light points that are active compared to the old one; just got my quarterly bill and it was $227.

      We changed a lot on how we operate to utilize the solar power generated. We now have timers which turn on heavy use machines during the day, I have spent so I can remotely turn off a power point of such device if its rainy/not cloudy.

      Before users relied on the payback tariff to recoup the cost, now it's via changing your usage habits. I am definitely keeping a keen eye for Tesla's battery system.

  • ongrudy on 05/08/2015 - 20:55
    +4

    Solar Panel - Are We Killing Our Planet?

    No. Our planet is not that weak to be killed by solar panel.

    Eating meat has much greater impact in killing our planet. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-ham…

    • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 23:32
      -7

      Good to know. But for remote town that rely on well water to survive. If contaminated by toxic, it will be serious compare to CBD people.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/08/2015 - 21:15
    -1

    Go nuclear! Australia is lagging behind. Wind mills are a waste of space and make too much noise.

    • edgar28 on 05/08/2015 - 23:37

      I attended renewable technology forum hosted by UK speaker. The evolving technology is pointing towards nuclear. Her vision is that every household will have a small nuclear battery and super efficient pump. So no need to connect to grid and water pipe.

      Small nuclear battery is fully cantained and not prone to disaster. But i dont think this will happen in her lifetime….. Maybe not in my lifetime too…..

      • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 03:38
        +1

        Power plants are more efficient when larger (as long as materials allow). Most power plants generate energy using steam. Bigger plants create larger heat differences. Larger heat differences allow for more efficient generation of energy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency

        While there are plenty of easily available materials that can kill far more people, small, household nuclear batteries would be extremely easy to turn into a dirty bomb. People are fanatically scared of any nuclear weapon, making deployment of household nuclear batteries political suicide (yes, engineers thing about political impacts of technology too).

    • altomic on 06/08/2015 - 00:44
      +4

      How do windmills waste space? They are on a pole. They are located in rural areas. You can grow crops around them or have cattle, sheep, etc grazing under them.

      I visited nearly a dozen wind farms in europe last year and they barely make a sound.

      Or are you being sarcastic and I'm too tired to register that?

      • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2015 - 01:35

        Nah, you've understood correctly. They cost too much and the power loss is far too significant due to heat and distance. I hate when people keep comparing us to Germany and Finland. Those countries are tiny in comparison. That doesn't mean I am totally against them. I don't particularly care if industry wants to put them up, but no way will I endorse taxpayer funded money being used for these stupid poles.
        I concede that the noise level is not that bad, but here is why you couldn't hear it (source is General Electric).
        http://41.media.tumblr.com/e112e82d7881a6868664bf955938be25/…

        This man is 100% correct.
        http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/professor-simo…

        This is my field of expertise and I along with a lot of young engineers believe nuclear energy is far superior. We are not scared of nuclear energy, because we grew up learning about it in chemistry, physics, and at uni. Most who are opposed to it don't even know what is involved or how we source nuclear energy. We just need the infrastructure and a big kick in the right direction. Every relevant developed nation knows the positives of nuclear energy and a PROPER NBN (sorry I couldn't resist).
        It's also sad to see so much of our home grown talent heading overseas, because there is no future here. I know 5 physicists who have abandoned their research in nuclear physics due to Australian CSIRO, ANSTO and university funding cuts towards nuclear energy research grants. Every time we have a discussion about it, some hand picked group of professors and nuclear scientists bang on about management of waste and how global nuclear energy production is decreasing.
        I can hazard a guess as to why they take this approach. George Bush, former Chinese President and John Howard love to burn coal. All they care about is votes and economic growth while ignoring environmental sustainability. Sometimes I hate living in this country when my fellow citizens think groups such as the current conservative Liberal government are acting in the bests interests of all Australians.

        Tl;DR - I don't mind having everything, but nuclear should be our main driver. I don't want stupidity, greed and Tony Abbott to keep destroying our environment and our great oceans. Nuclear waste can be managed, but CO2 emissions spread like wildfire. When I drive past a coal fired power station, I feel like crying and burying my head in the sand. It's not pleasant to see entire ecosystems and species die right in front of your eyes due to climate change.

        Imagine if we had a government like the Japanese did. Boy our economy would be booming. I guess that's the price we pay for wanting to be a relaxed, laid back and ignorant country.

        • mskeggs on 06/08/2015 - 08:16
          +7

          Why do you think nuclear is a better option than renewables?
          You mentioned windmills are noisy - nuclear uses steam turbines, much noisier.
          You mention wind turbines take up space, nuclear needs a cooling lake and a large containment facility.
          You mention heat and distance. I assume you mean grid losses, but nuclear will have the same losses between the generator and the cities. We have an east-australia national grid to link coal power, it is certainly acceptable for renewables, or nuclear so I don't understand this comment.
          You minimise nuclear risks, claiming it is ignorance. I agree that nuclear fears are overblown, but a nuclear accident is an acute problem. Renewables provide virtually zero risk energy.
          Nuclear produces waste we struggle to deal with, renewables do not (regardless of the nonsense published in this thread).
          Financially, nuclear requires massive government subsidies (see UK or France dealing with ageing reactors right now), and the fuel source has security risks with terrorists, and unfriendly nations.

          In short, apart from equivalent CO2 elimination, nuclear seems to provide no benefits.
          Perhaps intermittency is what you are trying to solve? Then you need a bigger grid covering different wind areas supplemented by a few seldom used gas turbines.
          We can easily reduce our pollution by 80%+ without needing nuclear.

        • Mobe1969 on 06/08/2015 - 08:52
          +1

          @mskeggs:

          Not to mention with wind, look at how sparsely populated we are, not to mention already arid, even if you are just talking coastlines. No way we couldn't (imho) power the entire country without putting people out. Hell, look where the coal power stations are…

          I'd love to get off grid though. I think the feasibility is getting closer. Solar is your only real option domestically though.

        • shaybisc on 06/08/2015 - 09:41
          +1

          Have you young Turks solved the problem of safe storage of radioactive waste in a permanent repository? If so please release your findings to the world.

          I could be persuaded. I could even be persuaded that Australia should be the safe permanent repository for the world, as Bob Hawke suggested long ago. But I wonder, with the vast potential of non-radioactive renewable energy, why would you bother with nuclear.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2015 - 12:42
          +1

          @mskeggs:

          If you have to ask why nuclear is a better option, then I know you know nothing about basic chemistry. No other energy source is capable of supplying continuous and unhindered electricity with zero emissions.
          Many renewables do not produce electricity predictably or consistently. Electricity generation from wind turbines varies with the wind speed, and if that wind is too weak or too strong no electricity is produced at all. The output of solar panels is reliant on the strength of the sunshine, which depends on the time of day and the amount of cloud cover. Not to mention solar panel technology is only its early days.
          Steam turbines are used in every single developed country and aren't left out in the open for the birds to hear. It's not an issue. Needing a large cooling facility and containment isn't a negative, but a basic requirement of all nuclear facilities.
          Heat loss and distance are the causes for grid losses.

          YOu don't know anything about nuclear waste management, so please stop saying we "struggle" to deal with it.

          "In short, apart from equivalent CO2 elimination, nuclear seems to provide no benefits." Why has every advanced economy in the world adopted it to some degree?

          I honestly cannot be bothered responded to every one of your concerns, because you sound like every other typical Australian who thinks their opinion matters even though they have no real scientific background. The only people who have the right to raise concerns are the experts and the very few people whose lives will be affected by the location .

          "In short, apart from equivalent CO2 elimination, nuclear seems to provide no benefits."
          There's the cherry on top. Absolutely no idea about climate science or the impacts of CO2. I don't think you even know what a joule or kWh.

          "We can easily reduce our pollution by 80%+ without needing nuclear."
          Wishful thinking and said without knowing the economic impact.

        • shaybisc on 06/08/2015 - 14:23
          +2

          @tendollar:

          "YOu don't know anything about nuclear waste management, so please stop saying we "struggle" to deal with it."

          Clearly neither do you and neither does the nuclear energy industry.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2015 - 14:29
          -2

          @shaybisc:

          Said someone who doesn't even know what "nuclear waste" is. You're talking out of your ass. You have nothing intelligent to say.

        • mskeggs on 06/08/2015 - 19:08
          +7

          @tendollar:

          Well, that was needlessly vitriolic.
          For the record, I am a qualified Science teacher who majored in Physics and Chemistry. I don't claim to be an expert, but judging from your post I suspect I might be a little ahead of you.

          I will provide you the courtesy of addressing your points.
          - As I mentioned, renewables do suffer from intermittency, especially solar obviously. If we needed constant power round the clock, it might be useful to run nuclear or coal to give a steady base load. Of course, that isn't what we need at all, with demand dropping like a stone after the evening peak. So we need power that meets our needs primarily during the day and evening. By linking renewables production to the eastern australia energy market grid we can cover a large enough space to ensure some sources of renewable energy are generating (e.g. wind, solar, hydro.). Modelling by Mark Diesendorf at UNSW back tested demand against renewables supply potential and found with current technology but more capacity we could cover 95% of power demand via renewables. The additional 5% could most cost effectively be provided by gas turbines which can start and stop quickly. So a 95% CO2 reduction in electricity production is achievable now. See: http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/sites/all/files/Diesendorf_UniPre…

          • Solar is in it's early days. Bequerel discover the photoelectric effect in the 1800s. PV panels have been in commercial and domestic use for over 40 years. Jimmy Carter had solar installed on the White House in the 1970s!

          • Developed countries use nuclear. Both Germany and Japan were early nuclear adopters, and both are now abandoning it. In France, the world's biggest nuclear firm is losing billions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva#2014 China is building more coal or solar capacity than nuclear, and they are clearly able to ignore popular opinion if they wish.

          • Economics - it is fair to say the economics of nuclear are questionable. Certainly the technology has much higher financial risk than renewables where externalities like decomissioning costs, and fuel storage can be accurately costed (obviously near zero).

          • Waste management - waste is an ongoing issue, with every reactor in the world (including Lucas Heights!) storing varying levels of contaminated materials and spent fuels because there are no cheap and easy ways to handle waste. Reprocessing systems are costly, and substantially jeopardise the economics of the system, plus increase risks as dangerous material needs to be transported for processing. And that still leaves concentrated highly radioactive waste, just smaller amounts, which is difficult to sequester. As an example, please advise where I could safely store high level waste. Such a facility does not currently exist.

          • noise, cooling etc. - you seem to see the infrastructure of a wind turbine (a pole) as an insurmountable problem, yet when I mention large facilities, cooling ponds and other stuff the nuclear industry requires, you hand wave it away as nothing of consequence.

          You are a fool letting out hot air so far. Have you got anything constructive to contribute?

        • Serapis on 06/08/2015 - 21:43
          +1

          @mskeggs:

          Nice post! Wanted to also add on a political side, governments need to follow public opinion or get voted out. There is a general negative perception of nuclear reactors due to incidents in the past (mainly Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima) as well as the association of 'nuclear' with the word 'bomb'.

          People generally remember these one off events far better than something which happens over time such as deaths from cars vs planes or coal vs nuclear and this plays into the bias against nuclear power.

          Concerns about the intermittency of renewables can be addressed with batteries. Some have suggested eco-friendly iron-air batteries. However I believe the Ozbargain community can do this by having everyone donate a few Eneloops =P

        • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 03:56
          +1

          If power generation is your field of expertise you should know that onshore wind power is as financially viable as the most efficient combined cycle gas plants.

          Yes nuclear is great, but the initial investment is far greater than that of any other sort of plant.

          Nuclear plants face delay after delay because everything needs to be done properly.

          We don't have the expertise in country. You may have a Doctorate in Nuclear Physics (which is a huge achievement), but you don't have the expertise to build a nuclear plant. Those people are mostly retired. (That said, there is an American school with a degree focused on nuclear plant building, so there is hope).

          Don't get me wrong, all of my criticisms can be satisfied. Just other technologies can be a better option if your nation isn't interested in a nuclear weapons program (which can hide some of the cost).

      • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 03:41

        You want cattle under wind turbines. From memory crops reduce wind speed by around 10km/h.

  • altomic on 05/08/2015 - 21:22
    +2

    did you know that you can turn solar panel into aeroplanes

  • tonyjzx on 06/08/2015 - 07:47
    +5

    this thread is stupid as hell

    compare the impact of solar cells to something like beef farming, the MOTOR CAR, coal fired power stations, overfishing, CSG… you know, the shit that affects us every day

    alternative energy, be it solar, wind or nuclear is an overall good thing

    • edgar28 on 06/08/2015 - 09:44
      -3

      Yeah. Hope ppl stick to the topic than comparing other stuff…..

      Main thing is, everone complain about small cpu wastage for more than 10 years. This big panel is not yet mature in efficiency is widely used and promoted without a full plan on how to dispose it. Our future generations will have to suffer to deal with it

      • This Guy on 07/08/2015 - 04:04
        +2

        The problem with a modern CPU is that there is something like 80 different elements in an object with a similar volume of your thumb. We don't have the technology to separate a CPU into usable pieces after it dies.

        From memory, a solar panel has around five elements (silicon, gallium, arsenic, oxygen, copper). Solar panels are fairly easy to recycle. They just last far longer than anyone expected so there isn't the supply to make good money recycling them yet.

    • ongrudy on 06/08/2015 - 10:18

      How would you know something is good without comparison?

      €1 is a lot if you compare with ¥100.

      • edgar28 on 06/08/2015 - 10:54
        -4

        refering to future generation dealings

        coal produced more pollution, but companies proof that there will be no future generations hardship or have been mitigated.

        solar panel in other hand has not proven that.

        tripple bottom line includes sustainability of environment, coal company in America has proven positive impact on environment overall

        • iseenya on 06/08/2015 - 16:02
          +7

          tripple bottom line includes sustainability of environment, coal company in America has proven positive impact on environment overall

          If you believe that hogwash, you'll believe anything!

        • Serapis on 06/08/2015 - 21:56
          +3

          @edgar28

          You sir need to review your sources, have you not learnt from history?

          Listening to a coal company about positive impacts of coal on the environment is like believing:

          1. Claims by petrol companies around the 1920s that Tetraethyllead in gasoline has no negative impacts on health
          2. Claims by tobacco companies that smoking does not cause cancer
          3. Claims by sugar industry that high fructose corn syrup is not bad for your health

          The US released a Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions and even the market is not that gullible, world population is growing yet the coal industry is in decline across the world as more people switch to cleaner sources of energy (with the exception of Asia which is mainly where the profit is these days.)

          http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4390

          However this massive growth in coal use, mainly from China's rapid growth, has had adverse effects on the health of the population:

          http://fortune.com/2014/11/05/the-cost-of-chinas-dependence-…

          Look at their air quality and compare it to your local suburb:

          http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/

          Australian government not helping either, probably receiving political donations from the lobbyists / coal companies, closed down the Australian Climate Commission and gave $4 mil to some guy (not even a legitimate scientist) to back the use of coal:

          http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbott-gives-4m-to-help-clim…

  • NoClue on 06/08/2015 - 09:49

    I don't understand the gripes, you live in a capitalistic society that survives on consumption so you continue to breed more humans to buy stuff. Shouldn't you be worried that there are over 7 Billion bipedal monkeys running around to double by around 2060, it's only going to get worse. Calculate your true foot print coal, oil, tar, land cleared,roads, pathways, furniture, everything you have own and are probably accumulates to quite a few square KM's of destruction just so you can live.

    CFL's introduced and other energy efficiency > Higher power bills. Solar panel introduction > higher bills. Company has to make money.

    Personally you should be more worried about the government raising the retirement age every so often, If you don't die on the job you are a liability for you are not paying as much tax or spending money to feed the system:)

    Solar panels are the least of your worries, there are one thousand million billion trillion other pollutants that are worse especially those pesky 7 Billion bipeds..

    that's my gripe, yeah I need to get to sleep!!

  • ramshead on 06/08/2015 - 10:05

    Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind also assist in Australia's national defence. Instead of having all our main energy generating resources located in a few large complexes we can have them spread out all over the place. If you were a fighter pilot, what would you rather have to shoot at - a big coal powered plant like the smelly one at Liddell near Singleton, or 4-5 million individual solar panels. Those moving wind vanes would test the skill of the Bloody Red Baron and with all those white poles to knock over a fighter pilot risks getting MSI.

  • Baysew on 06/08/2015 - 10:42
    +3

    Here is a bargain for Solar Panels.
    I'm sure the poster is extremely knowledgeable and wouldn't promote anything with anything that wasn't "Tripple bottom line proof of positive"

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/19320

  • Euphemistic on 06/08/2015 - 11:52
    +3

    We're all doomed, the planet is going to choke on our pollution.

    Now that's out of the way, I'd rather have solar than keep digging up coal and burning it. If they last 20-25 years then it's a damn sight better than a lot of other technology. TVs are old tech in a couple of years and you can't buy parts for pretty much anything electronic so if they break they are scrap.

    Given the solar panels are almost pure silicone and the frames are glass, aluminium and plastic there is a good chance there will be an industry building up when the panels are ready to recycle. Not yet, because there aren't enough of them failing yet.

  • lplau on 06/08/2015 - 13:39

    The OP forgot to read articles saying that Humans is the source of doom.
    It is interesting to read articles about "population growth causing resource depletion".

    Technology will always have its "waste", however without technology we will still be in the stone age.
    Maybe in the future like few hundred years from now, they might make a space ship capable of sending human waste into black holes in space. lol.

  • LeavingTheWheel on 06/08/2015 - 13:47

    So you are targeting the waste in solar panels and yet do not mention about the plastic waste in cars, tv's and every other common household item.

    At least the solar panels provide us with something useful during their lifetime.

    Efficiency is improving and 20-year panel life is a warranty number, not the actual life of a panel.

    Solar is abundant, so the quicker we learn to efficiently harness it the better.

  • Cluster on 06/08/2015 - 14:12

    Car batteries are a poor example of environmental waste. Almost all the lead is recycled into new batteries at end of life.

    I agree that using disposable AA batteries for many applications is extremely wasteful. Imagine if we told consumers they now had to buy a brand new battery for their iPhone every 2 days instead of recharging. People would think you're mad. So why are AA batteries still heavily promoted for short life span usage such as motorised toys?

    Solar panels are one of the most environmentally friendly products a person can buy. Within 3 years the energy used to create the panel is recovered through generated power. The main problem is there are some companies (mostly located in China) that dump pollutants and bribe local officials rather than dispose of the chemicals properly. It's a company problem rather than an inherent problem in the panels themselves.

    • altomic on 06/08/2015 - 21:49

      Car batteries are a poor example of environmental waste. Almost all the lead is recycled into new batteries at end of life.

      they are worth about $5 in scrap. every time I see an abandoned I see a $5 note.

      using disposable AA batteries for many applications is extremely wasteful.

      yes, I think deals on disposable batteries should be banned.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2015 - 14:53

    Can we all just eneloop and move on.

    There are pros and cons with everything we do these days and the is always some for and against.

    Simply put it as what ever floats your boat.

    I'm in the process of putting in a solar array on my roof to which will go to a battery bank controlled by a UPS and feed the house, it will be a semi off the grid install and hopefully my bills will not be like the way they are.

    I can not afford to put a windmill on the roof of my house and that is that.
    Also reports show that the noise generated by the wind farms is a big concern…. If you want some power loook into CSG.

  • KaTst3R on 06/08/2015 - 15:30

    Tough choice….solar panels in landfills or release more carbon by burning fossil fuel….

    • Cluster on 06/08/2015 - 16:12
      +1

      Burning coal does a lot more than release CO2. Coal naturally contains elements such as uranium, thorium, and mercury. Burning coal is a primary cause of mercury pollution and cumulatively has released more radiation into the environment than all nuclear plant accidents.

      But burning hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal releases these elements slowly, spread over the entire plant. So few people notice and even fewer care.

  • npc on 06/08/2015 - 21:52
    +1

    "Solar Panel - Are We Killing Our Planet?" - Yes, but Solar Panels have nothing to do with this.

  • raging on 06/08/2015 - 23:55
    +1

    I have a question for the op. Are you a student is this a topic for an assignment?

    • mskeggs on 07/08/2015 - 08:07
      +5

      Yes, the course is trolling message boards 101

    • retiredfeline on 22/08/2015 - 09:50

      Yeah, I suspect he's a student trying to wind up people to get his homework done for him. Or trying to beat jv for neg votes record.

  • garetz on 07/08/2015 - 05:07

    Humanity has put its own needs above the planets throughout human history, why are you surprised now ? its been happening for 100s of years if not 1000s.

  • Hirolol on 07/08/2015 - 09:25

    You're talking 10-20 years time when all this stuff is starting to get Thrown into land fill.
    I think in 10-20 years time they would have found an efficient way to recycle them.
    You are worrying about something that needs no thought right now.
    They are better for the environment right now and save households money.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2015 - 11:17

    seriously, businessinsider? why bother do you even bother with their articles?

  • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2015 - 13:40

    Any couple who will have more than two children is killing our planet.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2015 - 14:15

    I really find these debates laughable.

    If you really care for the environment keep using your mobile phone and computer for at least 10 years, stop having kids, downsize to a smaller flatscreen TV (or no TV), freeze/heat to death in winter/summer, stop eating beef, stop importing crap from overseas and give up all holidays that involve flights.

    Simply switching off power for a hour "Earth Hour" ain't gonna save the world.

  • highdealer on 07/08/2015 - 17:33

    Ok genius, do you have a better solution?

  • Diji1 on 07/08/2015 - 21:16

    Solar Panel - Are We Killing Our Planet?

    I stopped after that because that's a vague and stupid statement.

  • wtfnodeal on 08/08/2015 - 12:06

    OP is killing me.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join