Getting Real on Wind and Solar

Washington Post ^ | April 24, 2009 | James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch

[newgeezer]

What state is that?

I'm thinking Hawaii, maybe?

;O)

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Oh, no. Not on Maui? How could they? I haven’t been there in about 10 years. What a disaster.

I simply cannot understand how the envirokooks with their concern for the environment can overlook the ugliness of collections of thousands of these monstrosities.

You really can’t purchase country land anymore for fear they will overrun your area, either.

[Falcon4.0]

I’m well aware of the current recycling of lead acid batteries and also that there are advances in other battery technologies. My comments where to call attention to the fact that most people don’t consider just exactly what all is involved with “Solar Energy Systems”. Again, sunshine is “clean”. Solar Energy takes toxic materials and chemicals. I currently work with someone who was an Engineer at a leading Photovoltaic Manufacturer here in Delaware. He told me that the chemicals used to manufacture photovolts need to be kept in polyethylene container due to there corrosive nature. Inevitably, these materials will leach into the ground from broken and or neglected panels once they are as common as household skylights. Manageable? Perhaps, but again not as pure as is the common belief.

[Wonder Warthog]

"He told me that the chemicals used to manufacture photovolts need to be kept in polyethylene container due to there corrosive nature. Inevitably, these materials will leach into the ground from broken and or neglected panels once they are as common as household skylights."

Uh, the chemicals "used in the manufacture" and those contained in the panels themselves are very likely to be quite different. Lots of acids, bases, etc. are used in various cleaning steps to prepare the substrates for processing, but these do NOT end up in the final product. AFAIK, neither silicon nor CIGS materials "leaches into the ground from broken or neglected panels", nor, or they themselves "corrosive". So there is nothing "inevitable" about it.

[rabidralph]

Thank you. A few more words, ineffective and inefficient.

[rabidralph]

Here's a great resource for information at windaction.org.

I went with some friends to the Fond Du Lac area of Wisconsin and we saw all the turbines (400 feet tall) marring the farmland. What used to be a view of beautiful, rolling hills was now a stack of noisy, industrial pinwheels, with blinking red lights.

And when the wind doesn't blow, they don't turn, unless they are assisted by electricity. So they're using power to make power and then not generating enough power to do much of anything useful. Would any of you want your hospital or your home running on wind power 24/7?

[Falcon4.0]

and car batteries don't end up in illegal dumps, and tires don't end up in swamps, and disposed pharmaceuticals do not get into the water tables.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree and let time determine who is right.

[Wonder Warthog]

"..and car batteries don't end up in illegal dumps, and tires don't end up in swamps, and disposed pharmaceuticals do not get into the water tables."

All of the above is true, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The correct way to look at this is whether the manufacture and use of solar cells adds to or subtracts from the total environmental impact load. I think by any calculation, the burning of coal is far worse (and I'm NOT talking about CO2, I'm talking about mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and a whole host of other toxics, in the tons to megatons range). That fly ash and slag has to go somewhere, y'know.

[Falcon4.0]

"I'm talking about mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and a whole host of other toxics, in the tons to megatons range). That fly ash and slag has to go somewhere, y'know."

Well all of those things are already in the coal which is in the ground. Technology can deal with the ash and those substance. My original comment was that "Solar Energy" is not as clean as most people think and I stand by that statement. I agree that coal and every other form of energy is not "clean" as well and in my opinion no energy source will ever be "Clean". However they are reliable and that is an important aspect. Coal plants will still need to be on-line when the sun don't shine and it takes days to start a cold plant so they'll always need to be ready. Peoples lives depend on energy, especially the sick and elderly and I for one am not willing to risk peoples lives on a Government mandated Science Experiment.

Feel free to have the last word.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Well all of those things are already in the coal which is in the ground."

The problem with this little rosey comment is that when you remove the hydrocarbons by burning, the level of toxics in the emitted wastes increases by orders of magnitude.

"Technology can deal with the ash and those substance."

And so can technology deal with any "emissions" from solar cells, which emissions are many orders of magnitude less than those from coal.

"Coal plants will still need to be on-line when the sun don't shine and it takes days to start a cold plant so they'll always need to be ready."

Actually, they don't. It turns out that "solar thermal" plants can do quite nicely without any backup fossil fuel plants. They do so by storing the necessary energy AS HEAT (molten salt). In the past I ignored "solar thermal" because it was relatively "low tech" compared to photovoltaics, but the numbers are pretty convincing. "Solar Thermal" needs sixteen hours of storage to eliminate the need for fossil backup. And it seems to me (though I've not seen it suggested), that a "natural-gas/solar" hybrid combined cycle plant makes a lot of sense. Burn the NG in a gas turbine, store the heat from the turbine's exhaust in the molten salt. Best of all worlds.