And all the toxic crud caused in mining and smelting those rare earth elements to make the magnets for the electric car motors
Same for magnets used in wind generators.
Posted on 07/02/2017 7:32:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants, according to a Thursday report from the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress (EP).
The report found that solar panels use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment. The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for, but very little has been done to mitigate solar waste issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Dang. There goes the solar panel wall idea.
And people think electric cars save energy!!! You still have to charge the batteries with oil or coal-fired electrical factories. Geez these morons drive me apes$&@
Perhaps but it’s not as potent. Still not environmentally friendly though...
And all the toxic crud caused in mining and smelting those rare earth elements to make the magnets for the electric car motors
Same for magnets used in wind generators.
Same for those fluorescent light bulbs with mercury inside.
Industry propaganda. As soon as I read the line about recycling sulfuric acid, I knew it was BS. To the best of my knowledge, sulfuric acid is not recycled. It is either used up in the process or neutralized with sodium hydroxide to make salt (NaCl) which is what you use to make your food taste better, and water.
Plus I know from experience (industrial accidents) that you can dump a lot of sulfuric acid into the soil without contaminating it.
The biggest problem with it is the severe damage it can cause to carbon-based organisms with which it comes in contact. Don’t forget your PPE folks!
They’re not talking about recycling sulfuric acid, the paragraph refers to the difficulty of recycling the panels themselves [whether sulfuric acid goes into their manufacture or not] because the panels will have to be recycled frequently due to short lifespans.
“They’re not talking about recycling sulfuric acid...”
From the article:
“Terry said that solar panels use hazardous materials like sulfuric acid and toxic phosphine gas in their manufacturing. Recycling these materials is extremely difficult...”
How have I erred in what I posted?
Everyone has an agenda. Apparently, the report was prepared by a pro-nuclear group. It also states that “The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for...”
How did that planning thing work out for the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi plant? I would take this report with a grain of salt. Do the research yourself. I am not taking sides in this debate but be well aware that both the solar, and nuclear ‘industries’ have agendas and are competitors.
All that ‘organic’ power from wind and solar turns out to be more then double the cost of coal, oil, gas, nuclear and more toxic and a cuisinart to birds when it is not frying them or blinding pilots flying by.
“Spent” sulfuric acid is commonly regenerated; a form of recycling. Oil refineries do it constantly.
http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000330,Spent_sulphuric_acid_regeneration__SAR__process.html
Phosphine gas ...and probably Arsine gas
These are used in an Ion Implant machine to inject atoms of Phosporous or Arsenic to alter the atomic structure of silicone to be either 1 electron added or 1 electron less
That is N type or P type semiconductor material.
the quintity used is minuscule
Ion implanter:
Phosphine bottle:
Bury it in thousands of feet of stable salt in the earth and do not worry about it.
As crazy as this sounds you could also dump it in the ocean in a subduction zone. Put it in a monel steal casing and drop it. The projectile would bury itself in the deep sediment and over millions of years be subducted into the earth.
Politics is the problem, not engineering.
The insane Russians dumped nuclear reactor cores into the arctic ocean during the time it was the Soviet Union. Not a good method of disposal to say the least. The environmental damage has been minimal.
Thanks for the info. I did not know that. I am now less ignorant than I was when I posted my comments.
They had a perfectly functioning nuclear reactor. They did not plan for cooling it in the case of coolant failure due to the tsunami. They knew they were in a zone of tsunamis and chose to ignore the problem. The reactors melted down due to lack of coolant water and power supple for the pumps. Just a few tens of thousands of dollars in diesel engine driven water pumps would have prevented this.
This was a case of engineering malfeasance.
Thanks for the info. Until today I had never heard of phosphine. Sounds like nasty stuff. Here’s its MSDS
http://www.fumigationservice.com/pdf/MSDS_CELPHOS.pdf
They really aren’t factoring Fukushima in these calculations, are they.
The statement is correct as far as it goes, sure we can plan for the handling of nuclear wastes but that does not mean nature can’t upset those plans.
Solar panels also contain Selenium, which is fairly rare I think.
Does Nasty Pelosi have solar panels above her bedroom? If so all that toxic waste from them may explain what happened to her looks. She was pretty in her yoot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.