Here is why:
Posted on 08/04/2015 8:32:39 AM PDT by Titus-Maximus
It turns out that because of the emissions of extraordinarily potent greenhouse gases NF3 and SF6 and energy during the manufacture of solar modules, solar energy ends up being worse for the climate than burning coal (assuming the global warming hypothesis is valid).
A Swiss engineer has made a thorough analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the manufacture, transport and operation of solar panels. His conclusion:
Ferrucio Ferroni writes here how China is the number 1 manufacturer of solar panels globally and that the production of solar panels there requires immense amounts of electricity, which in China is mainly produced by coal power plants. Moreover the manufacture of solar panels also involves substantial amounts of potent greenhouse gases that leak out into the atmosphere.
The result Ferroni writes:
The comparison on CO2 emissions of a modern coal power plant and that of a PV system shows that per kilowatt-hour of power produced, PV systems damage the climate more. This statement is true if the hypothesis of the IPCC is correct to start with.”
Ferroni writes that it is accepted as fact the coal power plants emit carbon dioxide. But what is little known is that PV systems also lead to the emission of considerable quantities greenhouse gases – not during their operation, but during their manufacture.
Ferroni writes that when calculating the climate impacts of PV systems per unit, it is first necessary to account for the energy used in their manufacture in China, which involves the processing of solar silizium. Silizium processing involves considerable amounts of chemicals and raw materials. Also the manufacture of peripheral systems and their subsequent transport of materials to Europe and North America and their modest outputs in many northern locations have to be taken into account.
(Excerpt) Read more at notrickszone.com ...
Maybe someone should mention it to Barry before he covers half of America in solar panels.
Nuclear still beats solar. Its cheaper than coal. Its safe, if you actually maintain it.
So, does this story sound similar to the corn-based ethanol plan which was supposed to solve our fossil fuel problems?
Don’t forget the caustic materials used in the manufacturing process of solar panels that have to be dumped somewhere as well.
This is kind of like the Prius drivers who don’t factor the manufacturing impact into their supposedly lower carbon footprint.
Better to drive the car you already have for another 3 or 4 years, but then, that won’t feed your ego.
Maybe this would be a greener way to build solar panels - http://www.greenjoyment.com/warm-up-with-beer-can-solar-collectors. Drink up! :-)
AND they’re GREAT for enriching politically connected cronies!
Takes more energy to make ethanol than we get out of it too...
Why? If Obama could poison us while extolling the virtues of a fake pollution free life, he would leap at the opportunity.
Ethanol seems politically bulletproof.
Combine the ag lobby with progressives and you get a weed that can’t be eradicated.
Food stamps probably the best example.
Who cares? They make ‘em in China! Chinese greenhouse gases don’t affect climate - only American gases do. Didn’t you get 0bama’s memo?
Certainly true for anhydrous ethanol.
That's one helluva assumption!
It says they don’t have to be beer cans... Obviously, they know nothing of science!
What’s that term again ? Yeah, inconvenient truth., in this case facts.
I am not a denier, I don’t deny that the liberals and environmentalist want to destory America’s economy.
Especially the pebble bed reactors.
I thought Solar panels came from unicorn butts?
Here is why:
Logic and facts might matter if Barry and his alarmist cohort were really interested in warming/climate change. They're not. It's all about concentration of power and world socialism.
Those who study the matter find there's no relationship between production of atmospheric CO2 and warming. The geological record shows warming occurs first, followed 600 or so years later by a rise in CO2. Their whole argument is based on junk science scare tactics. But what does that matter if people believe it? To take a cue from Lincoln, politicians can fool enough of the people enough of the time.
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.