Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Punx0r said:
OK, your armchair analysis trumps the statements of the people who actually recycle PV modules...
Click to expand...
Of course it does. And if he needs more proof? He will just go to Youtube, search "solar sucks" and post the link to THAT video. Can't argue with proof like that!
 
Hillhater said:
Punx0r said:
OK, your armchair analysis trumps the statements of the people who actually recycle PV modules...
Click to expand...
Really !. :eek: ...like the recycling operator in the first video who clearly stated that most of the panels end up in land filll ?
Click to expand...

Obviously there are differences in the technological maturity of the recycling process in various countries.

Maybe in some countries throwing their old modules just into their landfill is common. That's why I believe that it is good to have harsh rules on recycling.

But just because someone is unwilling or unable to recycling is no proof that recycling is not done in other parts of the world or that recycling is not possible.
 
Hillhater said:
Really !. :eek: ...like the recycling operator in the first video who clearly stated that most of the panels end up in land filll ?
Click to expand...

WEEE-compliant specialist PV recycler Vs. a general recycler who rips out the copper, aluminium, smashes the glass and throws the rest into general waste? Get real.

Has there ever been a process, product, invention or concept that you didn't think sucked and poured scorn on? Were you always the contrarian at work, playing Devil's advocate and giving everyone 50 reasons why their proposals couldn't possibly work?
 
The WEEE recycling process....
The recycling process of silicon-based PV panels starts with disassembling the actual product to separate aluminium and glass parts. Almost all (95%) of the glass can be reused, while all external metal parts are used for re-molding cell frames. The remainder materials are treated at 500°C in a thermal processing unit in order to ease up the binding between the cell elements. Due to the extreme heat, the encapsulating plastic evaporates, leaving the silicon cells ready to be further processed. The supporting technology ensures that not even this plastic is wasted, therefore it is reused as a heat source for further thermal processing....
Click to expand...
..so, basicly ripping out the aluminium, smashing the glass , then burning the rest !
Interesting that burning plastic is now classed as “recycling”
Im not to sure that is much different, or better, to that general recycler.
But , the issue was not the method of recycling ,..but the amount of panels needing to be recycled.
The australian report was bad ,but japan and Germany are dealing with much bigger quantities.
 
Amazing how someone can read almost any meaning they want into an apparently clear statement...

Glass & aluminium are removed
Remains are HEATED to EVAPORATE off the plastic and free the silicon cells
Cells are then further processed to recover & recycle useful elements
The evaporated plastic is used as a heat source for the process (presumably combusted)

Burning plastic isn't much different to burning various oil products.
 
As i said, the issue is the quantity of panels needing recycling (or burying !) NOT the details of the recycling.
..but... “Heating” the remains at 500 C .....sounds much like burning to me ?...
.( “evaporating” and “combusted” are nice pleasant sounding words to describe a burning process !)
 
Hillhater said:
As i said, the issue is the quantity of panels needing recycling (or burying !) NOT the details of the recycling.
..but... “Heating” the remains at 500 C .....sounds much like burning to me ?...
Click to expand...
They heat crude oil to 600C to fractionate it into its components at oil refineries.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-refining4.htm

Do you really think that they are "burning" it all at the refinery? (well, heck, maybe you do)
 
Plastics are polymers typically formed through application of heat and pressure. Heating them again without presence of oxygen and at reduced pressure will probably result in breakages of the chains and reduction of them to monomers without any combustion. I'm an armchair chemist though, somebody may have a more scientific way to describe this.
 
While you guys reference fake baloney stories with no respectable URLs or data and live in the world of BBC, ABC & CNN news, the real information waits for you on the internet to finally get clued up.

Solar panels are a massive contributor to radioactive sludge.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2016/UNSCEAR_2016_Annex-B-CORR.pdf
Check Table 45, Page 210
Don't you dare ignore data from the most professional scientists out there
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Scientific_Committee_on_the_Effects_of_Atomic_Radiation
D3fBcNxXsAACgZl.jpg

https://www.unscear.org/

You guys are globalist slave morons, destroying the planet for no good reason. You all demand mass immigration from the 3rd world which at minimum increases their co2 footprint by a massive 60 times when the reach the 1st world, and their only entrance rule is to consume/buy more coca-cola/iPhones/stuff etc to please the big global companies so their stock prices go up, while the quality of living and the cost of living for everyone else goes down.
It's all supply & demand law.
https://youtu.be/inLeyPeIoaQ?t=533
DvgzPILXQAAdkDp.jpg


Creating countless tons of super toxic radioactive sludge just so you can play games of politics with energy destroying peoples lives and robbing their livelihoods with expensive energy, when we know 4th gen nuclear will come and crush all anyway.

https://youtu.be/GcCQzynid0Y
[youtube]GcCQzynid0Y[/youtube]
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6378498,109.6785017,5851m/data=!3m1!1e3
http://brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows
http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/presse/Pressemitteilungen/Pressemitteilungen-Archiv/2019/Q2/pm_20190417_sd08-Elektroautos.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_solar_cells
https://www.amazon.com/Green-Illusions-Secrets-Environmentalism-Sustainable/dp/0803237758
https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2016/UNSCEAR_2016_Annex-B-CORR.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Scientific_Committee_on_the_Effects_of_Atomic_Radiation
https://stopthesethings.com/2019/05/09/batteries-not-included-trillions-spent-on-storage-wont-save-intermittent-wind-solar/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etching_(microfabrication)#Common_etch_processes_used_in_microfabrication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor#Preparation_of_semiconductor_materials
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/hats/cats/conc.php?site=spo&gas=sf6
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/index.php?code=mlo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride#Other_uses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#CFC_and_SF6_tracer-derived_age_of_ocean_water
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#6318de89121c
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/17/if-renewables-are-so-great-for-the-environment-why-do-they-keep-destroying-it/#4058dee43a1c
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
https://www.epa.gov/f-gas-partnership-programs/semiconductor-industry

Just to make the world look like this for some crapy unreliable power, I would much prefer TREES thanks.
D33xCG7WkAAzQNd.png


All when the best PhD scientists in climatology say there's nothing going on, climate change is all modelling that has no resemblance to what's really happening on the planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
[youtube]fA5sGtj7QKQ[/youtube]
 
TheBeastie said:
the real information waits for you on the internet to finally get clued up.

All when the best PhD scientists in climatology say there's nothing going on, climate change is all modelling that has no resemblance to what's really happening on the planet.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
TheBeastie said:
While you guys reference fake baloney stories with no respectable URLs or data and live in the world of BBC, ABC & CNN news, the real information waits for you on the internet to finally get clued up.
Click to expand...
Irony score 10/10.
 
billvon said:
TheBeastie said:
While you guys reference fake baloney stories with no respectable URLs or data and live in the world of BBC, ABC & CNN news, the real information waits for you on the internet to finally get clued up.
Click to expand...
Irony score 10/10.
Click to expand...

Seriously after all the links you have provided of mythical science you drop a comment like that, damn don't you get it ? It's all fake news we live in a world of brexit and trump logic has gone it's a flat out rat race of countrys all for themselfs believe nothing you havent seen or can not prove unless you want to be a fool.
 
Hillhater said:
cricketo said:
Right, the Earth is still flat until proven otherwise... :lol:
Click to expand...
..and a 0.01% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earths temperature to rise uncontrollably.. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...
CO2 has actually increased by 50%. But nice try! Ignorant people might just believe you - and they are excellent people to target, as Trump has realized.
 
Check the numbers..
CO2 has increased. (in nice simple round numbers).. by 100 ppm in the last 100yrs...(. OK , lets call it 150ppm to keep you from arguing ...even though it is not that much)
150 ppm is 0.015%
CO2 has increased by 0.015% in the atmosphere....FACT
Sure..50% sounds much more dramatic for your agenda when you want to alarm the population...but it doesnt work on intelligent /informed people who understand that even a large % increase in a very small amount ,..is still a very small amount.
PS:.. have you heard the joke about the man who convinced a European Organisation that he knew how to control the Earth’s climate and stop sea levels rising ?... :lol: :lol:
 
So a CO2 goes from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. That is, every cubic metre of atmosphere now has 1.5 times as many CO2 molecules as it used to have. And you're telling me that is the same as a 0.015% increase... You have a very unique way of trolling - by demonstrating a lack of understanding of mathematics you're not helping your case.
 
jonescg said:
So a CO2 goes from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. That is, every cubic metre of atmosphere now has 1.5 times as many CO2 molecules as it used to have. And you're telling me that is the same as a 0.015% increase... You have a very unique way of trolling - by demonstrating a lack of understanding of mathematics you're not helping your case.
Click to expand...

I think he understands it, he just doesn't accept that a change in the concentration of a minor gas can have any significant effect.
 
NY State has published their detailed study for offshore wind and has declared to start with a commitment for 2.3 GW of new wind by 2030 and a long term goal of 100% clean electricity by 2040 (which would need 35 GW summer peak).
.
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Offshore-Wind/Offshore-Wind-in-New-York-State-Overview/NYS-Offshore-Wind-Master-Plan
.
 
Hillhater said:
Check the numbers..
CO2 has increased. (in nice simple round numbers).. by 100 ppm in the last 100yrs...(. OK , lets call it 150ppm to keep you from arguing ...even though it is not that much)
Click to expand...
No need to guess and make up numbers. We can use actual numbers.

CO2 in 1850 was about 280ppm. Now it is 415ppm, as of today. That's an increase of 135ppm, or 48%.

150 ppm is 0.015%
CO2 has increased by 0.015% in the atmosphere....FACT
Click to expand...
Nope. CO2 has increased by 48%. 280 to 415 is an increase of 48%. That's just math, no matter how badly you want to spin it as insignificant.
Sure..50% sounds much more dramatic for your agenda when you want to alarm the population...but it doesnt work on intelligent /informed people who understand that even a large % increase in a very small amount ,..is still a very small amount.
Click to expand...
A very small _amount?_ Let's see if that makes any sense at all:

Total weight of the atmosphere is 5e15 tonnes. If CO2 is 415ppm then it makes up 628ppm of the weight of the atmosphere (since it's heavier than most other gases.) We have increased that by 135ppm. That means we've increased that by 1.03e12 tonnes. That is over a _trillion_ tons.

To put that into human comprehensible figures, the largest animal on the planet (a blue whale) weighs 180 tonnes. That means it would take 5.6 BILLION blue whales to match the weight of the CO2 increase.

Or perhaps by people. There are 7.53 billion people on the planet. If we gave an equal amount to each person on the planet, then each person would have to carry 136 tons of CO2. Can you carry 136 tons of CO2? After all, it is a very small amount!

Looks like the "intelligent/informed people" haven't really thought this one through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
368
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
323
Hillhater
H
J
Some thoughts on the future of automotive EVs
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
7,270
jonescg
jonescg
RustyKipper
    • Like
Ammo box battery with solar charging
Replies
4
Views
721
99t4
9
E
GMAC vs Grin All Axle vs Dual Drive Catrike
2
Replies
28
Views
1,199
edben05
E
Back
Top