Solar panels not as green as you think

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Solar panels aren’t as environmentally friendly as you may think. And now an industry group is saying looming tariffs will cripple the industry.

The bulk of solar panels are imported into the U.S., making them cheaper but not necessarily green.

The problem is how the panels are made.

"Most of [the panels] are produced with energy from carbon-dioxide-belching, coal-burning plants in China," a Wall Street Journal report said in July.

"Solar panels in China are made using Chinese electricity, which is associated with high emissions of CO2," Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, told FOX Business.

But now a group is claiming China-made panels are coming via countries like Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand in order to skirt tariffs.

In August, the American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention (A-SMACC) asked the Commerce Department to investigate "unfairly traded" imports from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam of solar cells and modules that are "unlawfully circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on China."

"While Chinese companies now almost exclusively export to the United States from Southeast Asia, the vast majority of manufacturing, research and development, and capital investment remain in China," according to the A-SMACC.

"I am not sure if Malaysia and Vietnam have that much production capacity, so some might be ‘rerouted’ from other countries due to the duties and bans," Fengqi You, a professor at Cornell’s Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, told FOX Business.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/solar-panels-green-tariff-battle

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The problem with that argument is that solar panels only require energy when they are built. Then they produce power for the next 20-30 years with no emissions.

That is unlike fossil fuels that produce emissions when drilled/mined and then produce emissions when used and then have to be replaced every time they are used with new fossil fuels that produce emissions.

Solar panels - 1 month of emissions when produced.
Fossil fuels - 360 month of emissions.

No one is saying solar panels have no impact. It is just obvious to anyone with a brain that they have less of an impact than fossil fuels.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

The problem with that argument is that solar panels only require energy when they are built. Then they produce power for the next 20-30 years with no emissions.

That is unlike fossil fuels that produce emissions when drilled/mined and then produce emissions when used and then have to be replaced every time they are used with new fossil fuels that produce emissions.

Solar panels - 1 month of emissions when produced.
Fossil fuels - 360 month of emissions.

No one is saying solar panels have no impact. It is just obvious to anyone with a brain that they have less of an impact than fossil fuels.

We can't be sure to that fact as we don't have performance stats and how often they have to be replaced. If you were serious about your fossil fuel beliefs, every plane in the country would be grounded immediately, you aren't that serious

can't say the same for electric power cars due to the foot print of lithium batteries in addition the electric pull on power grids.

 

[zappasguitar]

We can't be sure to that fact as we don't have performance stats and how often they have to be replaced. If you were serious about your fossil fuel beliefs, every plane in the country would be grounded immediately, you aren't that serious

can't say the same for electric power cars due to the foot print of lithium batteries in addition the electric pull on power grids.

I thought the topic was solar panels?

Now all of a sudden you want to talk about electric cars and grounding planes.

 

[Noking]

So, what's the point of this thread???? Is the purpose of this Fox News article to protect fossil fuel plants from green energy????????????

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

We can't be sure to that fact as we don't have performance stats and how often they have to be replaced. If you were serious about your fossil fuel beliefs, every plane in the country would be grounded immediately, you aren't that serious

can't say the same for electric power cars due to the foot print of lithium batteries in addition the electric pull on power grids.

ROFLMAO.
So let's all just pretend that we know nothing about electronics like you do. We do have performance stats for leds, solar voltaics and transistors in general. The fact that you are an idiot doesn't make the rest of us idiots.

Your repeating the idiotic all or nothing fallacy, only confirms you are an idiot. Reducing emissions doesn't mean we have to stop them tomorrow. That is the only way you can try to win the argument because the actual facts defeat your idiocy the minute you open your mouth.

Lithium batteries are like solar cells. They require energy and materials when produced but then they have a lifespan where they have no emissions. Currently technology is being developed to recycle everything in the lithium batteries. They don't just get thrown away. It's the interesting thing about atoms. They don't disappear. It's just what is the cost needed to separate them from other molecules.

 

[zappasguitar]

So, what's the point of this thread???? Is the purpose of this Fox News article to protect fossil fuel plants from green energy????????????

This is just another one of MAGA's "gotcha" threads.

He thinks by posting his idiotic "all or nothing" fallacy, he's being clever.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

ROFLMAO.
So let's all just pretend that we know nothing about electronics like you do. We do have performance stats for leds, solar voltaics and transistors in general. The fact that you are an idiot doesn't make the rest of us idiots.

Your repeating the idiotic all or nothing fallacy, only confirms you are an idiot. Reducing emissions doesn't mean we have to stop them tomorrow. That is the only way you can try to win the argument because the actual facts defeat your idiocy the minute you open your mouth.

Lithium batteries are like solar cells. They require energy and materials when produced but then they have a lifespan where they have no emissions. Currently technology is being developed to recycle everything in the lithium batteries. They don't just get thrown away. It's the interesting thing about atoms. They don't disappear. It's just what is the cost needed to separate them from other molecules.

as usual the liberal morons start with the insults when they run out of substance including the butt pirate Zappa. Liberals can't help but let their dumbass slide out

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

This is just another one of MAGA's "gotcha" threads.

He thinks by posting his idiotic "all or nothing" fallacy, he's being clever.

shut up fag

 

[Noking]

This is just another one of MAGA's "gotcha" threads.

He thinks by posting his idiotic "all or nothing" fallacy, he's being clever.

I think that you just hit a sore spot with MAGA.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Poor Trumpet, Solar panels aren't the answer and ROI is so long that they new tariffs may put them out

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

as usual the liberal morons start with the insults when they run out of substance including the butt pirate Zappa. Liberals can't help but let their dumbass slide out

I see you didn't understand any of the facts I included in my post so you have to pretend I only insulted you. I guess when you as stupid as you are when things are explained to you, you consider it an insult.

Do you stand by your claim that we know nothing about performance statistics for solar voltaic electronics?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Poor Trumpet, Solar panels aren't the answer and ROI is so long that they new tariffs may put them out

Current solar panels last 20-25 years and have an ROI of 10 years. A 25% tariff on imports would add less than 10% to the cost of a solar panel install. The majority of the cost is labor when it comes to installing solar panels. That would mean the ROI would go from 10 years to 11 years with a 20-25 your lifespan.

 

[Nordberg]

Fossil fuels release pollution that creates huge health consequences. The oil plants have pockets of sick men, women, and children in the vicinity. They are a disaster to Americans in many ways. They have incredible political power and help cause corruption in politics. They bribe regulators so they can keep poisoning the air land and water. The sooner we can get away from the prototypical fat cats, the better we will be.

 

[BartenderElite]

Neither is oil.

That's the idea of investing more in solar. It's still a new technology. We need to make it more efficient, cheaper & better - and it will get there.

Why are conservatives against alternatives? It makes no sense. I hate it when something becomes a "liberal" issue, because people will oppose it for that reason only.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with that argument is that solar panels only require energy when they are built. Then they produce power for the next 20-30 years with no emissions.

That is unlike fossil fuels that produce emissions when drilled/mined and then produce emissions when used and then have to be replaced every time they are used with new fossil fuels that produce emissions.

Solar panels - 1 month of emissions when produced.
Fossil fuels - 360 month of emissions.

No one is saying solar panels have no impact. It is just obvious to anyone with a brain that they have less of an impact than fossil fuels.

The first problem is half the time they produce nothing... What do you use then?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Neither is oil.

That's the idea of investing more in solar. It's still a new technology. We need to make it more efficient, cheaper & better - and it will get there.

Why are conservatives against alternatives? It makes no sense. I hate it when something becomes a "liberal" issue, because people will oppose it for that reason only.

If solar panels were free, solar would still end up more expensive than abandoning it for fossil fuels or nuclear.

 

[BartenderElite]

If solar panels were free, solar would still end up more expensive than abandoning it for fossil fuels or nuclear.

I don't think the future is just solar. It will be a combo - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal. Probably stuff we haven't even thought of yet.

It's not fossil, without any doubt whatsoever. Nuclear? Maybe. Not opposed to it, but the waste issue is a real issue.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The first problem is half the time they produce nothing... What do you use then?

It's interesting how my energy usage is greater during the day than at night. It's also interesting how the energy usage for the area is the same. The other interesting thing is how wind tends to be stronger at night.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't think the future is just solar. It will be a combo - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal. Probably stuff we haven't even thought of yet.

It's not fossil, without any doubt whatsoever. Nuclear? Maybe. Not opposed to it, but the waste issue is a real issue.

Tidal is a bust. It's inefficient and grossly expensive. Geothermal only works some places. Solar and wind are worthless. Nuclear backed by natural gas is the future if you want reasonably priced, reliable, electricity. Hydro is fine where you can get it, but that's a matter of geography.

Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel for this and would be used for peaking plants to handle variable loads. Nuclear handles base loading at around 80% of total load. Thus, you have a tiny footprint for the plants, a simple grid, and it is highly reliable. Solar and wind are too variable to be base load, and given the uncertainty of weather are unreliable.