Harris wants to reclaim abandoned land mines

Primavera said:
The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.
Click to expand...
Prove it pissant.
 
anatta said:
oh snap!
how is this not a concern?
Click to expand...
Because it is bullshit.
Have you no logic of your own?
Solar energy strikes the earth at an average strength of 1,000 watts per square meter.
Of this, panels absorb aproximately 25% of the energy. How would this cause an increase in ambient temperature when 1 /4 of the energy is removed by the panels?

Also note that panels are not replaced after 15 years, this is an outright lie.
The nondisputed truth is that they last for an inderterminate time, far longer than even double this lying POS claims. In fact after 30 years panels still output 85% of their design output. When they are replaced they are shipped to 3rd world countries where they are used for another thirty years if not longer.

Note that the panels mounted on the rooftop of the Whitehouse by Jimmy Carter are still viable, 42 years later.
 
Rune said:
Because it is bullshit.
Have you no logic of your own?
Solar energy strikes the earth at an average strength of 1,000 watts per square meter.
Of this, panels absorb aproximately 25% of the energy. How would this cause an increase in ambient temperature when 1 /4 of the energy is removed by the panels?

Also note that panels are not replaced after 15 years, this is an outright lie.
The nondisputed truth is that they last for an inderterminate time, far longer than even double this lying POS claims. In fact after 30 years panels still output 85% of their design output. When they are replaced they are shipped to 3rd world countries where they are used for another thirty years if not longer.

Note that the panels mounted on the rooftop of the Whitehouse by Jimmy Carter are still viable, 42 years later.
Click to expand...
i made no such claim about raising temp. I am concerned about solar farms, not those mounted on a roof
The biggest problem is the YUGE land areas needed for our cities..I dont think we can do it

I also posted about solar farms (actual agriculture) did you see that?
 
anatta said:
i made no such claim about raising temp. I am concerned about solar farms, not those mounted on a roof
The biggest problem is the YUGE land areas needed for our cities..I dont think we can do it

I also posted about solar farms (actual agriculture) did you see that?
Click to expand...
For what it is worth, IMHO, solar panels should not be mounted on the ground, with few exceptions, such as landfills airports or alongside highways.

From a totally green perspective trees absorb more carbon than that offset by solar panels due to mechanical losses and the fact that nature is very efficient.
Cutting down trees to put up solar panels is not green.

Note, It must be made clear that there is no single silver bullet solution. Our efforts must include all available technology, wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, wave and tidal current, hydro, algae, etc.
and new safe nuclear tech should be installed wherever possible.

Solar and wind alone cannot do the job.
 
Rune said:
For what it is worth, IMHO, solar panels should not be mounted on the ground, with few exceptions, such as landfills airports or alongside highways.

From a totally green perspective trees absorb more carbon than that offset by solar panels due to mechanical losses and the fact that nature is very efficient.
Cutting down trees to put up solar panels is not green.

Note, It must be made clear that there is no single silver bullet solution. Our efforts must include all available technology, wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, wave and tidal current, hydro, algae, etc.
and new safe nuclear tech should be installed wherever possible.

Solar and wind alone cannot do the job.
Click to expand...
so we're gonna wind up using wood pellets for heat like Germany?
 
anatta said:
so we're gonna wind up using wood pellets for heat like Germany?
Click to expand...
We already do. Millions of tons per year. They are sold at every Home Depot.

In Europe though, they are often used as fuel for co-generation systems, in which electricity is generated and the waste heat is used as heat, either domestic or regionally, which raises overall system efficiency dramatically.
 
Rune said:
We already do. Millions of tons per year. They are sold at every Home Depot.
Click to expand...
but not on the scale as Germany ( which use heavy subsides) and new bans on nat gas heating.

I find it BIZARRE that burning tress is carbon neutral, but nat gas is not
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
smarter people than you know all this shit, clown, and can work around it. nobody said it would be easy, or we would get trump stooges to do it. just lay back down and keep watching those Hee-Haw reruns, boy. we will let you know when you can talk.
Click to expand...

Smarter people advocate for nuclear and natural gas not wind and solar. T. Boone Pickens, an energy giant in Texas abandoned wind after trying to develop it. He saw the limitations.

By the way, which countries use the most solar and wind? Which countries have the highest cost for electricity? Which states in the US have the most? Where is the cost of electricity the highest?

You can talk smack all you want but you obviously don't know a thimble full of anything about energy and how electricity is produced and distributed.
 
Rune said:
We already do. Millions of tons per year. They are sold at every Home Depot.

In Europe though, they are often used as fuel for co-generation systems, in which electricity is generated and the waste heat is used as heat, either domestic or regionally, which raises overall system efficiency dramatically.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons Germany's CO2 production has gone UP in recent years, rather than down...
 
anatta said:
but not on the scale as Germany ( which use heavy subsides) and new bans on nat gas heating.

I find it BIZARRE that burning tress is carbon neutral, but nat gas is not
Click to expand...
That is because you don't understand what carbon neutral means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top