solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.
Environmentalists genuinely have shit for brains as they continue to blatantly ignore solutions that are in everyone's best interests.
>>16255186>300 times more>Comparing N-P silicon and plastic with fucking fission product isotopes.I would eat 1 kg of grinded solar panels in my life time but not even 1 ng of that shit. The comparison is very twitter-like, absolute retarded as my "then eat it" argument.
>>16255186How much "toxic waste" would the equivalent amount of wattage created by petroleum generate?
>>16255252>petroleum generate?That's not fair, the OP isn't arguing in favor of fossil fuels, come on.
these seem to be pretty trivial to recycle? dont they recycle curcuitboards all the time?
Aside from toxic waste: How much total energy does it take to manufacture a solar panel? It must be quite a lot because you have to melt silicon, basically you have to melt rock.Does the panel produce more than that amount of energy over its lifetime?Could you build a solar panel factory powered only by solar panels? I would like to see that. And no cheating, no use of any other power source.
>>16255213This, what exactly is that solar panel toxic waste, what effects does it have on the environment and biota, and how long does it linger for?I'm just asking because, ya know, nuCLear waste is a seriously expensive mess, even for rich countries:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOWQgLeRM-M
>>16255262>melt siliconmaking glass, we've mastered that on a massive scale.Solar paneling is extremely cheap to produce nowadays.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAU5D8hqIUI
>>16255186
>>16255256Recycling solar panels is trivial, but not a lot of facilities exist that can do it right now. As solar sees more adoption and recycling becomes economical, recycling facilities will be built.
>>16255282raw solar panels are fragile as fuck. they arent kidding when they call them wafers.
>>16255213>>16255272Okay samefag, heavy metals is one of the toxic waste. Eg arsenic. With radioactive products, you could put them in lead canisters then bury it without worrying about the radiation leakage. With heavy metals, it goes to water and soil anyway and contaminates everything
>>16255334apologize for your arrogance
>>16255334>arsenicNormal solar cells have boron, phosphorous, gallium or arsenic as doping elements in just a few ppm. Black sand beaches are far more "harmful".LEDs, GHz transistors have far more arsenic but as any semiconductor in the form of a glass-like solid that is stable and easy to dispose compared to coal ash or nuclear waste. Thin film solar cells were far nastier but they're rare. NiCd batteries are order of magnitude worse (no glass-like solids and far more toxic substances) but they didn't cause a ecological catastrophe or a no-man zone like some "minors nuclear accident".
>>16255256>dont they recycle curcuitboards all the time?don't know but i doubt it. i've seen documentaries of huge wastelands covered in electric garbage in congo and indonesia, with barefoot kids crawling around finding things to savage
>>16255281>the opportunitiesnot reality, just a theory.>evaporating plasticit'll be fine.>chemicals and water used at every stepminor loss of resources that can be ignored. added chemicals are not part of the original item, so can be ignored.timestamp from that blog is around the same time germany declared itself as 100% renewable. until russian gas stopped flowing.not saying things can't be recycled, but there's a lot of work to be done before you can just wave it away and claim it's recyclable.
>>16255186anon, try eating a few mg of active uranium or plutonium and see what happens to youlso, twitter is not a source of news, retard.
>>16255360why bury them?
>>16255262>basically you have to melt rock.That doesn't cost as much energy as you might think. Silicon's heat capacity is 0.71 J/g K, and heat of fusion is 50.55 kJ/mol.heating: (1000g)*(0.71J/g K)*(1687K - 273K) = 1,003,940J = 1003.94kJmelting: (1000g/28g/mol Si)*50.55kJ/mol = 1805.35 kJ Total = 2,809.29kJOr about 780.36 W/hr so about 10 cents worth of electrify, cheaper from any other heat source.Of course, simply melting the silicon isn't really the cost which determines how much a solar cell costs. In general I think of it in terms of how much energy would you need to produce and cell from the cell in order to return the cost to produce the cell. Right now you can buy about 5 Watts per 1$ of solar cells from aliexpress, meaning you need to generate about 6.7 kW/hr of electricity from that cell before it pays for itself. That is about 1333 hours of sunlight, or 167 days of 8 hours a day in direct sunlight.So that means in terms of economic units of dollars and using the trade exchange between America and china you can produce enough energy which can theoretically pay off the cost of the solar cells production in less than half a year. To me, that means it is in fact very efficient at transforming resources into energy. You can't make hardly any investment which pays that much in so little time. If someone found an extremely cheap way to make long lasting solar panels they could make a lot of money trading with china to get cells.That sounds great, but in actuality the cell cost and the panel cost are quite a bit different. It could cost as much as 1$ per watt to turn the cells into panels, and up to 4-5$ per watt to get them installed if you are getting ripped off from a solar installer, not to mention the cost of land, and energy transmission system to the grid.That pushes profitability back further to several years, or practically never depending on how much you pay.Not to mention the uncertainly of trade between america and china.
>>16255383monument to the stupidity of gretatards for future archaeologists to discover
>>16255336>>16255334Apologize, shitface
>>16255383you now know why they call it a landfill. becuase the best method of dealing with garbage and waste is to bury it and cover it with dirt.
>>16255186>toxic wasteYou planning on eating the solar panels? If not, you can easily use them for construction.
>>16255413>t. I have have never constructed anything and I have no idea how construction works and no training in the field whatsoever
>>16255370People that sell fossil fuel based energy are literally shaking in their boots right now. They already can see that people are just going to buy the solar panels plus a battery and never pay for electricity again. This nuclear energy resurgence came a little bit too late. It’s over.
>>16255186~80-85% of solar panel is glass. Glass is recycled easily.~10% is just aluminum. The rest is small amounts of plastic/polymers And thin layer of PV cells that are mainly made up of silicon and a thin amount of semi conductor materialsThere are also some copper wires.Glass/Aluminium/Silicon/Copper have ~90+% recycling rate.Plastics have ~70% recycling rate. Effectively, something like 95% of the stuff is recycled on industrial level quite easily.
>>16255213Thank you for managing to perfectly illustrate the issue facing nuclear, that the average fuck is a retard.
>>16255186>it's another "rightoid suddenly cares about the environment when it's politically expedient for them" episodei get so tired of these reruns
>>16255416People literally use coal ash as building material, using solar cells as sand isn't that different.Try the same with recycled concrete of a normal nuclear reactor*.>* that shouldn't be really radioactive
>>16255383They are mining them
>>16255334>solar panels have dangerous heavy metal that leech into the soil and water>nuclear waste on the other hand can be encapsulated in safe heavy metal and buried, where it totally doesn't leech parts of the contents or the containment into soil and waterkek
>>16255308That's irrelevant. They would be resmelted.
>>16255456>ash and solar panels are the same thingthanks for the info professor dunning kruger
>>16255213>>Comparing N-P silicon and plastic with fucking fission product isotopes.yes
>>16255386Nice, I appreciate someone who runs the numbers!I’m still skeptical that you could run a solar panel factory powered only by solar panels, but I’m not good enough with mathematical modeling to confirm that. I suspect you would still have to burn some diesel or some other power source to close the loop. I would include mining and transport as part of the manufacturing process. I’d like to see the whole supply and delivery chain solar powered.
>>16255512>yes>needs 24/7 securityVery safe kek.Locals still are trying to remove (using the gov to avoid wasting their money) that fuel.
>>16255512>safely storedyeah, looks looks like incredibly safe storage for the next 100000 yearsyou just know it'll stay there too until the company that produced goes out of business and goes>oh yeah, that stuff. guess the .gov has to find some rug to sweep it under. sorry not sorry
>>16255422I still think that they should build the nuclear power plants tho. If some sort of natural disaster happens and the sun is blocked for many years or even decades they can just be switched on instead.https://www.history.com/news/536-volcanic-eruption-fog-eclipse-worst-year
>>16255604>536The drop in sunlight for energy generation (a few %) is nothing compared to the crop collapse... You can't fix that with nuclear energy.
>>16255454Could be a leftoid today. "Solar panels are used by rich people and thus evil."
>>16255544>>16255575It has literally zero effect on anything around it. And when the salt mine storage facilities come to collect it, it never will ever in the future either.
>>16255612You don't have to worry about retards stealing/blowing up a dump of solar cells...
>>16255614Yeah just enjoy the environment breaking them down to dissolve into your food and then bloodstream and sterilize you, automatically!
>>16255616>oh no, sand!>dissolve into your food and then bloodstream and sterilize youJust like Iodide 131... That isotope is almost an anti-life trick>I-131>Sr-90>Cs-137
>>16255426>Plastics have ~70% recycling rate.they most certainly do not. it's something like only 10% of plastics are actually recyclable. the rest are dumped off in SEA
>>16255653>90% dumped off in SEA..>The world produces around 350 million tonnes of plastic waste each year.>The researchers estimated that about 500,000 metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year, 0.14% vs 90%...>0.13 of that 0.14% comes from 3 or 4 shitholes
>>16255272A lot of this shit gets shipped off to other countries like Nigeria to be recycled.
>>16255422And every time it snows, I have to climb on my roof in order to get the snow off. Sounds incredibly dangerous; no thanks.
>>16255610no anon it's not. it's a rightoid that doesn't give a shit about the environment and just wants to tear down green energy initiatives whenever possible. i've seen this play out too many times over the past several years.
>>16255730https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/03/31/californias-rooftop-solar-program-collides-with-equity-concerns-1369173Yearly solar panels on roof tax because rich people using solar panels means poor people gotta pay more to use non-solar panels.
>>16255732Similar response about "rich escaping to mars" nonsense from the left.
>>16255607>year 536>a mysterious fog rolled over Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia.You can still plant crops on the other continents and export them. In this scenario, the solar panels would be useless in the listed continents.>year 1815>Like the 1815 Mount Tambora eruption-the deadliest volcanic eruption on record-this eruption was big enough to alter global climate patterns, causing years of famine.This one was more dangerous.
>>16255732if OP was actually concerned about this, he'd have posted about it but he didn't so as far as i'm concerned you're just trying to make excuses for him.
>>16255186Just throw it in the ocean haha lmao how is this even an issue
>>16255730>green>solar panels choose one
>>16255929This, if you want an energy source that is truly green, choose one that enhances the atmosphere by adding plant food to it. Coal, oil & natural gas are the 3 greenest energy sources.
>>16255186Not to mention they put holes in your roof when companies install them. People put these fuckers on their 50 thousand dollar roofs.
>>16255604no proof this ever happened, go back to /x/
>>16255186>Of the active 416 nuclear reactors, the mean age is about 32 years. Among the 29 reactors that have shut over the past five years, the average age was less than 43 years, Schneider says.Why do nuclear spergs act like it has some vastly better lifecycle than solar? They hit a huge maintenance wall in their later life.
>>16255334>>16255336>>16255396>did not apologizeyou narcissistic piece of shit
>>16255941It’s in the linked article.
>>16255713Eventually you won’t have to.
>>16255186Capitalism and glowniggetry will be the cause of human extinction. The CIA is literally the great filter.
>>16255512CO2 emissions are good. The world is at record low atmospheric CO2 levels. This is bad for life on the planet. All nuclear shills should be forced to store a drum of spent rods in their living room.
>>16255336>>16255396>>16256079?? Chill down retard, get a life
>>16255186When I told this 10 years ago everyone called me a science denier who want to destroy the planet.
>>16256402It's not happening until it's happening. When will you learn?
>>16255620iodide 131 doesn't exist, its iodine 131 :-). If you were a high IQ individual like the rest of the anons on /sci/ you would know iodine 131 only has a half life of about 8 days, so it doesn't really matter unless the reactor has very recently been operated. The rest of the fission products you listed are longer lived (about 30 years), but they still decay away in a few hundred years which is pretty easy to design a container to last for. If you were smart you would be bitching about Pu-239 since thats the shit that makes nuclear waste dangerous for ridiculous amounts of time. Pu-239 can be re-used as fuel though, there are roadblocks to this but I challenge YOU to tell me what they are!
>>16255186the only solution is to build csp plants and also use it as an execution method
>>16255186Hydrogen base economic>>16243547
>>16255213Eglin when waste is from MIChttps://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/bpalxu/what_if_a_nuclear_aircraft_carrier_was_sunk/Eglin when nuclear waste is from Germanyhttps://youtu.be/MJWi8VUHUzk?si=aiAzJ-b5WbjTwODX
>>16257018>Nine nuclear submarines have sunk, either by accident or scuttlingWhen Russia returns lost land to Germany and Japan?
>>16255186>solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.And so? Is that a lot?300 times almost nothing might still be nothing. And nuclear energy is extremely clean. Not to mention just because nuclear doesn't produce toxic waste, means it doesn't produce other waste, like radioactive.I bet you could reverse uno and say something similar like "nuclear power produces 1000000 times more radioactive waste" but what's the point, other than manipulating people of course. btw. You will never ever once in a lifetime get any useful piece information by a fucking tweet. It's a medium tailored by design to spread misinformation. Shit out there requires more nuance than a fucking line of text. Information is boring. If it isn't, it's probably not information.
lotta krauts itt
>>16256270pussy
>>16257161Good morning element inspecting samefag
>>16256102minecraft technic pack screenshot
>>16255828The Chinese already do that
>>16255186Don't trust the science on this one. We need more solar panels. My bank account thanks you for being fools.
>>16255213Grinded?
>>16255205>as they continue to blatantly ignore solutions that are not in their master's profit motives.
>>16258020milled*
Perovskites will save us.
>>16256506>there are roadblocks to this but I challenge YOU to tell me what they are!The most important roadblock is the profit motives of the people who control the politicians who regulate the energy market.
>>162551861) nuclear powerplants produce basically no toxic waste whatsoever so there's already a disingenuous phrasing to start with 2) Mono/Poly-Si (95+% of all Solar panels) are not even marginally toxicCdTe might be potentionally problematic, but these aren't all that common >>16255281Recycling them back to panels is a foolish errand.just grind up the panels and add them to steel scrap - silicon is used for alloying spring steel. Glass will just form slag. Dopants are irrelevant. You would have to ship to processing plant and then to plant making the panels, but almost every country on Earth has several steel foundries that can use it as a raw material.
>>16260063>1) nuclear powerplants produce basically no toxic waste whatsoever so there's already a disingenuous phrasing to start withCorrect, however coal and natural gas power plants not only produce no toxic waste, they also enrich the atmosphere with valuable CO2 which makes nature healthier and more productive
>>16260063>no toxic wasteRadioactive things are toxic by definition.
>solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.That was before the striking down of Chevron. This thread aged poorly as fuck.
>>16255186You fucking retards are worse than jews with how many lies you shit out
>>16260569That's why we put them in the ground dumbass
>>16255272You are correct, but it could also be pointed out that nuclear waste need not be an expensive mess and that it might be much easier to change that largely political part.
>>16260562
>>16260562A jungle is green as fuck and also usually very hot, but the former only because there's a costant influx of nutrients from somewhere else.Without it, you just increase temperature... on a global scale.>>16261551> Implying the greenery in the Carboniferous was the same as the one we have now> Implying all our ecosystems, including plants, weren't the result of a world coming out of an Ice Age, not out of a Hothouse Age.Wow, it's almost like fields of science aren't stagnant compartments with no bearing with each other
>>16261574Plants do better with more CO2 in the atmosphere, not only do they grow faster, but they're all around healthier. Heres some reading, fill yourself in
>>16262534>but they're all around healthierNot surprising, plants are currently suffering on the verge of what is pretty much a starvation diet for them in terms of atmospheric CO2. Things that are starving to death are always more disease prone than they would be on a healthy diet.
>>16255213You can take all the nuclear waste ever produced worldwide and fit it in that small nuclear waste storage facility in Finland. And still have space for another 100 years.
>>16255383To really fuck with archaeologists 10000 years from now.
>>16255383So they don't reflect light. Gotta heat up the earth somehow.
>>16255360Composite material (fiber glass/carbon sheets + epoxy resin) can't be recycled.
It doesn't matter, nuclear is inevitable, especially once rolling brownouts become more of a norm. Hawaii isn't solving the problem fundamental to variable power sources and increasingly harsh environmental laws in western countries will push them into a corner. I expect it to be one of the many outcomes of the next major conflict.
>>16255383optics mostly, people complain if they see waste
>>16257110Yeah its sad, but the only way to justify their large scale coal is to bash nuclear whenever its mentioned.
>>16255186how come I never hear about the solar farms that use mirrors anymore? Are they just a lot less efficient and we've abandoned them for photovoltaics? I thought solar panels were just for small-scale use, and the actual farms were supposed to use mirrors. But now it looks like we don't use mirrors anymore and just have photovoltaic farms.
>>16264304>>16255186or that one farm that had a bunch of mirrors pointing at a giant tower. What happened to designs like those? They should be simpler to manufacture and not have the same waste concerns
>>16255186>300 times more toxic waste per unit of energyBy mass or what? Do radioactive isotopes count 1:1 with simple toxic metals like cadmium? It sounds like AGWD "science" to me.
Isn’t nuclear energy supposed to be clean with minimal, dense ass waste? Why isn’t the whole world converting to it? Why is China still burning coal?
>>16264313>Why is China still burning coal?Because they’re bastards. Because shit nations like Canada can’t do basic math. “We’re doing our part! :)” says the nation that barely puts out 1-2% of world sick.
>>16255213typical midwit>>16255575its literally a few reinforced coffins that could fit in any garage LMAO
>>16255659SEA means south east asiayou might be mentally retardedactually you are more likely just a gpt bot
What the fuck is wrong with Asians and waste
>>16260562Coal produces massive amounts of toxic waste besides CO2.
>>16264366no it doesn't
>>16264314You know that the US is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gasses in the world, right? That we currently emit 10-30% of the global emissions and have emitted the most ghgs of any nation cumulatively?>China>China>ChinaYou have to go back.
