• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solar Has Some Serious Environmental Problems; But it Feels So Virtuous

J

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,578
Reaction score
697
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:
Michael Fairneny said:
Now it's like living near the airport. The sound does change.... My wife's ears ring whenever she's at home. She has tinnitus never had ear problems and we've been traveling up and down this mountain for 29 years. Never any issues with going up and down the mountain and we don't know what we're going to do yet.
Click to expand...
Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
 
First of all - China is doing a great job poisoning itself building them, plus the prevailing winds deposit the rest in California, so what's not to love?

Second, we should ship them back to China for disposal.

Or we could let people build fences out of them like they do with garage doors in crappy parts of town.
 
JBG said:
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
Click to expand...


how much are the oil companies paying you?
 
JBG said:
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
Click to expand...

In many environments solar does not need to be subsidised any longer and as part of the energy mix it works over large areas and especially for specific functions making electricity available, where it otherwise would not be.

But you are right that we have little experience in recycling large quantities.
 
JBG said:
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
Click to expand...

I think Solar could survive at this point without subsidies, I think wind could only do that in very limited locations.
I think most of the material in solar panels could be recycled, but the real reason we have not see much in that regard,
is that panels installed over the last 30 years, are still operating, albeit at about a 15% lower efficiency.
In that same 30 year window, homes have become much more energy efficient.
Better Insulation, Double pane windows, High Efficiency Air Conditioners, LED lights, ect.
 
katzgar said:
how much are the oil companies paying you?
Click to expand...
I could use the money. Can you see if they can get me some?

After all I paid $2.359 for gasoline a few days ago at a Conoco station.
 
JBG said:
I could use the money. Can you see if they can get me some?

After all I paid $2.359 for gasoline a few days ago at a Conoco station.
Click to expand...


you need to get one of the new Teslas
 
Wind turbines did not give that lady tinnitus. She just got ****ing older. Jesus.
 
Climate News / Energy / natural gas/ nuclear power / petroleum / solar power / wind power
Monumental, Unsustainable Environmental Impacts


Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage
Paul Driessen
[FONT=&quot]Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) In the Real World outside the realm of[FONT=&quot]computer models[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]temperatures[/FONT][FONT=&quot], rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. It ignores the enormous benefits of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease and early death.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and [FONT=&quot]fall hardest on poor[/FONT][FONT=&quot], minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 
Jack Hays said:
Climate News / Energy / natural gas/ nuclear power / petroleum / solar power / wind power
Monumental, Unsustainable Environmental Impacts


Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage
Paul Driessen
[FONT="]Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT=pt-serif-1][FONT="]1) In the Real World outside the realm of[FONT="]computer models[/FONT][/URL][FONT="], the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with [/FONT][URL="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/truth-global-warming-pause/"][FONT="]temperatures[/FONT][/URL][FONT="], rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. [FONT=inherit]It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. [/FONT]It ignores the enormous [I]benefits[/I] of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease and early death.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT=pt-serif-1][COLOR=black][FONT="]It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and [URL="https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/04/22/draft-n2316565"][FONT="]fall hardest on poor[/FONT][/URL][COLOR=black][FONT="], minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the [I]land and raw material requirements, and [I]associated environmental impacts[/I], of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards. . . . [/I][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[I][FONT="]
[/I]
Click to expand...



bullcrap, an article on fonts dont cut it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate News / Energy / natural gas/ nuclear power / petroleum / solar power / wind power
Monumental, Unsustainable Environmental Impacts


Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage
Paul Driessen
[FONT="]Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT=pt-serif-1][FONT="]1) In the Real World outside the realm of[FONT="]computer models[/FONT][/URL][FONT="], the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with [/FONT][URL="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/truth-global-warming-pause/"][FONT="]temperatures[/FONT][/URL][FONT="], rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. [FONT=inherit]It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. [/FONT]It ignores the enormous [I]benefits[/I] of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease and early death.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT=pt-serif-1][COLOR=black][FONT="]It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and [URL="https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/04/22/draft-n2316565"][FONT="]fall hardest on poor[/FONT][/URL][COLOR=black][FONT="], minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the [I]land and raw material requirements, and [I]associated environmental impacts[/I], of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards. . . . [/I][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[I][FONT="]
[/I]
Click to expand...
You are confusing reasoning with emotion. The renewable energy advocates like what feels good, not what works.
 
JBG said:
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
Click to expand...

Are Solar Panels Recyclable? - Earth911.com

50 billion dollar industry by 2050.

I bet somebody steps up to get all that tasty money.

There's a link in the article to a European company that's achieved a 96% recovery rate and uses the other 4% to generate energy for the process.
 
What if...? said:
Are Solar Panels Recyclable? - Earth911.com

50 billion dollar industry by 2050.

I bet somebody steps up to get all that tasty money.

There's a link in the article to a European company that's achieved a 96% recovery rate and uses the other 4% to generate energy for the process.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen solar panels are not degrading as fast as they expected.
The life expectancy could well be over 50 years.
Testing a Thirty-Year-Old Photovoltaic Module | GreenBuildingAdvisor.com
 
What if...? said:
Are Solar Panels Recyclable? - Earth911.com

50 billion dollar industry by 2050.

I bet somebody steps up to get all that tasty money.

There's a link in the article to a European company that's achieved a 96% recovery rate and uses the other 4% to generate energy for the process.
Click to expand...


there are several new types of panels coming down the stream so need for backwards looking hysteria.
 
What if...? said:
Are Solar Panels Recyclable? - Earth911.com

50 billion dollar industry by 2050.

I bet somebody steps up to get all that tasty money.

There's a link in the article to a European company that's achieved a 96% recovery rate and uses the other 4% to generate energy for the process.
Click to expand...
How much do they charge? How does that impact the already questionable economics of renewable energy?
 
JBG said:
How much do they charge? How does that impact the already questionable economics of renewable energy?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's just reclaiming the valuable elements.

Which will reduce the need for mining/refining those elements.

Would you have laughed and dismissed the first "horseless carriages"?

They were basically useless and nowhere near as "efficient" as the horse.
 
What if...? said:
Would you have laughed and dismissed the first "horseless carriages"?

They were basically useless and nowhere near as "efficient" as the horse.
Click to expand...
That would be your view and not mine. Horses after all are quite renewable. And their byproducts, while smelly, biodegrade.
 
longview said:
From what I have seen solar panels are not degrading as fast as they expected.
The life expectancy could well be over 50 years.
Testing a Thirty-Year-Old Photovoltaic Module | GreenBuildingAdvisor.com
Click to expand...

Absolutely, 20-25 year-old panels are still operating with very little degradation. Also, recycling is happening, and will soon be totally land-fill free.

SEIA National PV Recycling Program | SEIA

Further, SEIA is planning proactive waste management strategies in an effort to make the entire industry landfill-free. This includes the national recycling network program, providing a portal for system owners and consumers to know how to responsibly recycle their PV systems, and investing in research and development for recycling technologies. With the goal of creating a long-term global circular economy, we’re not just thinking about how to take back and recycle PV – we’re thinking about how to repurpose its components into new products for a better future. We plan to invest the cost savings from effective waste management into research and development of PV’s “new life” after decades of service producing clean, renewable energy.
 
JBG said:
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
Click to expand...

OMG...

What idiotic alarmism.

Nuclear power creates isotopes that lasts millions or billions of years and are not found in nature in any significant amount. The waste from solar can be chemically recycled back to their original elements in a matter of hours, and used for new panels or other items.
 
Media_Truth said:
Absolutely, 20-25 year-old panels are still operating with very little degradation. Also, recycling is happening, and will soon be totally land-fill free.

SEIA National PV Recycling Program | SEIA

Further, SEIA is planning proactive waste management strategies in an effort to make the entire industry landfill-free. This includes the national recycling network program, providing a portal for system owners and consumers to know how to responsibly recycle their PV systems, and investing in research and development for recycling technologies. With the goal of creating a long-term global circular economy, we’re not just thinking about how to take back and recycle PV – we’re thinking about how to repurpose its components into new products for a better future. We plan to invest the cost savings from effective waste management into research and development of PV’s “new life” after decades of service producing clean, renewable energy.
Click to expand...
Who is going to pay for all this recycling, and how does it affect the economics of renewable energy?
 
JBG said:
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article (link) stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems?




I for one don't think so.
Click to expand...

And, you will be left behind when we break free of fossil fuels. But, go ahead and make the Sauidis richer...LOL
 
JBG said:
You are confusing reasoning with emotion. The renewable energy advocates like what feels good, not what works.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like the critics are trying to make themselves feel better and using cognitive dissonance. You aren't gonna stop innovation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom