Solar panels aren't all that "Green"!

[Number 10 GI]

The solar panel isn't as "Green" as it's proponents want you to believe. I used to work as an Industrial Research Analyst in the Industrial Research Division for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. The purpose of the Department was to attract new industry to the state and to help existing businesses to expand their operations.

Hemlock Semiconductor selected Clarksville, TN as their site for a silicon plant to produce silicon for solar panels. My division was given a list of raw materials needed in the manufacturing process and we were to locate sources for the materials.

Silica sand with a very high purity level is the main ingredient. That kind of sand is hard to find, there are huge deposits of sand in nearly every state but silica sand of that purity level is scarce. To get the sand it has to be extracted from the ground using DIESEL fueled earth moving equipment. Because of the scarcity of high purity silica most of the sources were many miles from the proposed silicon plant. That sand had to be transported to the plant using DIESEL powered trucks.

The next lower raw material was charcoal made from HARDWOOD, not sawmill leavings. Charcoal is made by burning the hardwood down to briquettes. This creates all kinds of smoke pollution and again the sources weren't near to the plant and the charcoal had to be brought in with again, DIESEL powered trucks.

The next raw material was industrial gasses. Luckily the gas generation plant was required to be built on site however the gas plant required a lot of electrical power, which is generated by COAL!
Now once the silicon manufacturing plant has all the necessary ingredients to make silicon all is good except that the process uses copious amounts of electricity all of which is generated by COAL fired plants.

Now it takes a plant to manufacture the solar panel so the processed silicon has to be transported again by a DIESEL powered truck to the plant making the panels which probably uses COAL fired electric generation plants for power. All of these processes produce industrial pollution. Then you have the problem of recycling, if possible, the worn out solar panels.

Now for the irony. Hemlock Semiconductor spent $1.2 Billion, yes Billion, to construct the plant. Due to an over supply of silicon from Asia, Hemlock decided that it wasn't fiscally sound to produce silicon because of the cheap silicon from overseas. They closed the plant and it never manufactured 1 ounce of silicon. The plant was abandoned and everything was sold for scrap.

[GrumpyOldMan]

The solar panel isn't as "Green" as it's proponents want you to believe. I used to work as an Industrial Research Analyst in the Industrial Research Division for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. The purpose of the Department was to attract new industry to the state and to help existing businesses to expand their operations.

Hemlock Semiconductor selected Clarksville, TN as their site for a silicon plant to produce silicon for solar panels. My division was given a list of raw materials needed in the manufacturing process and we were to locate sources for the materials.

Silica sand with a very high purity level is the main ingredient. That kind of sand is hard to find, there are huge deposits of sand in nearly every state but silica sand of that purity level is scarce. To get the sand it has to be extracted from the ground using DIESEL fueled earth moving equipment. Because of the scarcity of high purity silica most of the sources were many miles from the proposed silicon plant. That sand had to be transported to the plant using DIESEL powered trucks.

The next lower raw material was charcoal made from HARDWOOD, not sawmill leavings. Charcoal is made by burning the hardwood down to briquettes. This creates all kinds of smoke pollution and again the sources weren't near to the plant and the charcoal had to be brought in with again, DIESEL powered trucks.

The next raw material was industrial gasses. Luckily the gas generation plant was required to be built on site however the gas plant required a lot of electrical power, which is generated by COAL!
Now once the silicon manufacturing plant has all the necessary ingredients to make silicon all is good except that the process uses copious amounts of electricity all of which is generated by COAL fired plants.

Now it takes a plant to manufacture the solar panel so the processed silicon has to be transported again by a DIESEL powered truck to the plant making the panels which probably uses COAL fired electric generation plants for power. All of these processes produce industrial pollution. Then you have the problem of recycling, if possible, the worn out solar panels.

Now for the irony. Hemlock Semiconductor spent $1.2 Billion, yes Billion, to construct the plant. Due to an over supply of silicon from Asia, Hemlock decided that it wasn't fiscally sound to produce silicon because of the cheap silicon from overseas. They closed the plant and it never manufactured 1 ounce of silicon. The plant was abandoned and everything was sold for scrap.

I am an advocate and I don't want you to believe anything. Do what you want. The rest of the world is leaving the US in the dust, and all we can do is argue. Tesla and SpaceX are the ONLY American companies I see doing any innovation at this point.

So, please don't buy any solar panels if it makes you feel good.

[Dana1963]

The solar panel isn't as "Green" as it's proponents want you to believe. I used to work as an Industrial Research Analyst in the Industrial Research Division for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. The purpose of the Department was to attract new industry to the state and to help existing businesses to expand their operations.

Hemlock Semiconductor selected Clarksville, TN as their site for a silicon plant to produce silicon for solar panels. My division was given a list of raw materials needed in the manufacturing process and we were to locate sources for the materials.

Silica sand with a very high purity level is the main ingredient. That kind of sand is hard to find, there are huge deposits of sand in nearly every state but silica sand of that purity level is scarce. To get the sand it has to be extracted from the ground using DIESEL fueled earth moving equipment. Because of the scarcity of high purity silica most of the sources were many miles from the proposed silicon plant. That sand had to be transported to the plant using DIESEL powered trucks.

The next lower raw material was charcoal made from HARDWOOD, not sawmill leavings. Charcoal is made by burning the hardwood down to briquettes. This creates all kinds of smoke pollution and again the sources weren't near to the plant and the charcoal had to be brought in with again, DIESEL powered trucks.

The next raw material was industrial gasses. Luckily the gas generation plant was required to be built on site however the gas plant required a lot of electrical power, which is generated by COAL!
Now once the silicon manufacturing plant has all the necessary ingredients to make silicon all is good except that the process uses copious amounts of electricity all of which is generated by COAL fired plants.

Now it takes a plant to manufacture the solar panel so the processed silicon has to be transported again by a DIESEL powered truck to the plant making the panels which probably uses COAL fired electric generation plants for power. All of these processes produce industrial pollution. Then you have the problem of recycling, if possible, the worn out solar panels.

Now for the irony. Hemlock Semiconductor spent $1.2 Billion, yes Billion, to construct the plant. Due to an over supply of silicon from Asia, Hemlock decided that it wasn't fiscally sound to produce silicon because of the cheap silicon from overseas. They closed the plant and it never manufactured 1 ounce of silicon. The plant was abandoned and everything was sold for scrap.
Hemlock Semiconductor is still in business Michigan

[Number 10 GI]

I am an advocate and I don't want you to believe anything. Do what you want. The rest of the world is leaving the US in the dust, and all we can do is argue. Tesla and SpaceX are the ONLY American companies I see doing any innovation at this point.

So, please don't buy any solar panels if it makes you feel good.

Apparently it makes you feel good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to produce the silicon to make the solar panes.
Most of the electric power in Europe is generated by nuclear energy so if that is the dust we are behind, I agree, we haven't built a nuclear powered electric generation plant in years.
My brother-in-law is German and pointed out to me that Germans bought big time into the solar panel hype and windmill electric generation. Neither one has lived up to the grandiose promises of the hucksters selling the idea.

[biker1]

No. About 25% of the electric power in the EU is nuclear, about 50% is fossil fuel based, and about 25% is renewable. Germany is moving towards phasing out nuclear. France, which is currently about 70% nuclear, will be reducing it's dependence on nuclear.

There are two reactors being built in GA.

Apparently it makes you feel good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to produce the silicon to make the solar panes.
Most of the electric power in Europe is generated by nuclear energy so if that is the dust we are behind, I agree, we haven't built a nuclear powered electric generation plant in years.
My brother-in-law is German and pointed out to me that Germans bought big time into the solar panel hype and windmill electric generation. Neither one has lived up to the grandiose promises of the hucksters selling the idea.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Apparently it makes you feel good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to produce the silicon to make the solar panes.
Most of the electric power in Europe is generated by nuclear energy so if that is the dust we are behind, I agree, we haven't built a nuclear powered electric generation plant in years.
My brother-in-law is German and pointed out to me that Germans bought big time into the solar panel hype and windmill electric generation. Neither one has lived up to the grandiose promises of the hucksters selling the idea.

Apparently, it makes you feel good to draw conclusions about other people, seems to be a habit here.

What I don't like is people that point out all the negatives without providing any evidence or comparison. And of course, if something isn't perfectly good, then it is obviously perfectly bad.

Have fun playing your silly games.

[Arctic Fox]

That sand had to be transported to the plant using DIESEL powered trucks.

Solar panels last 25-30 years. Using a bit of diesel fuel now seems a small price to pay for 25 years of clean energy?

[tvbound]

"The longest journey, begins with but a single step." I personally think that it is silly and disingenuous to infer that since the manufacturing of 'green' products currently requires the use of fossil fuels somewhere along the chain, means that it's not even really worth pursuing the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels. Electrically powered heavy equipment, trucks and even locomotives, are currently being developed. And yes, I am aware of the issues & problems with manufacturing and disposal of batteries, but I also believe we will make great strides in those areas in the future. To the OP, I am also wondering why that company chose TN., if the raw materials were not conveniently located nearby? Were they given, like is done in a lot of similar circumstances to companies, large incentives and/or tax breaks by the state? Regardless if there were incentives, the company should have done a better job of due diligence before locating there.

The bottom line though, is that for so many reasons, we have to wean ourselves away from our dependence on fossil fuels and although there will be problems along the way - it is still the most sane path to take. Baby steps.

[tvbound]

Never mind answering my question on incentives, a quick and easy search found this:

The Leaf-Chronicle (https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/local/clarksville/2014/12/17/hemlock-closing-clarksville-plant-permanently/20536529/)

"The total public investment in the Hemlock plant was $343.1 million, which includes $244.7 million in state incentives, $77.8 million in tax breaks from Montgomery County and $20.6 million in other incentives from the county, according to an Aug. 19, 2011, story by the Nashville Business Journal. That total doesn’t include an additional $60.5 million committed by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the form of infrastructure grants and other incentives."

So, a little over $400 MILLION in incentives was given the semiconductor company.

[Number 10 GI]

"The longest journey, begins with but a single step." I personally think that it is silly and disingenuous to infer that since the manufacturing of 'green' products currently requires the use of fossil fuels somewhere along the chain, means that it's not even really worth pursuing the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels. Electrically powered heavy equipment, trucks and even locomotives, are currently being developed. And yes, I am aware of the issues & problems with manufacturing and disposal of batteries, but I also believe we will make great strides in those areas in the future. To the OP, I am also wondering why that company chose TN., if the raw materials were not conveniently located nearby? Were they given, like is done in a lot of similar circumstances to companies, large incentives and/or tax breaks by the state? Regardless if there were incentives, the company should have done a better job of due diligence before locating there.

The bottom line though, is that for so many reasons, we have to wean ourselves away from our dependence on fossil fuels and although there will be problems along the way - it is still the most sane path to take. Baby steps.

My point, maybe not clear enough, is that solar power and electric cars are not totally green, they require expenditure of fossil fuels and the pollution created by these means to produce them. How much of the good properties of the alternative power generating sources are offset by the negative of using fossil fuels to make them. I haven't been able to find anything on this. Maybe there is a reason.
Believe me these large corporations conduct extensive research on where to locate a facility, and contrary to the popular belief, the leaders of these companies are quite intelligent when making decisions about the bottom line.
A large manufacturing plant requires interstate highway access, rail service for many is a prime concern and a ready, reasonably educated and large enough population base from which to hire employees. Even river barge service is a concern to certain businesses. As with most of the locations where these raw materials are located are in low populated areas with no interstate highway or railroad within a reasonable distance. Many of the rural areas in Tennessee do not have interstate, rail or a large population so businesses ignore the areas and no amount of incentives will change that.
All states offer tax breaks and other incentives to lure new businesses. No incentives, no new businesses to create more jobs. I don't agree with it but it is what it is.
We don't have the battery technology at this time that could power heavy earth moving equipment. That kind of technology is way down the road and wishful thinking won't make it any faster.

[EastCoastDawg]

Most of the electric power in Europe is generated by nuclear energy...

How many times have we seen this happen? What starts out as a seemingly well-reasoned argument gets scuppered by the poster throwing in a wildly exaggerated claim that is so easy to disprove.

After that, one is just forced to question all of the other "facts" contained in the argument.

Then to switch horses and claim that the thread was about subsidies rather than solar power being green? Amazing. The phrase "Clutching at straws" springs to mind.

[Number 10 GI]

How many times have we seen this happen? What starts out as a seemingly well-reasoned argument gets scuppered by the poster throwing in a wildly exaggerated claim that is so easy to disprove.

After that, one is just forced to question all of the other "facts" contained in the argument.

Then to switch horses and claim that the thread was about subsidies rather than solar power being green? Amazing. The phrase "Clutching at straws" springs to mind.

Obviously you didn't read tvbound's post, he is the one who brought up incentives. I was responding to that. Next time read all the posts.
Yep I made a mistake on the power generation in Europe, it is/was France that relied on nuclear power for most of it's electric generation. Guess what, I don't give you any credibility either. You apparently buy into the false hype on green being totally pollution free.

[Kelevision]

Obviously you didn't read tvbound's post, he is the one who brought up incentives. I was responding to that. Next time read all the posts.
Yep I made a mistake on the power generation in Europe, it is/was France that relied on nuclear power for most of it's electric generation. Guess what, I don't give you any credibility either. You apparently buy into the false hype on green being totally pollution free.

It’s the most pollution free option there is.

[EastCoastDawg]

You apparently buy into the false hype on green being totally pollution free.

No sensible person claims that any renewable energy is pollution-free - anything that has to be constructed is bound to cause SOME pollution, but the prize is to make the impact as small as possible.

It is only the naysayers who set up "Pollution-Free" as a claim so that they can knock it down in their arguments. Without that claim, their arguments would be (and are) meaningless.

[spd2918]

Arguing religion or politics is pointless. The green movement has certainly become a religion for many and devotees will ignore any reasoning presented. It has also been turned into a political weapon to grow governmental power to transfer wealth.

[Deandd]

Over 70% of solar panels are manufactured in China. In order to produce them the Chinese are building over 2000 coal-powered plants to keep up with demand. Much of that coal comes from the US …. another eco-damaging effort. If you want to go solar it is certainly your prerogative… but do not believe for a second that you are somehow saving the planet or greening the earth …. Chinese-made solar panels do not last 25 years …. Google solar panel and windmill refuse nightmares for the rest of the ugly story ….

[merrymini]

I love the “green” alternative but the reality is that it is very limited and new technology will eventually help resolve the problem but we are not there yet. People do not want to know the truth if it does not fit the narrative they hold.

[dennisgavin]

Let a free market decide. It will select the most reasonable and cost effective solution. IF it makes sense people will buy it, If not they won't. You only have to force people to buy stuff if it doesn't make sense and that is what "certain elements: of out government are doing.

[TedfromGA]

Petroleum (oil) is used for thousands of everyday products we consume. Examples: cloth, plastics, roads, roofs, many other construction materials, medical products, and so on. Petroleum & natural gas are used to generate the majority of electricity in the U.S.

Consider the additional amount of electricity we will need to feed all the "electric" cars/trucks/buses. Our electrical grid is at capacity (California's already has rolling brown outs). We will need significant increase in generating capacity to feed all those "green" things.

Solar generation is a good example of a near sited view of conservation. If one looks at the total amount of resources and electricity consumed to manufacture, deliver, install, use, and then recycle/destroy the "solar" product then there is nothing "green" about it. We are being sold a lot of baloney about "green" capabilities.

Technical advances will improve the life cycle cost of "green", but I submit we are many years from breaking even between petroleum based use vs "green".

[Ptmckiou]

Here is the thing. It’s a bad analogy, because those rare minerals are going to be mined and shipped ANYWAY, because they are so valuable. If we don’t use them for manufacturing, then someone will buy them. Something valuable and rare is not going to be ignored. Unfortunately, the USA is so far behind in technology, it’s quite embarrassing. The rest of the world has moved on, and here we sit with our hands tied by fossil fuel companies keeping us in the Stone Age driving model-T’s, because they have good representation with DC politicians. Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our technology innovation is subpar, our manufacturing is next to nothing, and we just keep sliding farther away from number one. Even little things are embarrassing like we are rated 10th down on the list for the number of hospital beds per 1000 citizens in the country, and we are down to 11th on the list for the country’s citizens living the longest. Our enemies must be laughing at us, distracted for decades spending trillions on wars, instead of spending the money on bettering our country. Now we are broke, and our infrastructure subpar compared to other advanced countries that have been at work over the decades keeping up with technology and repairs.

[Shoogley]

Fascinating read. My take is that solar panel manufacturing is still young and man will tackle it correctly. It has its uses. E.g. no wires needed in country housing areas.
I am an ignoramus. But just have a few ideas. The guys tried to manufacture solar panels but found it not profitable. Fossil fuels will always be used but the need for fossil fuels has/ is being reduced. Fossil fuels will never run out as it is being produced as we speak. A miracle of nature.
Not to diverse too much. I think the problem is or seems to be, that Asia has the product, exports it gets paid and does not raise the standard of living of it people but strengths their army to try and take over the world. Be gentle with criticism, I hurt easily. Lol.

[tmbozoki@gmail.com]

And what about our wonderful electric battery driven cars? Just read Paris now is stuck with over 100 electric cars with run down batteries. Problem is replacement batteries cost more than the car itself and no landfill will take the batteries cause of harmful chemicals within the batteries. So now cars sit in a lot, rot and eventual battery leakage into the ground. Oh and have you read countries are now burying old windmill blades as a disposal method?

Not against green efforts, but make sure the COMPLETE process is ready to handle and dispose. And for gosh sakes, let the market efficiently figure it out, sure won't be our Congress.

[Marine1974]

The average family has a carbon footprint of about a Ton a year without using solar panels .

[tophcfa]

And what about our wonderful electric battery driven cars? Just read Paris now is stuck with over 100 electric cars with run down batteries. Problem is replacement batteries cost more than the car itself and no landfill will take the batteries cause of harmful chemicals within the batteries. So now cars sit in a lot, rot and eventual battery leakage into the ground. Oh and have you read countries are now burying old windmill blades as a disposal method?

Not against green efforts, but make sure the COMPLETE process is ready to handle and dispose. And for gosh sakes, let the market efficiently figure it out, sure won't be our Congress.

The problem is that Congress decides which uneconomical forms of so called green energy get the label of “green”, and subsequently get supported on the backs of taxpayers/ratepayers to make it falsely appear to be both green and economically competitive.

I am all for “green” energy if it is truly green and economically viable without subsidies, unfortunately very little if any of that actually exists. Meanwhile, “green washing” runs rampant, and is contributing to the cost of goods and increasing the inflation rate.

[Vermilion Villager]

Apparently it makes you feel good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to produce the silicon to make the solar panes.


Hmmm....and apparently it makes you fell good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to transport....fossil fuels. I bet you think those big tanker trucks hauling gasoline run on fairy dust!:1rotfl:

[ithos]

Solar is a dirty power source when all things considered. There are applications where the benefits outweigh the cost but it is certainly not a good candidate for base load generation. It only works when there are clear skies and sunlight.

The interim solution is nuclear power. Many advances have been made to make it safer and practical. But the long term solution will be fusion.

[jammaiora]

The solar panel isn't as "Green" as it's proponents want you to believe. I used to work as an Industrial Research Analyst in the Industrial Research Division for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. The purpose of the Department was to attract new industry to the state and to help existing businesses to expand their operations.

Hemlock Semiconductor selected Clarksville, TN as their site for a silicon plant to produce silicon for solar panels. My division was given a list of raw materials needed in the manufacturing process and we were to locate sources for the materials.

Silica sand with a very high purity level is the main ingredient. That kind of sand is hard to find, there are huge deposits of sand in nearly every state but silica sand of that purity level is scarce. To get the sand it has to be extracted from the ground using DIESEL fueled earth moving equipment. Because of the scarcity of high purity silica most of the sources were many miles from the proposed silicon plant. That sand had to be transported to the plant using DIESEL powered trucks.

The next lower raw material was charcoal made from HARDWOOD, not sawmill leavings. Charcoal is made by burning the hardwood down to briquettes. This creates all kinds of smoke pollution and again the sources weren't near to the plant and the charcoal had to be brought in with again, DIESEL powered trucks.

The next raw material was industrial gasses. Luckily the gas generation plant was required to be built on site however the gas plant required a lot of electrical power, which is generated by COAL!
Now once the silicon manufacturing plant has all the necessary ingredients to make silicon all is good except that the process uses copious amounts of electricity all of which is generated by COAL fired plants.

Now it takes a plant to manufacture the solar panel so the processed silicon has to be transported again by a DIESEL powered truck to the plant making the panels which probably uses COAL fired electric generation plants for power. All of these processes produce industrial pollution. Then you have the problem of recycling, if possible, the worn out solar panels.

Now for the irony. Hemlock Semiconductor spent $1.2 Billion, yes Billion, to construct the plant. Due to an over supply of silicon from Asia, Hemlock decided that it wasn't fiscally sound to produce silicon because of the cheap silicon from overseas. They closed the plant and it never manufactured 1 ounce of silicon. The plant was abandoned and everything was sold for scrap.
I was amused by your "story" but not quite sure of its' purpose. One thing I concluded was that Tennessee made a bad business decision, which doesn't surprise me. Secondly, if you think your "story" justifies staying with fossil fuels, it doesn't. Thirdly, in regard to recycling solar panels, it will be developed gradually over time. "Nice" try but no "cigar"!

[GrumpyOldMan]

Not against green efforts, but make sure the COMPLETE process is ready to handle and dispose. And for gosh sakes, let the market efficiently figure it out, sure won't be our Congress.

I got it, so, don't do anything until you can do everything.

[Number 10 GI]

Hmmm....and apparently it makes you fell good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to transport....fossil fuels. I bet you think those big tanker trucks hauling gasoline run on fairy dust!:1rotfl:

Most petroleum products are transported by pipeline to distribution centers where it is then picked up by tanker truck to be delivered to the retail locations. Trucks do no haul fuel from one end of the country to the other.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Most petroleum products are transported by pipeline to distribution centers where it is then picked up by tanker truck to be delivered to the retail locations. Trucks do no haul fuel from one end of the country to the other.

My source, I worked driving a cash register for 3 years at a convenience store.

There is a massive fleet of diesel tankers hauling gasoline from tank farms to gas stations daily. Our station often received deliveries twice a day. It is critical to the gas companies that the inventory be "just in time" so the refineries can be run at 100% capacity.

Each truck can only fill a couple stations and has to return to refill and deliver more.

So, numbers vary, but if we take the middle numbers, there are 150,000 gas stations in the US. So, there is a massive fleet of tankers delivering gas every day to all those stations, and not all those stations are near a tank farm.

So, I take exception with your statement, "Trucks do not haul fuel from one end of the country to the other" is "technically" accurate. But is not accurate in rebuking the comment. The. comment could have been more accurate to say "From one end of the country to the other a massive fleet of trucks deliver fuel", since there are trucks all over the nation running all day every day delivering gas to consumers.

Also, let's not forget the supertankers that you forgot to mention, which use the lowest grade fuel oil and generate massive amounts of pollution delivering oil.

[Number 10 GI]

I was amused by your "story" but not quite sure of its' purpose. One thing I concluded was that Tennessee made a bad business decision, which doesn't surprise me. Secondly, if you think your "story" justifies staying with fossil fuels, it doesn't. Thirdly, in regard to recycling solar panels, it will be developed gradually over time. "Nice" try but no "cigar"!

There was no bad decision made by Tennessee, Hemlock Semiconductor made the mistake. Hemlock lost their incentives when they failed to live up to their contract with the state.
I'm not trying to justifying the continued use of fossil fuels, I want to know the net gain if any from solar panels. How much energy will a solar panel generate vs the amount of energy required to produce the panels. And how much energy will be required to recycle the worn out panels. Why don't we hear about that? It would be a great selling point to show there actually is a net gain. Is there a real gain?

[GrumpyOldMan]

There was no bad decision made by Tennessee, Hemlock Semiconductor made the mistake. Hemlock lost their incentives when they failed to live up to their contract with the state.
I'm not trying to justifying the continued use of fossil fuels, I want to know the net gain if any from solar panels. How much energy will a solar panel generate vs the amount of energy required to produce the panels. And how much energy will be required to recycle the worn out panels. Why don't we hear about that? It would be a great selling point to show there actually is a net gain. Is there a real gain?

WE do hear about it, apparently you don't. I do not know why you don't, but here is your answer:

For those that don't like to read articles, I included a summary chart shopping the FULL LIFECYCLE emissions of various energy sources, please note that Solar lifecycle emissions is about 1/2 to 1/10 that of fossil fuel.


https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

[Number 10 GI]

WE do hear about it, apparently you don't. I do not know why you don't, but here is your answer:

For those that don't like to read articles, I included a summary chart shopping the FULL LIFECYCLE emissions of various energy sources, please note that Solar lifecycle emissions is about 1/2 to 1/10 that of fossil fuel.


https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

I don't see correlation between green house gasses and energy required to produce solar panels. How much energy do they generate over the amount of energy expended to create them. If I make a product that costs me $10 to build and I can only sell it for $10 there is no gain.

[JMintzer]

I got it, so, don't do anything until you can do everything.

No, it's more of a "look before you leap" analogy...

[GrumpyOldMan]

I don't see correlation between green house gasses and energy required to produce solar panels. How much energy do they generate over the amount of energy expended to create them. If I make a product that costs me $10 to build and I can only sell it for $10 there is no gain.

The cost of creation and removal are included in the total life cycle costs/emmisions.

[GrumpyOldMan]

No, it's more of a "look before you leap" analogy...

We have been looking for decades.

Seriously, and it has been an uphill push the entire time. If I were paranoid, I would say the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in disparaging alternate energy sources. Sort of like cigarette commercials saying smoking their brand is good for your cough.

[Sherry8bal]

Apparently it makes you feel good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to produce the silicon to make the solar panes.
Most of the electric power in Europe is generated by nuclear energy so if that is the dust we are behind, I agree, we haven't built a nuclear powered electric generation plant in years.
My brother-in-law is German and pointed out to me that Germans bought big time into the solar panel hype and windmill electric generation. Neither one has lived up to the grandiose promises of the hucksters selling the idea.

EXACTLY. The only reason they keep promoting it is because people like Pelosi's hubby has invested millions in charging stations and other things that involve solar and wind. I'm sure there are many other politicians who are doing the same thing. It's all corrupt.

[tsmall22204]

So what does your false dissertation of bad business decisions of manufacturers have to do with a home owner installing solar panels and saving money and electricity. You have the glass is half empty approach. One more point... not all power plants use coal.

[sasman29]

Number 10 GI
What you are saying does make sense. I am wondering if you found any studies with data to confirm that theory? Another theory in the same vein is the recycling frenzy. It may cost more energy to recycle then we are saving.
I am, however, a proponent of solar energy production as we certainly will be able to improve and create a more efficient process of building and utilizing solar panels.

[jimjamuser]

The solar panel isn't as "Green" as it's proponents want you to believe. I used to work as an Industrial Research Analyst in the Industrial Research Division for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. The purpose of the Department was to attract new industry to the state and to help existing businesses to expand their operations.

Hemlock Semiconductor selected Clarksville, TN as their site for a silicon plant to produce silicon for solar panels. My division was given a list of raw materials needed in the manufacturing process and we were to locate sources for the materials.

Silica sand with a very high purity level is the main ingredient. That kind of sand is hard to find, there are huge deposits of sand in nearly every state but silica sand of that purity level is scarce. To get the sand it has to be extracted from the ground using DIESEL fueled earth moving equipment. Because of the scarcity of high purity silica most of the sources were many miles from the proposed silicon plant. That sand had to be transported to the plant using DIESEL powered trucks.

The next lower raw material was charcoal made from HARDWOOD, not sawmill leavings. Charcoal is made by burning the hardwood down to briquettes. This creates all kinds of smoke pollution and again the sources weren't near to the plant and the charcoal had to be brought in with again, DIESEL powered trucks.

The next raw material was industrial gasses. Luckily the gas generation plant was required to be built on site however the gas plant required a lot of electrical power, which is generated by COAL!
Now once the silicon manufacturing plant has all the necessary ingredients to make silicon all is good except that the process uses copious amounts of electricity all of which is generated by COAL fired plants.

Now it takes a plant to manufacture the solar panel so the processed silicon has to be transported again by a DIESEL powered truck to the plant making the panels which probably uses COAL fired electric generation plants for power. All of these processes produce industrial pollution. Then you have the problem of recycling, if possible, the worn out solar panels.

Now for the irony. Hemlock Semiconductor spent $1.2 Billion, yes Billion, to construct the plant. Due to an over supply of silicon from Asia, Hemlock decided that it wasn't fiscally sound to produce silicon because of the cheap silicon from overseas. They closed the plant and it never manufactured 1 ounce of silicon. The plant was abandoned and everything was sold for scrap.
Great story, very entertaining, and VERY well written. I tend to feel that nuclear electric power plants might be the best way to produce energy. I have not studied well enough the risk / reward for nuclear. So, I don't have a definitive opinion on that yet. I like the idea of TRYING solar panel electric generation as a learning experience and on a trial basis. perhaps in the future, there will be improvements on the materials and the panels for INCREASED efficiency BOTH in use and during manufacture. As far as using the sun's energy - it IS OBVIOUS that there is potential there - just hold your hand on a dark car that has been in the sun. You can cook eggs lately! Humans continue to experiment and WILL get better at utilizing solar energy. Simply using solar energy to help a house with hot water would be beneficial to our Planet Earth!

[jimjamuser]

Apparently it makes you feel good to ignore all the fossil fuels and pollution generated by it that is required to produce the silicon to make the solar panes.
Most of the electric power in Europe is generated by nuclear energy so if that is the dust we are behind, I agree, we haven't built a nuclear powered electric generation plant in years.
My brother-in-law is German and pointed out to me that Germans bought big time into the solar panel hype and windmill electric generation. Neither one has lived up to the grandiose promises of the hucksters selling the idea.
Agree, but I see the current time with solar energy having similarities with the nation's transition from horse-drawn buggies to the Ford Model T. Look back at the many incarnations of improvements to internal combustion vehicles. We are in the Model T era of using solar energy.

[JMintzer]

We have been looking for decades.

Seriously, and it has been an uphill push the entire time. If I were paranoid, I would say the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in disparaging alternate energy sources. Sort of like cigarette commercials saying smoking their brand is good for your cough.

Sure, but you completely ignore those getting paid to say the "climate sky is falling"...

[JMintzer]

So what does your false dissertation of bad business decisions of manufacturers have to do with a home owner installing solar panels and saving money and electricity. You have the glass is half empty approach. One more point... not all power plants use coal.

True, but no one wants anyone to build nuclear plants, either...

[GrumpyOldMan]

Sure, but you completely ignore those getting paid to say the "climate sky is falling"...

I am sorry, I missed where the conversation switched to climate change denial?

[jimjamuser]

No sensible person claims that any renewable energy is pollution-free - anything that has to be constructed is bound to cause SOME pollution, but the prize is to make the impact as small as possible.

It is only the naysayers who set up "Pollution-Free" as a claim so that they can knock it down in their arguments. Without that claim, their arguments would be (and are) meaningless.
Burning or using WOOD from renewable forests has to be close to pollution-free because trees are absorbing CO2 and giving off oxygen. Forests are being burned and plowed under because the people of Earth are producing too many offspring! Also, devouring many other non-renewable resources. Excess people and heat from cities and even crime from cities where everyone is anonymous - IS ALL tied together in this and almost ALL ISSUES AND DISCUSSIONS. It IS the basis for ALL of the earth's problems and solutions. Soon after our lives are over, massive hordes of CLIMATE migrators will come up from South America and also into Europe from the equator. This will NOT be pretty! And OUR grandkid's children will HAVE to head NORTH to Canada!

[Topspinmo]

Apparently, it makes you feel good to draw conclusions about other people, seems to be a habit here.

What I don't like is people that point out all the negatives without providing any evidence or comparison. And of course, if something isn't perfectly good, then it is obviously perfectly bad.

Have fun playing your silly games.

Reminds me of pot, kettle , ????.

[Topspinmo]

WE do hear about it, apparently you don't. I do not know why you don't, but here is your answer:

For those that don't like to read articles, I included a summary chart shopping the FULL LIFECYCLE emissions of various energy sources, please note that Solar lifecycle emissions is about 1/2 to 1/10 that of fossil fuel.


https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

Guess didn’t understand how solar made??

[Topspinmo]

Here is the thing. It’s a bad analogy, because those rare minerals are going to be mined and shipped ANYWAY, because they are so valuable. If we don’t use them for manufacturing, then someone will buy them. Something valuable and rare is not going to be ignored. Unfortunately, the USA is so far behind in technology, it’s quite embarrassing. The rest of the world has moved on, and here we sit with our hands tied by fossil fuel companies keeping us in the Stone Age driving model-T’s, because they have good representation with DC politicians. Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our technology innovation is subpar, our manufacturing is next to nothing, and we just keep sliding farther away from number one. Even little things are embarrassing like we are rated 10th down on the list for the number of hospital beds per 1000 citizens in the country, and we are down to 11th on the list for the country’s citizens living the longest. Our enemies must be laughing at us, distracted for decades spending trillions on wars, instead of spending the money on bettering our country. Now we are broke, and our infrastructure subpar compared to other advanced countries that have been at work over the decades keeping up with technology and repairs.

Other countries don’t give away their tax dollars to to their enemies. Other countries are more concerned about their country and don’t try to be the world police. Yes, you’re right other countries have smarter people in charge.

[Topspinmo]

So what does your false dissertation of bad business decisions of manufacturers have to do with a home owner installing solar panels and saving money and electricity. You have the glass is half empty approach. One more point... not all power plants use coal.

You’re right, many switches to natural gas.