Solar panels aren't all that "Green"!
 

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.

Hemlock Semiconductor is still in business Michigan

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.

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 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.

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?

"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.

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

The Leaf-Chronicle

"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.

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.

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.

It’s the most pollution free option there is.

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.

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.