[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by tmbozoki@gmail.com

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]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

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.