Impact of solar panels on global climate

[Alias72]

yes, you're right, i was just trying to point towards the dangers which come with nuclear power, all the things you listed may be unpleasant but most likely 'healthier' than some kg uranium close to your living place.

Nuclear energy has a number of issues. Those issues need to be discussed objectively, not with a logical fallacy designed to shame its supporters.

Nuclear only work large scale, same does coal, however in the old days it was common do use coal for heating,

This is still an major source for polution in China and India, it would be better to burn the coal in an central plant as its easier to clean.

In wood rich areas like Scandinavia, Russia and Canada firewood is common for heating this is CO2 neutral over time but produce plenty of local pollution who is an issue if used in an city, burning gas centrally would reduce pollution.

But would both be more expensive for users and add to the co2 budget for the politicians.

Coal has had greater health effects then previously thought. The main issue is that coal dust is a carcinogen and a toxin. Coal dust can cause massive respiratory issues. Coal is actually the most lethal form of power generation of all the ones we have discussed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

The US number is the best to go by. Safety issues and a lack of regulatory control add to other nations death-rates. Nuclear and wind are the best.

[Stargate525]

Many proposed sites for solar panel farms meet strenuous opposition from environmental groups, who for some strange reason consider deserts a vital resource that should be preserved.

Cue rolling of eyes followed by exasperated sigh.

That's because most people hear 'desert' and think of the Atacama or the Sahara, which are largely lifeless. Unfortunately, those deserts also have the problem of being about as far away from the most hungry electric grids as it is possible to get, and in areas of pretty low infrastructure.

Whereas the ones that are much closer to civilization are TEAMING with biodiversity, making the idea of 'turning these thousands of square miles into solar panels' about at ecologically sound as doing it to a forest or grassland.

[PB666]

That's because most people hear 'desert' and think of the Atacama or the Sahara, which are largely lifeless. Unfortunately, those deserts also have the problem of being about as far away from the most hungry electric grids as it is possible to get, and in areas of pretty low infrastructure.

Whereas the ones that are much closer to civilization are TEAMING with biodiversity, making the idea of 'turning these thousands of square miles into solar panels' about at ecologically sound as doing it to a forest or grassland.

Gaining for the sympathy of a mojave rattlesnake.......lol. Californians have put an immense cities on the desert, adding a solar forrest to block a little direct sunlight won't hurt much when the high temperature in some places is over 50'c. You have the eastern mojave and death valley for starts. When the salton sea dries out you have that, and then there are huge expanses of salt lakes in utah. like is said panels are best o local usage thing, but other solar can be used non-locally.

California is in desparate need of power because the will need to rationalize desalination and soon, otherwise the burden shifts east and north.

Solar panels will affect biodiversity, more than likely in a positvie way by increasing water retention at ground level. It could be positive if they keep the panels at about thirty percent of ground coverage, biology will adapt. Any way the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. If carbon emmisions aren't cut these at-risk areas are doomed, so you are looking at trouble anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Nuclear energy has a number of issues. Those issues need to be discussed objectively, not with a logical fallacy designed to shame its supporters.

Coal has had greater health effects then previously thought. The main issue is that coal dust is a carcinogen and a toxin. Coal dust can cause massive respiratory issues. Coal is actually the most lethal form of power generation of all the ones we have discussed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

The US number is the best to go by. Safety issues and a lack of regulatory control add to other nations death-rates. Nuclear and wind are the best.

To add to that lignite coal produces mercury, which builds up the food chain making large fish, billfish and sharks toxic.

[micr0wave]

Burning stuff, be it coal, gas or oil isn't good for the environment either. Searching long enough will also give you some calculations how a coal plant emits more radiation than a nuclear one.

What makes me a little upset is just the fact that most people conviniently ignore the problems of nuclear waste, be it environmental or security issues.

Mankind still doesn't have a solution how to handle nuclear waste properly and history has proven several times that a nuclear disaster happens from time to time and spreads radiation and toxic materials which remain in the food chain for a very long period planetwide. Steel from ships sunk before 1945 is in high demand for scientific/medical purposes because it isn't contanimated by nuclear waste products from nuclear tests/bombs/accidents. Unless those problems aren't solved, nuclear is (imho) the most dangerous form of power generation.

[lajoswinkler]

Enormous energy is not by definition bad for the environment and the handling of the chemicals can be regulated.

But they're not and it's one of the two reasons why PV is this cheap. Yeah, it's very expensive. I'm just saying it would be far worse if it was produced with the stringency of nuclear industry and without subsidiaries which are just a way to cover up the fact it's greenwashing and money laundry industry.

It's nice to think green when you do the nasty things in some Chinese town no one ever heard of, but the biosphere is indifferent to it. What goes around, comes around.

You don't even have to try and find places in Europe where it's possible to most of the energy from solar and fill the rest with wind.

This is a myth. You can not create a base load out of PV and wind and call it a day. It just won't work. It's not just summing up the megawatts. There's much more to it. Those sources are for the most intents and purposes top loads or a bit lower for wind. And don't mention batteries, please. We're talking about the live grid for a modern society, towns and cities, not an office building.

Most solar panels come with 20 year warranty, that means that they expect them to work for at least that long.

Compared that to a washing machine, which only has around 6 years of warranty.

Yeah, I'd like to see that. Energy producers exposed to rain and sun all the time, being durable as if they're in orbit. LOL

Those wanting nuclear power should be the first ones to volunteer for storing the waste in their own backyard.

No problem. Here, take my basement. I'd be glad to store it there and collect the money. It's the only waste we have that can be stored with incredible precision and warranty of safety, and its amounts are anomalously small. Not just high level waste which amount is so tiny that we shouldn't bother removing it from the spent fuel pools for now. I'm talking about medium and low level one.

This is what coal power plants do. See the stack? Not the cooling towers, they're emitting water only. The stack is releasing smoke which carries carcinogens and mercury. And radioactive materials. Yes, coal power plants release more bequerels than fission power plants.

And the product is coal ash which is just dumped near the plant on an open field. It's concentrated heavy metal crap.

I'd never want to live near this. But I'd live few metres away from a fission power plant because its emissions are: water vapor, heat and tiny amounts of tritium dilluted and rarely released out through a tall stack. The waste will never see me.

[Brethern]

I'm going to continue doing what I've been doing for years, completely ignoring these people and carrying on like usual. How much greenhouse gasses do active volcanoes spew out every year? How many volcanoes are on earth and how many thousands of years have they been active for?

The planet takes care of this stuff, humans just have to learn to mind their own business.

[PB666]

http://www.futurity.org/geothermal-energy-iceland-979782/

[peadar1987]

What makes me a little upset is just the fact that most people conviniently ignore the problems of nuclear waste, be it environmental or security issues.

Mankind still doesn't have a solution how to handle nuclear waste properly and history has proven several times that a nuclear disaster happens from time to time and spreads radiation and toxic materials which remain in the food chain for a very long period planetwide. Steel from ships sunk before 1945 is in high demand for scientific/medical purposes because it isn't contanimated by nuclear waste products from nuclear tests/bombs/accidents. Unless those problems aren't solved, nuclear is (imho) the most dangerous form of power generation.

Mankind has an ideal solution to nuclear waste. Immobilise it in glass and bury it in a geologically stable rock formation. The problems are political, not technical or economic. People irrationally oppose it, because nuclear, even if they are perfectly happy/blissfully ignorant of the amounts of pollution other methods of energy generation cause.

Nuclear accidents are bad, but again, overhyped, because radiation. Chernobyl and Fukushima between them have killed 33 people directly, and a few hundred to a few thousand in extra occurrences of cancer. That's in 70 years of commercial nuclear power.

About 12,000 people are killed per year mining coal. Another 13,000 experience early deaths in the US alone due to the effects of burning coal. Smoke, smog, released carcinogens and heavy metals, etc.

I'm going to continue doing what I've been doing for years, completely ignoring these people and carrying on like usual. How much greenhouse gasses do active volcanoes spew out every year? How many volcanoes are on earth and how many thousands of years have they been active for?

The planet takes care of this stuff, humans just have to learn to mind their own business.

It would be wonderful if you were right, but 95%+ of climate scientists disagree with you.

Incidentally, annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 80-270 times larger than volcanic emissions: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[Drunken Hobo]

How much greenhouse gasses do active volcanoes spew out every year? How many volcanoes are on earth and how many thousands of years have they been active for?

The planet takes care of this stuff, humans just have to learn to mind their own business.

In an average year, all of the world's volcanoes combined produce about 1% of the CO₂ that humans do. What point are you trying to make?

The planet will be fine, that's for sure. Humans might not be though...

[Stargate525]

Gaining for the sympathy of a mojave rattlesnake.......lol. Californians have put an immense cities on the desert, adding a solar forrest to block a little direct sunlight won't hurt much when the high temperature in some places is over 50'c. You have the eastern mojave and death valley for starts. When the salton sea dries out you have that, and then there are huge expanses of salt lakes in utah. like is said panels are best o local usage thing, but other solar can be used non-locally.

California is in desparate need of power because the will need to rationalize desalination and soon, otherwise the burden shifts east and north.

Solar panels will affect biodiversity, more than likely in a positvie way by increasing water retention at ground level. It could be positive if they keep the panels at about thirty percent of ground coverage, biology will adapt. Any way the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. If carbon emmisions aren't cut these at-risk areas are doomed, so you are looking at trouble anyway.

You are aware that there are a number of desert plans which die from too much water, and not all animal life considers comfortable what WE consider comfortable.

And by your argument...

nuclear waste will affect biodiversity, more than likely in a positvie way by increasing beneficial mutation at the genetic level. It could be positive if they keep the waste at about three percent of ground coverage, biology will adapt. Any way the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. If carbon emmisions aren't cut these at-risk areas are doomed, so you are looking at trouble anyway.

Unshielded nuclear for everyone! Biology will adapt! It's not like screwing a biodome we personally find difficult to inhabit could POSSIBLY have bad repuscussions, right?!

[Alias72]

guys all this nuclear stuff is great but also off topic. I have created a thread where we can continue this discussion and i believe it should be continued.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138700-Nuclear-Energy-History-Ecology-Economy

[Albert VDS]

@lajoswinkler: You keep pointing at how China make it's solar panels, but ignore how other (more responsible) countries deal with it.

Besides, for ever mundane product there is some company or country who doesn't care how it's getting produced.

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2012/01/10/water-colors-10-unnaturally-dyed-polluted-rivers/2/

We're not talking about "the grid", we're talking about if solar panels are good or bad for the environment.

If it takes batteries in a house to make it worth it, and avoid "gray" energy, then why not mention it?

Of course nuclear power is quite safe. But if something bad happens then it far worse.

There are countries who don't care how it's stored: http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/

[Brethern]

It would be wonderful if you were right, but 95%+ of climate scientists disagree with you.

Incidentally, annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 80-270 times larger than volcanic emissions: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Well then they're morons who should be focusing on more useful sciences.

Forest fires release more greenhouse gases than cars, and I think it's safe to say have been happening for allot longer than cars have existed.

[GeneralVeers]

Burning stuff, be it coal, gas or oil isn't good for the environment either.

Remember that next time you eat a cheeseburger.

When your body converts food into energy, the process is chemically identical to burning coal: oxidation, releasing energy and heat and carbon dioxide. It may also interest you that eight to ten percent of human carbon dioxide emissions come from.....BREATHING. From humans exhaling. No, I didn't get that statistic from any web site anywhere; I did the math myself. Took the average mass of CO2 a person exhales in a year, multiplied that by the number of people on Earth, and compared the result against total human greenhouse gas emissions (which is a very, very rough estimate, but good enough to give you an idea of how wrong the conventional wisdom is!)

The problem isn't that people are emitting greenhouse gases. The problem is that there are too many people. Mostly in underdeveloped nations, which are precisely the same places on Earth where people don't give half a damn about the problem because they have much bigger problems, and also don't have the economy/technology/education deal with the problem if they did care.

[Elthy]

Forestfire just release the Carbon the trees absorbed in the last years, while burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was out of the atmosphere for millions of years.

[Bill Phil]

Well then they're morons who should be focusing on more useful sciences.

Forest fires release more greenhouse gases than cars, and I think it's safe to say have been happening for allot longer than cars have existed.

Sure. But how many volcanoes have erupted in the last 150 years? A dozen? With pretty small amounts of gases released.

Forest fires? Sure. They happen, but they also release carbon that was already previously in the atmosphere. And steam.

Cars release quite a large amount. It adds to the cycle.

And, they're not morons. They've considered every possibility. And most of them don't work.

[Stargate525]

Sure. But how many volcanoes have erupted in the last 150 years? A dozen? With pretty small amounts of gases released.

Hahahahaa....

Try twenty in the past FIFTEEN years. And those are just the big ones, which together have killed over 400 people.

Try again, sir.

[ZetaX]

Well then they're morons who should be focusing on more useful sciences.

So this is your response after someone demonstrated how blatantly wrong your last claim on volcanoes was? I recommend starting to consider that your position is just outright wrong. If you come up with numbers that are off by a factor of 100 or more, and after that being pointed out claim that everyone who researches this is a moron (again without any foundation in science, reality or argument), then the problem is pretty definitely found within you, not those "morons". And that's even before we consider if the scientific claims of those "morons" are actuially correct, but purely based on how wrong your were.

[Bill Phil]

Hahahahaa....

Try twenty in the past FIFTEEN years. And those are just the big ones, which together have killed over 400 people.

Try again, sir.

Major ones? Not particularly. I mean, seriously, only 400? Wow, that's quite literally only 20 people per volcano.

And again, how many?

How large?

And, source?

[baggers]

Remember that next time you eat a cheeseburger.

When your body converts food into energy, the process is chemically identical to burning coal: oxidation, releasing energy and heat and carbon dioxide. It may also interest you that eight to ten percent of human carbon dioxide emissions come from.....BREATHING. From humans exhaling. No, I didn't get that statistic from any web site anywhere; I did the math myself. Took the average mass of CO2 a person exhales in a year, multiplied that by the number of people on Earth, and compared the result against total human greenhouse gas emissions (which is a very, very rough estimate, but good enough to give you an idea of how wrong the conventional wisdom is!)

The problem isn't that people are emitting greenhouse gases. The problem is that there are too many people. Mostly in underdeveloped nations, which are precisely the same places on Earth where people don't give half a damn about the problem because they have much bigger problems, and also don't have the economy/technology/education deal with the problem if they did care.

I'm a bit confused. Did you suggest undereducated nation peoples should learn to stop breathing? XD

I too have doing a little calculation: 40 man on 40 bikes that each make 40km a day exhaust more C02 than 40 mens sitting in a gaz-powered bus for a 40km travel.

An human is not at all a very efficient engine.

Give 5L of fuel to a car, it will take our 200kg payload 100km away.

How many liters of beer (and other commodities ^^) to how many mens do you need to do the same with only sapiens?

Anciens democraties have many slaves for develloping their cities.

We have more efficient than slaves eating food: we have engines that eat fuel.

I'm in fear that when we run out of fuel for engine, we came back to slaves eating food.

[PB666]

What exactly does the declining fatality rate from stratovolcanoes have to do with the safety of solar panels?

Edited November 9, 2015 by PB666

[micr0wave]

The carbon humans exhale with the CO2 actually comes from the carbohydrates you eat, in case you would only eat what you can grow you'd be CO2 neutral. Given that, you could almost state that those underdeveloped countries have a far better CO2 ratio regarding human breath than the developed ones.

That lost topic ... i think solar does have the lowest impact on climate since once it's produced it won't need fuel or emit pollution. If money wouldn't be a issue everything could be much 'greener', from solar panel production to nuclear power, most pollution that comes from the current ways of energy generation is there because it's cheaper to not avoid it.

[magnemoe]

That's because most people hear 'desert' and think of the Atacama or the Sahara, which are largely lifeless. Unfortunately, those deserts also have the problem of being about as far away from the most hungry electric grids as it is possible to get, and in areas of pretty low infrastructure.

Whereas the ones that are much closer to civilization are TEAMING with biodiversity, making the idea of 'turning these thousands of square miles into solar panels' about at ecologically sound as doing it to a forest or grassland.

This is true, few desert areas are lifeless, they are simply too dry to support an grass cover, still plenty of life.

On the other hand the environmental groups generally protests against anything, not very willing to cut a deal like: then we build that nuclear plant and preserve the desert.

Importing the power work, nobody care about how imported power is generated as its the other country or states issue.

It has the benefit of letting the neighbor ramp up the price to earn lots of money too.

[Brethern]

So this is your response after someone demonstrated how blatantly wrong your last claim on volcanoes was? I recommend starting to consider that your position is just outright wrong. If you come up with numbers that are off by a factor of 100 or more, and after that being pointed out claim that everyone who researches this is a moron (again without any foundation in science, reality or argument), then the problem is pretty definitely found within you, not those "morons". And that's even before we consider if the scientific claims of those "morons" are actuially correct, but purely based on how wrong your were.

No it's my response for a subject that quite frankly annoys me.

The planet is not going to turn into a giant desert, nor is it going to turn into a giant snow ball. Stop researching what you think is the effect of random crap on the environment, and focus on making things more efficient

Planet existed for several million years just fine and according to them some form of humans have always lived on it.

[m4v]

Planet existed for several million years just fine

Yes. The planet or even life on it isn't in danger, what's in danger is the environment conditions that allows us humans and our food to live comfortably.

and according to them some form of humans have always lived on it.

you will need to elaborate on that, surely you aren't implying that humans lived alongside dinosaurs.