Solar Power Will Kill Coal Faster Than You Think

JackNSally said:
Remove all subsidies for power generation no matter the source...
Click to expand...

You want to give subsidies to where you want to go and you have to when the initial cost is high. It will never be anywhere equal to an established base without. Its no different than when Intel for example had to kickstart the consumer SSD wave. You may however be able to replace subsidies with extra tax on what you dont want.
 
Last edited:
Ducman69 said:
This is such epic bullshit that gets repeated ad nauseum.

You have some people that see that various fossil fuel industries get tax breaks for doing certain things the government wants them to. They use this and say, "aha, see, fossil fuels are subsidized", knowing full well that when we talk about "subsidizing an industry" we mean NET SUBSIDY.

Net subsidy means that the good or product would cost MORE if the government did not interfere.

Fossil fuels are heavily net taxed, meaning that if the government did nothing, coal, gasoline, natural gas, and the like would cost less on the open market.

Solar, wind, and ethanol are heavily net subsidized, meaning that if the government did nothing, they would cost MORE on the open market.

That difference matters.

Stop lying.
Click to expand...
Huh
 
"You want to give subsidies to where you want to go and you have to when the initial cost is high"

YA!...like Solyndra!...oh , wait...
 
Killahurtz said:
"You want to give subsidies to where you want to go and you have to when the initial cost is high"

YA!...like Solyndra!...oh , wait...
Click to expand...

You may not have oil, gas, coal and electricity today if it wasn't the case. And you certainly would miss a lot of your electronics.
 
pretty sure those industries started as wholly owned and operated business...no taxpayer subsidies...subsidies are a way for big government to get their hands in the pie and begin to dictate the actions of private business
 
heatlesssun said:
The thing that did nuclear in in the US was Three Mile Island.
Click to expand...

Three mile island only amplified nimby. "Not in my back yard". Usa still has the most reactors running and about 5 under construction. Nuclear's paradox, has more folks considering its re-introduction as a viable source of power. Clean to run, nasty for over 100,000 years and if something goes wrong, may take out a few neighborhoods. New engineering has stated to have solved the neighborhood problem. Something goes wrong, it just stops running like a steam engine when the fire goes out. There are even molten salt and breeder reactors that supposedly do the same thing and make more fuel than they consume. Of course, none of those are under construction for as many reasons that you can <government> think of. Good/Bad? Nimby.

mesyn191 said:
This is absoultely correct. Manufacture and disposal of solar cells is very toxic.

It is also however very possible, and practical, to recycle them much as most batteries are recycled today so this doesn't necessarily have to be big issue.

Personally I'd prefer nuclear + solar powered grid but the politics behind nuclear, as well as the industry's continued half-assedness when it comes to safety in favor of profits, will probably always keep nuclear a limited option.
Click to expand...

Manufacture of solar has to use toxic chemicals, disposal isnt as toxic as it may seem considering its manufacture and makeup. Its more a consideration than a problem. Similar to abating asbestos, in places where its been used. Most times the process of removing it, causes the problems that you are removing it to prevent. The potentially toxic metals and chemicals are effectively sequestered in glass. Its a product that produces electricity cleanly for decades made of a process that has potential as a way to store nuclear waste safely. Ok. Exxageration. Just pointing out that the solar cell glass needs certain things to be made. Once made, its tough for the toxic stuff to leach out. Its not like flour on top of baked bread. The materials have become part of the cell. No longer in a state to poison.

Since plants use solar cleanly everyday there is a better way. The person or company that figures it out will become the world's first trillionaire. Let's see if I can remember the chemistry lessons that I learned about photosynthesis :)
 
Last edited:
Killahurtz said:
pretty sure those industries started as wholly owned and operated business...no taxpayer subsidies...subsidies are a way for big government to get their hands in the pie and begin to dictate the actions of private business
Click to expand...
If only private fossil fuel business could fight back and influence government in some way! Like make the former CEO of ExxonMobil the US Secretary of State.
 
Killahurtz said:
pretty sure those industries started as wholly owned and operated business...no taxpayer subsidies...subsidies are a way for big government to get their hands in the pie and begin to dictate the actions of private business
Click to expand...

Somewhat. But also remember goverment cash assisting the stringing of power lines and underground gas lines. Making a local business able to give power to many. Govt also helped clean up the air in California and other places also made private business take responsibility for the waste they created. Not huge on govt intervention. Just realize that many private folks would be uncaring about many things unless there was a statute saying: " Recycle", "Not a dumping ground", "Clean Water act", "Federally protected land".....you get the idea. Enron was privately owned. Not a good story there.
 
or maybe like the way the food industry fought back and influenced government by making the Heinz company the Secretary of State...hmmm could probably go all day with those analogies
 
Last edited:
Killahurtz said:
pretty sure those industries started as wholly owned and operated business...no taxpayer subsidies...subsidies are a way for big government to get their hands in the pie and begin to dictate the actions of private business
Click to expand...

Why did they need a trillion or so in subs over their lifespan?

Why is it cheaper to burn methane in flares than use it for energy generation?
 
Last edited:
MikeTrike said:
Glad everybody's still deciding what we should do with other people's money... We're clearly making progress here...
Click to expand...

It would also be nice if I didn't have to suffer because someone else used coal to pollute the air and ground and put people early in their graves.
 
please list your "suffering"...that way we can get a better idea of how bad you have it...thanks

oh ,Copenhagen...got it...my bad

oh again...I guess a good question (since your asking questions) would be how come the US had to waste those nasty fossil fuels to rescue Denmark from the Nazi occupation?

I guess if we were smart we would have not been using fossil fuel and let them keep stomping the Danish neck...interesting
 
Last edited:
Killahurtz said:
please list your "suffering"...that way we can get a better idea of how bad you have it...thanks
Click to expand...

I have to list the negative sides of coal production and burning? If you tried to start a business with the same pollution as a coal fired power plant you would get a deny faster than you could do the application. If you don't know, coal is filled with a lot of other things than just clean coal. Mercury, arsenic, thorium, uranium, chromium, cadmium and so on.
 
most don't have a clue what "fossil fuel subsidies" even are...

"(As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as "the 1%" is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%).

Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have a page on fossil fuel subsidies, which they define as "any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers." They include a spreadsheet breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies utilizing data from a joint OECD-IEA report called Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Other Support. The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

"But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in "oil subsidies."


"Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the "largest single tax break" — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer's tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction.

"It is really irrelevant how profitable Apple might be. The argument that "they are rich and therefore don't need it" doesn't mean that elimination of the tax credit will therefore have no impact. If there is a compelling financial advantage for them to build a factory overseas they will do so. This tax credit provides incentive for them to keep manufacturing in the U.S."

"Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love
So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody -- not even Bill McKibben -- wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies. I suspect McKibben would not advocate eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Two of the most outspoken Democratic opponents of oil subsidies have strongly defended this particular program -- even though it is classified by the OECD as the 3rd largest petroleum subsidy. When Republicans tried to cut funding for the program, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the proposal an "extreme idea" that would "set the country backwards." Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, states on his website that he is a "longtime Congressional champion of providing assistance to low-income families to heat and cool their homes."

"In fact, look at the reaction from Democrats when President Obama tried to reduce funding for the program. Rep. Markey's office said: “If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., noted her opposition: “The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter to President Obama that stated in part: "We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season." Yet each one of these Democrats was defending a program that is lumped into that all-encompassing category of "oil subsidies."
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
It would also be nice if I didn't have to suffer because someone else used coal to pollute the air and ground and put people early in their graves.
Click to expand...

upload_2017-6-18_10-37-41.png


Good thing people get to decide what they do with their own money for the betterment of others... Oh wait...

Killahurtz said:
So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies?
Click to expand...

Because our economy technically runs on fossil fuels...
 
Ducman69 said:
Sounds good.

Remove all government subsidies for solar power since they don't need it.

The big thing that these guys (I think intentionally) overlook is that they say, "see, unsubsized solar power costs only 11-30 cents per KWH over the life of the product"! What they forget is that last time I checked, the sun isn't out all day, peak usage is at sundown when people get back home from work, and some days get far less sun than others, not to mention the effect the seasons have on solar energy the further you are from the equator. So you have to factor in the cost over the life of the product of batteries to store the excess capacity for when its needed, and the environmental cost of mining those materials and recycling them to come to a real world true market price.

I think solar is a no-brainer in remote and/or desert environments near the equator, and its great as a supplement to the grid, but these "fossil fuels are going to go out of business" nonsense is just that.
Click to expand...


Another option is to be grid tied if your state's power company has a good net metering plan. We are going with a grid tied system here in CT and will generate most of our power in the spring and summer. We will roll over extra killowatt hours that we generate and give back to the power company in the winter to have no bill then as well.

Battery options are getting cheaper too though.
 
I have to list the negatives of wind power and solar power?...how about the basic...

the city-sized Baogang Steel and Rare Earth complex and the "lake" at Baotou , China


"As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.

‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’

People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.

Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found."

"For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States"

there is a whole big world outside of Denmark...go see it
 
Shintai said:
I have to list the negative sides of coal production and burning? If you tried to start a business with the same pollution as a coal fired power plant you would get a deny faster than you could do the application. If you don't know, coal is filled with a lot of other things than just clean coal. Mercury, arsenic, thorium, uranium, chromium, cadmium and so on.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question
 
Shintai said:
You want to give subsidies to where you want to go and you have to when the initial cost is high. It will never be anywhere equal to an established base without. Its no different than when Intel for example had to kickstart the consumer SSD wave. You may however be able to replace subsidies with extra tax on what you dont want.
Click to expand...

The argument was remove subsidies from solar/wind so they compete with coal/nuclear/etc. I'm saying then the other sources should not get subsidies to compete on equal ground.
 
alxnet7227 said:
Let's say you have a 100 different models and half the models produce results that show minor change in sea levels. What do you think happens to the models that don't produce "consensus" results? They get ignored or thrown out. Global warming isn't about science anymore, it's about politics, about power over people and industries. Carbon trading? Allowing China and India vast amounts of pollution credits? If we're attempting to save the planet in x number of years, why even allow carbon trading to exist?
Click to expand...

Models get thrown out when they don't pass peer review, just like everything else in science. The models are open. The source code is mostly open. You can plug in data from 1970, let it run with a few assumptions, and see if it will correctly estimate climate in 2010. You can download the math yourself and check it for flaws. But you won't and you can't because the models aren't the problem, you are. You are the one politicizing basic research and trying to overturn decades of science because your team finds it inconvenient.

So how about you stop fighting reality? China and India aren't. China didn't back out of its climate obligations. They're embracing it, because they see America abdicating leadership. They will keep pouring billions into renewables until they bury any American firms. They will lay waste to our industry and get global plaudits for it at the same time.

You and people like you can't see the trap you're walking into because you're too busy fighting yesterday's battles to see tomorrows opportunities.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
So how about you stop fighting reality? China and India aren't. China didn't back out of its climate obligations. They're embracing it, because they see America abdicating leadership. They will keep pouring billions into renewables until they bury any American firms. They will lay waste to our industry and get global plaudits for it at the same time.
Click to expand...
Their obligations being a promise to start doing things by no later than 2030. And in the meantime, China will continue to use coal because it makes sense.

https://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-output-coal-idUSL3N1JB1LM

The people who laud China about being a climate leader have no idea of the scale of coal usage in China.
 
YARDofSTUF said:
Another option is to be grid tied if your state's power company has a good net metering plan. We are going with a grid tied system here in CT and will generate most of our power in the spring and summer. We will roll over extra killowatt hours that we generate and give back to the power company in the winter to have no bill then as well.
Click to expand...
Net metering is unsustainable in the long-term, because if nobody has to ever pay electricity bills who would provide electricity when the sun isn't shining.
 
STR said:
Hi, just as an FYI, it's not 1980 anymore. We've got pretty good models that are in >90% agreement on climate these days. We know within an inch or two what the average sea level will be in 50 years depending on various emissions outcomes.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

https://www.livescience.com/20171-groundwater-pumping-causing-seas-rise.html

That was originally researched because oceans were rising faster than ice melt could be accounted for in those well understood models of yours (was in the last five years - well after the 80's). D'oh! You don't know what you don't know.

Then we have. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ising-seas-slowed-by-increasing-water-on-land

Taken individually either one can tell a story. But the planet doesn't work like that. It's one large, interconnected ecosystem that we barely understand. There are millions upon billions of variables at play in our biosphere - it's nuts to place all the eggs in one "magic" pollutant as causing or solving all our problems.

Models aren't magic. They can only model that which we understand. We still can't predict the weather with any certainty more than two weeks out because of this, yet you know what it's going to be 50 years from now? Doubtful. I remember vividly growing up in the 70's the combined specters of peak oil and the coming ice age. Ice age! Perhaps global warming cancelled it out and we should be thankful. Peak oil? That proved to be even more laughable (and there was more than enough known back then that peak oil was a flat out lie - but it served an agenda so it persisted).

We also have a pretty good idea of how bad ozone and particates are to health. (Very bad and plain bad in order). We know exactly how much it costs to treat diseases caused by these pollutants.
Click to expand...

Surface ozone, sure. The whole CFC/Ozone hole thing from the '90's? A complete farce. Guess who's patents on Freon were expiring around the time it was "discovered" that CFCs were bad for ozone in the upper atmosphere? I'm not googling it for you - plenty is out there if you really are open minded and want to peak under the covers vs. the easily digestible and targeted for general consumption propaganda. DDT was also found to do nothing to bird eggs either. Once again I'm sure some key patents getting ready to expire had nothing to do with that either.

Scientists are people to, and they have motivations of their own. Below's a perfect example of intended policy and actual outcomes after you expose policy and intended outcomes of them to the harsh reality of the real world and the human factor:

sR43VaY.jpg


I'm not a climate change denier - that's stupid. The climate changes constantly.

What I am is highly suspicious of certain theories of man made global warming and their supposed cures since more than a few people pushing the cures to "man made global warming" are magically positioned to benefit from the proposed solutions.

Funny that.

Compounding this is the utter derision anyone who dares to question the religious foundations of man made global warming. Anyone that makes an argument that ANY science is settled immediately qualifies them as a crackpot of the highest order. Science is never settled and heaven help us if it ever is. At one point the flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth were settled science. Thank goodness that didn't stick.
 
STR said:
Hi, just as an FYI, it's not 1980 anymore. We've got pretty good models that are in >90% agreement on climate these days. We know within an inch or two what the average sea level will be in 50 years depending on various emissions outcomes. We know what cities that will put underwater. We have a good idea what it will cost to move or retrofit flood prevention systems to places like New York and Miami.
Click to expand...
There's an old scam that's still being used that's remarkably similar to how climate models are being marketed. It goes like this: create 20 different mutual funds with 20 different investment strategies. After the first year, drop the ones that lost money during that first year. After the second year, drop any of the remainder that lost money that year. After the third year, drop any that lost money. Then market the remaining few to people, saying "this fund got the market exactly right three years in a row!"

Yes, models have been updated/tweaked/etc over the years so that they match the observed data. That's not bad per se, but it also doesn't mean that the models will accurately predict future trends.

Shintai said:
Why did they need a trillion or so in subs over their lifespan?

Why is it cheaper to burn methane in flares than use it for energy generation?
Click to expand...
"Subsidies" you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Besides, you're forgetting the fact that the energy industry is really, really big, so the numbers look really, really big, when in reality they're peanuts in terms of percentages.

As for flares, I'll fill you in. Flares are used for lots of things. One of those is indeed for burning off unused methane. Usually, it's because there's not a whole lot of methane being separated out, and it's simply not worth the cost of all the equipment needed to clean it up and get it into the grid. That methane has to go somewhere, and it's a lot more environmentally friendly (and safe!) to burn it rather than releasing into the atmosphere.

(there are lots of other things flares are used for, but they're outside the scope of this discussion)

Uvaman2 said:
http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html
Click to expand...
Until the federal government starts sending rebate checks for 30% of people's gas and electric bills and fuel purchases, claims that fossil fuels are unfairly subsidized aren't going to hold water.
 
Last edited:
Khahhblaab said:
Three mile island only amplified nimby. "Not in my back yard". Usa still has the most reactors running and about 5 under construction. Nuclear's paradox, has more folks considering its re-introduction as a viable source of power. Clean to run, nasty for over 100,000 years and if something goes wrong, may take out a few neighborhoods. New engineering has stated to have solved the neighborhood problem. Something goes wrong, it just stops running like a steam engine when the fire goes out. There are even molten salt and breeder reactors that supposedly do the same thing and make more fuel than they consume. Of course, none of those are under construction for as many reasons that you can <government> think of. Good/Bad? Nimby.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Instead of burying a bunch of toxic crap in the desert we should be burning it for energy:



China has picked up we abandoned in the '50's because it didn't meet the needs of the military - and we are in deep doo doo if they get their before we do, especially with all the anti-carbon rhetoric these days.
 
There is nothing wrong with coal. Thanks to solar farms and wind farms there won't be any birds left. However we could accomodate more 3rd worlders, right?
 
I wonder how they measure avian deaths for fossil fuels. I mean, it's relatively easy to count smashed/charred carcasses around a wind or solar farm, but how do you do it for a power plant? And how on earth does a nuclear power plant kill birds?
 
Mohonri said:
I wonder how they measure avian deaths for fossil fuels. I mean, it's relatively easy to count smashed/charred carcasses around a wind or solar farm, but how do you do it for a power plant? And how on earth does a nuclear power plant kill birds?
Click to expand...

No clue, though I see your point... But I ain't reading through all this shit...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=I+wonder+how+they+measure+avian+deaths+for+fossil+fuels

Also on the nuclear side, they're citing mining as a possible cause... Godspeed in your searching...
 
STR said:
Nope. As Big Coal has demonstrated, Americans don't really give a damn about consequences so long as the power is cheap.
The reason why nobody builds nuclear reactors in the west anymore is simple. After 60 years the nuke industry still can't build a plant for less than four billion goddamn dollars. No private bank on Earth will cut a check for that, so pretty much every reactor ever built required state intervention.
As we chat here, Toshiba is fighting for its existence after losing billions building reactors that just don't get completed anywhere near on time or budget. They might have to sell their chipmaking business, the heart of Toshiba.
Click to expand...
That may be part of it, but having been there throughout the 70s and 80s, 3 Mile island was HUGE. There was a big movement in the late 70s and early 80s to stop Nuclear energy and I can promise you that most people didn't (and probably still don't) want to live near a plant.

As far as costs go, I'm no expert. The build out is expensive, but part of that is because we don't economies of scale for Nuke plants. I don't have to look it up, but I'd be interested to know how much it'd cost to build a solar array that generates as much power as a Nuclear plant (and don't forget the cost of land in that equation).

I'm all for solar, but for now, the best approach is a bit of everything (and, as I recall, Wind currently generates more energy than Solar) in the U.S.. No doubt the goal should be to get rid of Coal (forget global warming, pollution kills people) and ultimately gas cars. Coal is going to go away (assuming the current POTUS doesn't prop it up), simply because Coal is not popular with people and last I checked, LNG was more economical (and significantly cleaner), but even coal isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
 
Ducman69 said:
This is such epic bullshit that gets repeated ad nauseum.
You have some people that see that various fossil fuel industries get tax breaks for doing certain things the government wants them to. They use this and say, "aha, see, fossil fuels are subsidized", knowing full well that when we talk about "subsidizing an industry" we mean NET SUBSIDY.
Net subsidy means that the good or product would cost MORE if the government did not interfere.
Fossil fuels are heavily net taxed, meaning that if the government did nothing, coal, gasoline, natural gas, and the like would cost less on the open market.
Solar, wind, and ethanol are heavily net subsidized, meaning that if the government did nothing, they would cost MORE on the open market.
That difference matters.

Stop lying.
Click to expand...
Fine, but we need a tax that pays for all wars and bases in the middle east, because let's not pretend that we give a rats ass about that area other than for fossil fuels. So what's that cost annually? 100 billion? 200 billion? Isis alone is around 65 billion/year. Iraq has cost us close to 2 trillion over the last 15 years.

Sure sounds like subsidies to me.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Huh
Click to expand...
The following numbers are not exact, they are merely meant to represent the sort of math involved for people that forgot the crap they learned in basic economics class.

If I tax fossil fuels 35%, but turn around and give them a 6% tax break, I am still taxing them 29%. The end user cost of fossil fuel has been artificially raised by the government.

If I tax renewables 35%, but turn around and give them a 9% tax break, and then 20% in direct subsidies, and then a total of another 20% in end user subsidies, then they are receiving a benefit of 14%. The end user cost of renewables has been artificially lowered by the government.
nilepez said:
Fine, but we need a tax that pays for all wars and bases in the middle east, because let's not pretend that we give a rats ass about that area other than for fossil fuels. So what's that cost annually? 100 billion? 200 billion? Isis alone is around 65 billion/year. Iraq has cost us close to 2 trillion over the last 15 years.

Sure sounds like subsidies to me.
Click to expand...

It is. But to who? The entire US economy? The economy that is literally built on and held up by oil and the production of war machines? The oil must flow. And not just for the benefit of big oil.
 
Snoflo said:
When I went to work at one of Scotland's major hospitals I was appalled by the number of patients with COPD, restrictive lung disease, and lung cancer all ascribed to exposure to the burning of fossil fuels (coal). I don't know much about the coal industry, but from my narrow viewpoint of a physician treating these people, coal needs to go.
Click to expand...

I taught anatomy at an Appalachian medical school for years, and many of our body donors were coal miners.

Believe me, you do not want to be a coal miner. We called it "pudding lung," and no, it was not like haggis, the Scottish pudding made with sheep lung.
 
DocNo said:
As long as you don't have to pay the difference in price, right?
Click to expand...

Well I'd say the rest of the world is already either on board with that or has experienced it for the past 20 years.

It's only the US that still thinks a lot of things should be like they were in 1955...like prices for stuff.
 
Khahhblaab said:
disposal isnt as toxic as it may seem considering its manufacture and makeup
Click to expand...
Many of the solar cells have toxic metals in them and require toxic solvents and chemicals in order to process them for recycling that end up as waste.

Khahhblaab said:
The potentially toxic metals and chemicals are effectively sequestered in glass
Click to expand...
For handling, installation, and removal of the panels this is certainly true. But during recycling the glass is removed and the silicon itself is exposed to various nasty chemicals so they can strip everything off of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top