Question:
I have noticed that a lot of you pro-nukers keep saying,Solar Panel Inverter battery “Nukes are safer that coal! Nukes are safer that coal!” You may or may not be right on that but you should realize coal IS NOT a renewable energy source. To be more in line with the topic of this newsgroup it would be better if you were comparing nuclear AND coal to say… PV for example. Then we would be comparing the safety of nuclear (which no matter how safe still has the ‘possibility’ of malfunctioning) and coal (which we all know is at current very polluting) to PV (which as far as I know the modules themselves are inert, (chemically and radiogenically) have no moving parts, and are only as dangerous as sharp, broken glass when they break).
Look into the chemicals used to manufacture PVs. . . When nuclear reactors are shut down, or prevented from starting up, most of the power comes from fossil fuels, a noticable chunk from hydro, and a piddling amount from “renewables”.Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
I have noticed that a lot of you pro-nukers keep saying, “Nukes are safer that coal! Nukes are safer that coal!” You may or may not be right on that but you should realize coal IS NOT a renewable energy source. To be more in line with the topic of this newsgroup it would be better if you were comparing nuclear AND coal to say… PV for example.Solar Panel Inverter battery Then we would be comparing the safety of nuclear (which no matter how safe still has the ‘possibility’ of malfunctioning) and coal (which we all know is at current very polluting) to PV (which as far as I know the modules themselves are inert,Solar Panel Inverter battery (chemically and radiogenically) have no moving parts, and are only as dangerous as sharp, broken glass when they break).
Response:
-Solar Panel Inverter battery I have noticed that a lot of you pro-nukers keep saying, “Nukes are safer that coal! Nukes are safer that coal!” You may or may not be right on that but you should realize coal IS NOT a renewable energy source. To be more in line with the topic of this newsgroup it would be better if you were comparing nuclear AND coal to say… PV for example. Then we would be comparing the safety of nuclear (which no matter how safe still has the ‘possibility’ of malfunctioning) and coal (which we all know is at current very polluting) to PV (which as far as I know the modules themselves are inert, (chemically and radiogenically) have no moving parts, and are only as dangerous as sharp, broken glass when they break). Look into the chemicals used to manufacture PVs. . . When nuclear reactors are shut down, or prevented from starting up, most of the power comes from fossil fuels, a noticable chunk from hydro, and a piddling amount from “renewables”. (By the way, from many standards, nuclear is “renewable”.)
… It doesn’t matter how much power is generated from coal if we are talking about renewable energy. Coal is no more a renewable energy source than oil, gas or nuclear. The chemicals used to manufacture PVs are used to manufacture them and are not shipped with the panels themselves for the most part. When you do get a PV panel it is as about as dangerous as a sheet of glass and even with the most catastrophic failures it won’t leak poison, radiation or cause most any other injury. I find it hard to think of a less dangerous piece of equipment to generate electricity. We could also look at some of the chemicals and procedures used to refine nuclear fuel. I’m sure these are much worse, and in much larger quantities, than PV manufacturing uses.Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
Solar Panel Inverter battery I have noticed that a lot of you pro-nukers keep saying, “Nukes are safer that coal! Nukes are safer that coal!” You may or may not be right on that but you should realize coal IS NOT a renewable energy source. To be more in line with the topic of this newsgroup it would be better if you were comparing nuclear AND coal to say… PV for example. Then we would be comparing the safety of nuclear (which no matter how safe still has the ‘possibility’ of malfunctioning) and coal (which we all know is at current very polluting) to PV (which as far as I know the modules themselves are inert, (chemically and radiogenically) have no moving parts, and are only as dangerous as sharp, broken glass when they break). Look into the chemicals used to manufacture PVs. . . When nuclear reactors are shut down, or prevented from starting up, most of the power comes from fossil fuels, a noticable chunk from hydro, and a piddling amount from “renewables”. (By the way, from many standards, nuclear is “renewable”.) … It doesn’t matter how much power is generated from coal if we are talking about renewable energy. Coal is no more a renewable energy source than oil, gas or nuclear. The chemicals used to manufacture PVs are used to manufacture them and are not shipped with the panels themselves for the most part. When you do get a PV panel it is as about as dangerous as a sheet of glass and even with the most catastrophic failures it won’t leak poison, radiation or cause most any other injury. I find it hard to think of a less dangerous piece of equipment to generate electricity. We could also look at some of the chemicals and procedures used to refine nuclear fuel. I’m sure these are much worse, and in much larger quantities, than PV manufacturing uses.Solar Panel Inverter battery. Then we would be comparing the safety of nuclear (which no matter how safe still has the ‘possibility’ of malfunctioning) and coal (which we all know is at current very polluting) to PV (which as far as I know the modules themselves are inert, (chemically and radiogenically) have no moving parts, and are only as dangerous as sharp, broken glass when they break). Look into the chemicals used to manufacture PVs. . . When nuclear reactors are shut down, or prevented from starting up, most of the power comes from fossil fuels, a noticable chunk from hydro, and a piddling amount from “renewables”. (By the way, from many standards, nuclear is “renewable”. It doesn’t matter how much power is generated from coal if we are talking about renewable energy. Coal is no more a renewable energy source than oil, gas or nuclear.
Uranium can be extracted from the oceans. Rivers renew that uranium continuously, in amounts far more than we’d need if all our power was nuclear. Thus, “renewable”. The chemicals used to manufacture PVs are used to manufacture them and are not shipped with the panels themselves for the most part. When you do get a PV panel it is as about as dangerous as a sheet of glass and even with the most catastrophic failures it won’t leak poison, radiation or cause most any other injury. I find it hard to think of a less dangerous piece of equipment to generate electricity. We could also look at some of the chemicals and procedures used to refine nuclear fuel. I’m sure these are much worse, and in much larger quantities, than PV manufacturing uses. Anthony
Nuclear makes considerably more power, so it likely does use more chemicals in refining it’s fuel. Solar Panel Inverter battery nuclear is safer then hydro, nuclear is safer then wind, nuclear is safer then Solar thermal, there done. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have noticed that a lot of you pro-nukers keep saying, “Nukes are safer that coal! Nukes are safer that coal!” You may or may not be right on that but you should realize coal IS NOT a renewable energy source. To be more in line with the topic of this newsgroup it would be better if you were comparing nuclear AND coal to say… PV for example. Then we would be comparing the safety of nuclear (which no matter how safe still has the ‘possibility’ of malfunctioning) and coal (which we all know is at current very polluting) to PV (which as far as I know the modules themselves are inert, (chemically and radiogenically) have no moving parts, and are only as dangerous as sharp, broken glass when they break).
Response:
… We could also look at some of the chemicals and procedures used to refine nuclear fuel. I’m sure these are much worse, and in much larger quantities, than PV manufacturing uses. Anthony Nuclear makes considerably more power, so it likely does use more chemicals in refining it’s fuel. Noting that ‘you’re sure’, please let us know how much of what chemicals each power source uses.
… Well, once created a solar PV panel does not require any chemicals or produce any kind of toxic waste. Even if a panel were to fail completely, be smashed to pieces or melted down into slag it is still not hazardous, can be handled by people without the use of lead suits, and can be disposed of easily without threat to dozens of future generations.Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
Solar Panel Inverter battery
We could also look at some of the chemicals and procedures used to refine nuclear fuel. I’m sure these are much worse, and in much larger quantities, than PV manufacturing uses. Anthony Nuclear makes considerably more power, so it likely does use more chemicals in refining it’s fuel. Noting that ‘you’re sure’, please let us know how much of what chemicals each power source uses. … Well, once created a solar PV panel does not require any chemicals or produce any kind of toxic waste. Even if a panel were to fail completely, be smashed to pieces or melted down into slag it is still not hazardous, can be handled by people without the use of lead suits, and can be disposed of easily without threat to dozens of future generations.
Batteries may be part of the installation and they will also have to be disposed of.Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
You heard of Si, what about those new panels that will be using GaAs. I wouldn’t call those harmless, and they will stay around until diluted, don’t you wish that every so often the amount of those materials halved like it does with nuclear waste. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, once created a solar PV panel does not require any chemicals or produce any kind of toxic waste. Even if a panel were to fail completely, be smashed to pieces or melted down into slag it is still not hazardous, can be handled by people without the use of lead suits, and can be disposed of easily without threat to dozens of future generations.Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
OK then, nuclear is safer then hydro, nuclear is safer then wind, nuclear is safer then Solar thermal, there done.
He got it all in one line. This one should take care of the Week and the Month. I’ll bet he’s not done.
Response:
…, don’t you wish that every so often the amount of those materials halved like it does with nuclear waste.
No. It’s that little squrirt of radiation that accompanies the split that is the problem –georges
Response:
The chemicals used to manufacture PVs are used to manufacture them and are not shipped with the panels themselves for the most part. When you do get a PV panel it is as about as dangerous as a sheet of glass and even with the most catastrophic failures it won’t leak poison, radiation or cause most any other injury. I find it hard to think of a less dangerous piece of equipment to generate electricity.
The sorry ass lead-acid batteries that are usually attached to those PV panels are toxic waste. Without batteries/storage device, PV panels are kind of useless.
Response:
The sorry ass lead-acid batteries that are usually attached to those PV panels are toxic waste. Without batteries/storage device, PV panels are kind of useless.
Toxic waste? You mean like the battery in your car? News flash to codeman: those batteries are recycleable. And there are solar panels and inverters designed to work without batteries. As in remote water pumping, and selling power back to the utility. But you knew all that, right?Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
Disposing dead PV modules is not an issue yet, but neither was the disposal of other things that contained toxic materials. I’ll bet that there are people quietly reading these newsgroup postings and thinking how they can make a profit recycling or using semiconductor waste. Has anyone come up with a socially acceptable way to profit from nuclear or coal power plant waste?Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
But radiation isn’t that bad, quite a lot better then Oxygen. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …, don’t you wish that every so often the amount of those materials halved like it does with nuclear waste. No. It’s that little squrirt of radiation that accompanies the split that is the problem –georges
Response:
But radiation isn’t that bad, quite a lot better then Oxygen. No. It’s that little squrirt of radiation that accompanies the split that is the problem
Actually, it is that bad, especially if you are a lung cell. The microscopic radioactive dust particle gets trapped in your lung, emits a bit of radiation, damages the local dna, and makes damaged cells. Eventually, one of those damaged cells will be hardy enough to reproduce itself and spread, ie, become cancerous Do you really believe exposure to radiactive decay is better for living tissue than exposure to oxygen?Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
The microscopic radioactive dust particle gets trapped in your lung, emits a bit of radiation, damages the local dna, and makes damaged cells. Eventually, one of those damaged cells will be hardy enough to reproduce itself and spread, ie, become cancerous
“will” become cancerous, or “might”?. This is the hot particle theory. John Hughes Before you buy. Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
The sorry ass lead-acid batteries that are usually attached to those PV panels are toxic waste.
No more or less than the ones in cars, and they are recycled Without batteries/storage device, PV panels are kind of useless.
Unless, of course, it is grid intertied, Solar Panel Inverter battery
Response:
You heard of Si, what about those new panels that will be using GaAs.
GaAs panels are currently used almost exclusively in space applications. It is possible they can be made economical for terrestrial use by using them in concentrator arrays. Even in such a case, though, they’ll really only be feasible in areas with lots of direct sunlight (deserts, basically). At any rate, your thought isn’t original and studies have been performed to see whether toxins leach out of GaAs and CdTe modules when broken and exposed to the elements (studies have also been done on the smoke produced by burning a CdTe module). No danger has been found. Soil under a pulverized module left exposed to rain for a year was found to have only slightly elevated levels of Ga and As, and levels below those considered safe in the U.S. and Europe. This just demonstrates that the Ga and As atoms are pretty tightly bound to one another and, as a result, it’s difficult to remove either element from the module without chemistry. The same goes for CdTe,Solar Panel Inverter battery whether pulverized or exposed to fire. I might also point out that GaAs has already entered many people’s homes in the form of the semiconductor laser used to read CDs and DVDs. To my knowledge there are no health hazards associated with owning, using, or servicing these lasers (aside from not pointing the laser into your eye).
Response:
Disposing dead PV modules is not an issue yet, but neither was the disposal of other things that contained toxic materials. I’ll bet that there are people quietly reading these newsgroup postings and thinking how they can make a profit recycling or using semiconductor waste. Has anyone come up with a socially acceptable way to profit from nuclear or coal power plant waste?
The real issue in landfilling dead PV modules has nothing to do with the cell fabrication process. The primary issue is the lead contained in the solder — IIRC, PV modules are just on the safe side of the borderline for legal landfill disposal. Recycling of the silicon from used PV modules has gotten much better. If the silicon wafers can be removed from the module without breakage they can usually be reused without having to melt them down, saving a ton of energy. One group has even improved the efficiencies of the cells it recycled (which is actually not that surprising if you’re familiar with high-temperature silicon processing).Solar Panel Inverter battery quite a lot better then Oxygen. No. It’s that little squrirt of radiation that accompanies the split that i s the problem Actually, it is that bad, especially if you are a lung cell. The microscopic radioactive dust particle gets trapped in your lung, emits a bi t of radiation, damages the local dna, and makes damaged cells. Eventually, one of those damaged cells will be hardy enough to reproduce itself and spread, ie, become c ancerous Do you really believe exposure to radiactive decay is better for living tissue than exposure to oxygen? –georges
Thermal effects in cells lead to far more DNA errors than low level radiation. Low level radiation seems to stimulate the body’s mechanisms for dealing with cancerous cells. As well, cancerous cells, from all causes, tend to have a faster metabolic rate, making them very suseptable to damage from radiation. — Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada -It’s okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you’re wrong you’re supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.Solar Panel Inverter battery We could also look at some of the chemicals and procedures used to refine nuclear fuel. I’m sure these are much worse, and in much larger quantities, than PV manufacturing uses. Anthony Nuclear makes considerably more power, so it likely does use more chemicals in refining it’s fuel. Noting that ‘you’re sure’, please let us know how much of what chemicals each power source uses. … Well, once created a solar PV panel does not require any chemicals or produce any kind of toxic waste. Even if a panel were to fail completely, be smashed to pieces or melted down into slag it is still not hazardous, can be handled by people without the use of lead suits, and can be disposed of easily without threat to dozens of future generations. Batteries may be part of the installation and they will also have to be disposed of.Solar Panel Inverter battery
The sorry ass lead-acid batteries that are usually attached to those PV panels are toxic waste. No more or less than the ones in cars, and they are recycled
So can spent nuclear fuel. Without batteries/storage device, PV panels are kind of useless. Unless, of course, it is grid intertied, or you use all the power produced
Yeah, you could just use PV to charge a laptop while your in the field.
Response:
But radiation isn’t that bad, quite a lot better then Oxygen. No. It’s that little squrirt of radiation that accompanies the split that is the problem Actually, it is that bad, especially if you are a lung cell. The microscopic radioactive dust particle gets trapped in your lung, emits a bit of radiation, damages the local dna, and makes damaged cells. Eventually, one of those damaged cells will be hardy enough to reproduce itself and spread, ie, become cancerous
Radiation does more damage to cancer then to healthy cells.Solar Panel Inverter battery Do you really believe exposure to radiactive decay is better for living tissue than exposure to oxygen?
Do you know what happens if you consume too much Oxygen? You die from it. Radiation we could recieved about 10 times the background without a problem, no increased risk of cancer and no vomiting.
Response:
Yes, the same can be said about nuclear waste as what you said about the solar cells. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You heard of Si, what about those new panels that will be using GaAs.Solar Panel Inverter battery GaAs panels are currently used almost exclusively in space applications. It is possible they can be made economical for terrestrial use by using them in concentrator arrays. Even in such a case, though, they’ll really only be feasible in areas with lots of direct sunlight (deserts, basically). At any rate, your thought isn’t original and studies have been performed to see whether toxins leach out of GaAs and CdTe modules when broken and exposed to the elements (studies have also been done on the smoke produced by burning a CdTe module). No danger has been found. Soil under a pulverized module left exposed to rain for a year was found to have only slightly elevated levels of Ga and As, and levels below those considered safe in the U.S. and Europe. This just demonstrates that the Ga and As atoms are pretty tightly bound to one another and, as a result, it’s difficult to remove either element from the module without chemistry. The same goes for CdTe, whether pulverized or exposed to fire. I might also point out that GaAs has already entered many people’s homes in the form of the semiconductor laser used to read CDs and DVDs. To my knowledge there are no health hazards associated with owning, using, or servicing these lasers (aside from not pointing the laser into your eye).
Response: