Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've reviewed/read articles of this "ALBEDO Effect" of reflective radiation. From what I gathered its cover a means of measuring the sun's reflective radiation on different colored matter on the earths surface before they're reflected back into space. Light colors reflect more, Dark colors absorb more. These articles didn't say anything about how/if or what are the effects of solar panels adding additional compounded reflected radiation/heat onto surrounding surfaces. They only covered measurements taken under natural and normal conditions of sunlight/rays/radiation onto the earth's different surfaces. And I read several articles, one article saying the science is still in question or under review. Even Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" if being upgraded or under review these days. So theoretical/science fact yesterday, may not be the same today.
I've reviewed/read articles of this "ALBEDO Effect" of reflective radiation. From what I gathered its cover a means of measuring the sun's reflective radiation on different colored matter on the earths surface before they're reflected back into space. Light colors reflect more, Dark colors absorb more. These articles didn't say anything about how/if or what are the effects of solar panels adding additional compounded reflected radiation/heat onto surrounding surfaces. They only covered measurements taken under natural and normal conditions of sunlight/rays/radiation onto the earth's different surfaces. And I read several articles, one article saying the science is still in question or under review. Even Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" if being upgraded or under review these days. So theoretical/science fact yesterday, may not be the same today.
Are you one of those people who believes only in absolutes? In that case, sorry, science moves and we learn new stuff every day. In the 1500s the "science" of the day thought Earth is flat. After that we learned more. So on and so on.
I am sure you know much more about the world at your age today than when you were born?
Anyways, all the science we have today points to the fact that solar is much cleaner than any other energy form we have available. Ask yourself this: how much heat and environmental damage gets released when burning coal for electricity? Or even using nuclear energy (got to store those residues somewhere)? Sun's energy is abundant, just like the wind. Why not harvest them?
Finally, you are on the right track. Keep reading and draw your OWN conclusions. This habit people have of being spoon-fed "digested knowledge" is dangerous, not to mention it makes you intellectually lazy in the long run.
My homework is just out of curiosity, not a life & death matter. And I still haven't found the track yet or gotten an answer to my question only more Ying/Yang or pros/cons.
Actually, you have been given the answer, in many different forms. You just don't choose to believe it. Partly, I believe, that's happening because you still think that Global Warming has something to do with the waste heat bouncing around on the surface, like your attic getting hot in the summer sunlight. But that isn't where global warming is created. Paint your roof white or paint it black, that will affect the local temperature in the house, yes, but as the Real Climate Change (Climate science from climate scientists) website I referred you to earlier points out, that part of the equation is so tiny compared to the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere holding the heat in so it builds... think of it like a blanket... that it's typically ignored in the calculations as inconsequential...
Quote:
Wherever it comes from, waste heat is not usually taken into account in global climate calculations for the simple reason that it is utterly trivial in comparison to the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide that is released when you burn fossil fuels to supply energy. For example, that 6 trillion Watts of waste heat from coal burning would amount to only 0.012 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface. Without even thinking very hard, you can realize that this is a tiny number compared to the heat-trapping effect of CO2. As a general point of reference, the extra heat trapped by CO2 at the point where you’ve burned enough coal to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 4 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface — over 300 times the effect of the waste heat.
Toxic compounds are used in the production of solar panels, but I can find nothing to suggest that "even cracking the cell could cause serious health problems or death to the people working around them"
Easy enough:
The boranes (boron hydrogen compounds) and similar gaseous compounds are quite poisonous. As usual, it is not an element that is intrinsically poisonous, but toxicity depends on structure.
The boranes are toxic as well as highly flammable and require special care when handling. Sodium borohydride presents a fire hazard due to its reducing nature, and the liberation of hydrogen on contact with acid. Boron halides are corrosive.
synthetic soluble germanium salts are nephrotoxic, and synthetic chemically reactive germanium compounds with halogens and hydrogen are irritants and toxins.
Soluble inorganic forms of germanium used at first, notably the citrate-lactate salt, led to a number of cases of renal dysfunction, hepatic steatosis and peripheral neuropathy in individuals using them on a chronic basis. Plasma and urine germanium concentrations in these individuals, several of whom died, were several orders of magnitude greater than endogenous levels.
Some of germanium's artificially-produced compounds are quite reactive and present an immediate hazard to human health on exposure.
Citation needed.
Toxic compounds are used in the production of solar panels, but I can find nothing to suggest that "even cracking the cell could cause serious health problems or death to the people working around them"
Easy enough:
. . . (bunch of hazards of gaseous compounds and precursors, nothing about completed panels)
. . .
That darn science again. Getting in the way of a political objective.
Nothing you mention backs up the claim highlighted in bold above. Solar cells certainly may contain boron and germanium compounds, and I agree that workers in factories making PV solar ingredients can be at risk, but that is not the claim I am doubtful about.
Nothing you mention backs up the claim highlighted in bold above. Solar cells certainly may contain boron and germanium compounds, and I agree that workers in factories making PV solar ingredients can be at risk, but that is not the claim I am doubtful about.
The PV cell manufacturing process includes a number of hazardous materials, most of which are used to clean and purify the semiconductor surface. These chemicals, similar to those used in the general semiconductor industry, include hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone. The amount and type of chemicals used depends on the type of cell, the amount of cleaning that is needed, and the size of silicon wafer [4]. Workers also face risks associated with inhaling silicon dust. Thus, PV manufactures must follow U.S. laws to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to these chemicals and that manufacturing waste products are disposed of properly.
Thin-film PV cells contain a number of more toxic materials than those used in traditional silicon photovoltaic cells, including gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride[5]. If not handled and disposed of properly, these materials could pose serious environmental or public health threats. However, manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to ensure that these highly valuable and often rare materials are recycled rather than thrown away.
End quote.
OK, since you cannot dispute the information, we'll parse words instead so I will retract the original, even cracking the cell could cause serious health problems or death and instead use the quote above, If not handled and disposed of properly, these materials could pose serious environmental or public health threats
Better? There are still health risks associated with the product. My original information was correct.
Today’s solar PV sector bears striking similarities to the emerging electronics industry of the 1980s, when supposedly “clean” manufacturing plants polluted Silicon Valley groundwater, causing death and illness in nearby communities. The high-tech industry’s failure to plan for safe end-of-life product disposal has resulted in a global flood of electronic waste (e-waste). The U.S. generates an estimated 2.2 million tons of e-waste annually, and this will continue to grow with the industry’s rapid rate of technological change.i U.S. e-waste is currently shipped to the poorest parts of the world for manual disassembly and recovery of valuable scrap materials. It is anticipated that in 30 years the world’s poorest in cities like Nairobi, Delhi, and Manila (and also in U.S. prisons) may be sorting our solar PV waste
End quote:
I guess it's OK to have perfectly "clean and green" energy as long as the only people who will die from the effects are in 3rd world countries where the products are initially made, and then recovered for disposal.
Electromagnetic radiation:
Some people are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. This condition is called electromagnetic hypersensitivity and people who suffer from it can get sick even if they are exposed to very small amounts from devices like phones, computers or television sets. Solar systems produce high levels of this radiation and can cause people with the condition to persistently suffer headaches, insomnia, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation or digestive disturbances. They can also develop dermatologic conditions such as redness and burning sensations.
Silicon Dust:
Solar panels are made out of silicon. If people inhale silicon dust over long periods of time, they can develop a disease called silicosis. This happens because silicon dust damages lung tissue, making lung capacity smaller and impeding breathing. The disease develops very slowly and there is no known treatment for it yet.
Recycling:
Rubbish is a big modern-day environmental concern and solar cells are unfortunately not made out of recyclable materials. As of February 2011, there is no way to reuse old nonfunctioning solar cells or to dispose of them. In the long run, if the use of solar energy becomes more widespread, this could present a problem for the environment in itself.
End quote:
There is no perfectly clean energy generation. Failure to acknowledge that will only bring about it's own set of issues down the road.
There is no perfectly clean energy generation. Failure to acknowledge that will only bring about it's own set of issues down the road.
Agreed. More attention needs to be paid to all the ecological challenges and hazards of ramping up solar energy technologies.
There is, however, some perspective needed which I find lacking in your assessment. Solar energy is cleaner and safer overall than any of the fossil-fuel technologies we need to replace, so taking an alarmist position is counter-productive. Solar panels are an improvement. Start with that.
Quote:
As of February 2011, there is no way to reuse old nonfunctioning solar cells or to dispose of them. In the long run, if the use of solar energy becomes more widespread, this could present a problem for the environment in itself.
That's because as of February 2011, there were not enough solar panels in the waste stream to support any kind of recycling effort, and there probably won't be for at least another decade or two. But I have no doubt they will come in time. Experimentally it has already been shown that perhaps 90% of the content can be recycled... aluminum, glass, copper, silicon, rare metals, etc. As a matter of fact, the only part of a solar panel that can't be recycled is the plastic used for potting and sealing.
And by the way, that silly notion that "cracking a cell open" is dangerous is, well, crack brained. There's no ickyness inside to leak out. That claim demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how solar cells are constructed.
Quote:
Solar panels are made out of silicon. If people inhale silicon dust over long periods of time, they can develop a disease called silicosis. This happens because silicon dust damages lung tissue, making lung capacity smaller and impeding breathing. The disease develops very slowly and there is no known treatment for it yet.
Definitely something for manufacturers to be concerned with. Definitely not anything consumers need to be concerned with. Windborn silicon sand in beach communities is more of a health hazard to the general public than solar panels ever will be.
Quote:
Electromagnetic radiation: Some people are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. This condition is called electromagnetic hypersensitivity and people who suffer from it can get sick even if they are exposed to very small amounts from devices like phones, computers or television sets. Solar systems produce high levels of this radiation and can cause people with the condition to persistently suffer headaches, insomnia, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation or digestive disturbances. They can also develop dermatologic conditions such as redness and burning sensations.
Run everybody! Run! Teh electromagnetic radiation is coming to eat your children!
For balance, lets be sure to mention that medical science hasn't confirmed that there even is such a thing, shall we? As the World Health Organization reported in 2005:
Quote:
EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.
"Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity". WHO Factsheet 296. World Health Organisation (WHO). December 2005.
In other words, in regards to implementation of solar energy, there are things to manage, not things to be afraid of.
This has to be the biggest troll thread ever allowed on this forum. Where are the mods?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The dose makes the poison
