Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Oil Dependency

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #8
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,520
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atmoscheer View Post
    For the record, wind and solar are going to do far more damage to the environment than gasoline engine exhaust... though obviously coal power is guaranteed self-destruction and should be discontinued 20 years ago with a lifting of the ban on new nuclear power construction.
    This is the dumbest thing that atmosfear has ever posted on CD ever and is just him giving into some stupid ass conservative BS propaganda.

    Adding solar panels in a location would be a one-time change in albedo, and if one considers current amorphous Si technology panels' efficiency, it would be quite act as a increase in globall warming. However, changing the albedo of a portion of land is like a one time addition of carbon into the atmosphere. You don't have to continuously warm the atmosphere per amount of electricity generated. Furthermore, as solar panel efficiencies increase, the amount of global warming from the panels' prescence would decrease. Also, of course to make solar panels now requires electricity, and that comes from burning fossil fuels, but it's just the necessary start to a bootstrapping process.

    As for wind power, yeah if affects the climate if turbines cover massive areas of the globe, on the order of ~10%. But even then studies suggest that its impact on the global climate would be far less than that of other human activities such as deforestation or burning fossil fuels, yes not just coal but also petroleum...


    The concern would be over local climate and ecological effects more than global ones. Better turbine design can prevent things like bird death due to turbines or turbulence in the turbines' wakes.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy View Post
    In sense, there's some truth when looking at the chemical composition of solar panels, their creation, and the excess waste. The composition of new and upcoming thin-films contains elements like Cadmium and Arsenide which are heavily toxic. My girlfriend monitors a PV company's production as an EH&S consultant, but it only shows that these residual chemicals and their disposal are heavily regulated. Probably the same as, if not more than, an oil company.
    What sorts of PV's are these? The only materials I can think of that could be used in PV's with Cd or As are things like CdZe and III-V semiconductors like GaAs or InAs, and I wasn't aware there was any real potential for making marketable solar cells out of these.

    Also by girlfriend, I take it you mean a rough job named Mark?


    EDIT: Okay I take that back, I HAVE heard of GaAs and other III-V semiconductors used in solar cells, in fact with the highest reported efficiencies ever, but last I heard they were so prohibitively that they couldn't be used practically.
    Last edited by sycld; 02-16-2011 at 04:35 PM.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •