Re: solar cells toxic

From: Karl Johanson (karljohanson_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 06/28/04 

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:54:45 GMT

"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:40e05084_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> it'a an anti-renewables strawman. similar to "pv doesn't produce enough
> power to replace that needed to make it". Same song, different chorus.

As I understand it, the argument isn't that PV may not produce as much
energy as it takes to produce the PV cells. It's that PV may not make as
much energy as it takes to make the PV cells, the substrate they're placed
on, their covers, the inverters and storage batteries (especially if you
account for low voltage line loses, inverter loses and storage loses). I
don't know if that latter point is correct or not, but it's a more complex
question than the former.

Mentioning the toxic compounds used in PV, is an ironic way of pointing out
the over simplicity of claiming that nuclear energy is too dangerous to use,
due to the half life of Pu 239 (as Arsenic & Cadmium in solar cells are
around forever). Plutonium 239 removed from spent fuel, ground into readily
aspiratable particles (not something easy to do with something as dense as
Plutonium) can be dangerous. (Plutonium in rock with boiling water flowing
over it for half a million yeas, has little tendency to migrate through the
rock it is formed in. As evidenced by natural nuclear reactors at Oklo.)
Similarly, Cadmium or Arsenic removed from a PV cell can be dangerous (more
danger is to be had from the concentrated Arsenic or Cadmium at the
manufacturing plant). A PV cell on the roof is unlikely to poison a person,
nor is licking them (I'd be more far more worried about someone falling off
the roof installing or cleaning them, or even less likely things like a wind
storm blowing one of a roof & corking someone on the head). Grinding them
into fine powder & inhaling them (as one might have done with spent fuel
Plutonium) could cause problems, but I suspect that silicosis would be a
more likely problem than Cadmium or Arsenic poisoning.

Lead acid batteries to Load level solar power, present more of a clear
issue. Lead mines & tailings ponds can cause environmental problems, as can
battery manufacturing or recycling plants (or accumulation of lead acid
batteries in land fill). Again, to make an ironic comparison to strawman
arguments against nuclear energy, one could kill thousands of people with
the lead in a single house hold's worth of lead acid batteries. That could
be compared to Nader's (very exaggerated) statement that one pound of
Plutonium could kill everyone on Earth. Plutonium and Lead have dangers, and
should be treated accordingly. Calculating the effects of grinding up Lead
or Plutonium & getting people to inhale all of it, is of little use to
calculating the relative dangers and environmental impacts of various energy
types.

Some PV plants used to use Trichlorethane ( a 'greenhouse gas' and a
suspected Ozone layer depleting compound) in their manufacture. One could
(correctly) say that such a process isn't used anymore, and thus not
especially germane to the issue of whether or not we should use PV.
Similarly, one could argue that 1970's design RBMK reactors aren't proposed
for new nuclear power plants, so that the Chernobyl accident isn't
especially germane to the issue of building modern nuclear plants.

I make no point that we should use solar energy, merely that we should
recognize potential dangers (and such things as solar pool covers and
therminol based solar thermal plants are of far more concern than Cadmium
doped PV cells). Also, we should be cautious of arguments such as 'we don't
need nuclear energy, as we can use solar energy instead. Such arguments
usually only help to increase the amount of fossil fuels, while trivial
solar power projects are showcased. When a magician waves one hand, remember
to watch the other hand.

I use PV myself. I have solar charged flashlights, solar charged radios, and
a solar charger for my digital camera batteries. I made a solar powered
radio in the early 70's. I used to sell solar charged sign lights, for road
signs a significant distance from the grid. Passive solar helps heat and
light my house.

Karl Johanson

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... expectations of 13% efficiency not 40% as you appear to assume with ... against conventional energy sources without government subsidy. ... By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash ... I answer the cost questions below. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... expectations of 13% efficiency not 40% as you appear to assume with ... against conventional energy sources without government subsidy. ... By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • EERE Network News
    ... international energy efficiency and renewable energy news and events, ... California Approves Legislation for Million Solar Roofs Plan ... First Geothermal Plant in Alaska Starts Power Production ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... expectations of 13% efficiency not 40% as you appear to assume with ... "A Solar Grand Plan ... By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash ... by 2050 we will probably be ready to expand solar energy production ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: how to save the world from global warming
    ... capture and make use of solar energy cheaply enough to compete in the ... industrial system to include everyone on Earth while displacing oil ... energy technologies we'll do enough about it to reverse the rise in CO2 ...
    (sci.space.policy)