Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

"A greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/shocker-solar-panel-manufacturing-creates-potent-ghgs/

Doh!

So,
Windmills are expensive and inefficient.
Solar panels are expensive and create NF3.

Can we just get back to coal, oil and nuclear until someone comes up with a viable alternative energy source?  

[Richie London]

its wierd you bringing this subject up, i see one on a roof today in wexham park, first one ive ever seen before, are they very expensive to buy, how do they work as in providing electricity to a house, are they on the mains?

i know nothing about them, have never been interested to be honest

[Jay w]

most of the solar energy used in the UK is used for heating purposes, you can get solar units for power but they are not as common.

Cost, they start from about 1500 to 2000 for a small set up that may heat the water for a 3 bed house

In addition you need an immersion tank to store the heated water, so whilst you gain 'free heated water' you lose space in the house

[HerefordElite]

"A greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/shocker-solar-panel-manufacturing-creates-potent-ghgs/

Doh!

So,
Windmills are expensive and inefficient.
Solar panels are expensive and create NF3.

Can we just get back to coal, oil and nuclear until someone comes up with a viable alternative energy source?  

sure can
as long as you melt my car down and manufacture me a brand new "highly efficient" one

[Leomas]

I see that Greenpeace are up in arms about the idea of Nuclear Fusion going on about how dangerous it is with all the radioactive waste etc etc etc. Shame that whoever wrote the piece for them doesn't know what fusion is....if someone gets a full-scale plant running it really will be cheap clean fuel, they reckon that 1 litre of seawater through a fusion plant generates the same energy as 30 litres of unleaded in your internal combustion.

[Nickbat]

I see that Greenpeace are up in arms about the idea of Nuclear Fusion going on about how dangerous it is with all the radioactive waste etc etc etc. Shame that whoever wrote the piece for them doesn't know what fusion is....if someone gets a full-scale plant running it really will be cheap clean fuel, they reckon that 1 litre of seawater through a fusion plant generates the same energy as 30 litres of unleaded in your internal combustion.

You must understand these greenies.

Greenpeace don't want progress! They want us all to go back to mud huts.  

[Kevin Wood]

Cost, they start from about 1500 to 2000 for a small set up that may heat the water for a 3 bed house

"may" being the operative word. My parents had a couple of heating panels installed about a year ago and being the couple of geeks that we are, my dad and I set up a system to monitor how much real energy was being harvested. The square root of break all is the answer. On the sunniest summers day 3 or 4 kWh, and even that peters out when the tank is over about 40 degrees C so you still need to heat it some more to get useable hot water.

The salesmen will say it works on cloudy days, and in winter. Will it break!

These really do bu66er all yet the government, planning authorities, HIP providers, etc. all believe the manufacturer's figures which of course say they are the solution to "climate change".

Kevin

[Vamps]

I see that Greenpeace are up in arms about the idea of Nuclear Fusion going on about how dangerous it is with all the radioactive waste etc etc etc. Shame that whoever wrote the piece for them doesn't know what fusion is....if someone gets a full-scale plant running it really will be cheap clean fuel, they reckon that 1 litre of seawater through a fusion plant generates the same energy as 30 litres of unleaded in your internal combustion.

I seem to remember that such power was promoted by the government is the 60's that it would be so cheap that there would be no electricity bills as such.
PS I was only a child.....

[fatboyfat]

I see that Greenpeace are up in arms about the idea of Nuclear Fusion going on about how dangerous it is with all the radioactive waste etc etc etc. Shame that whoever wrote the piece for them doesn't know what fusion is....if someone gets a full-scale plant running it really will be cheap clean fuel, they reckon that 1 litre of seawater through a fusion plant generates the same energy as 30 litres of unleaded in your internal combustion.

I seem to remember that such power was promoted by the government is the 60's that it would be so cheap that there would be no electricity bills as such.
PS I was only a child.....

There is a saying in the area of fusion research as opposed to fission(what we gat now)and that is" nuclear fission is always 50 years away".that because it is such a brilliant concept but its also incredibly hard to get it to work.Fusion is greener than fission and would provide a vast energy source but it aint gonna happen soon.

[HolyCount]

I see that Greenpeace are up in arms about the idea of Nuclear Fusion going on about how dangerous it is with all the radioactive waste etc etc etc. Shame that whoever wrote the piece for them doesn't know what fusion is....if someone gets a full-scale plant running it really will be cheap clean fuel, they reckon that 1 litre of seawater through a fusion plant generates the same energy as 30 litres of unleaded in your internal combustion.

I seem to remember that such power was promoted by the government is the 60's that it would be so cheap that there would be no electricity bills as such.
PS I was only a child.....

There is a saying in the area of fusion research as opposed to fission(what we gat now)and that is" nuclear fission is always 50 years away".that because it is such a brilliant concept but its also incredibly hard to get it to work.Fusion is greener than fission and would provide a vast energy source but it aint gonna happen soon.

To add to the con-fusion --- don't fission chips give you atomic ache ?

On a more salient note --- there are severaql "eco-developments" near here; the running figures on the houses are impressive (if accurate), however, as nearly all of the component materials have been shipped in from all corners of the world (air miles and all that), and are generally more complicated to initially manufacture, the carbon footprint of the actual build is probably four times that of a traditionally built house.

[HerefordElite]

I see that Greenpeace are up in arms about the idea of Nuclear Fusion going on about how dangerous it is with all the radioactive waste etc etc etc. Shame that whoever wrote the piece for them doesn't know what fusion is....if someone gets a full-scale plant running it really will be cheap clean fuel, they reckon that 1 litre of seawater through a fusion plant generates the same energy as 30 litres of unleaded in your internal combustion.

I seem to remember that such power was promoted by the government is the 60's that it would be so cheap that there would be no electricity bills as such.
PS I was only a child.....

There is a saying in the area of fusion research as opposed to fission(what we gat now)and that is" nuclear fission is always 50 years away".that because it is such a brilliant concept but its also incredibly hard to get it to work.Fusion is greener than fission and would provide a vast energy source but it aint gonna happen soon.

To add to the con-fusion --- don't fission chips give you atomic ache ?

On a more salient note --- there are severaql "eco-developments" near here; the running figures on the houses are impressive (if accurate), however, as nearly all of the component materials have been shipped in from all corners of the world (air miles and all that), and are generally more complicated to initially manufacture, the carbon footprint of the actual build is probably four times that of a traditionally built house.

working for a timber frame housing company this really makes me growl grrrrr
why can't the powers that be take a sensible approach and stop enforcing bullshite technology that doesn't work and please please please look at the bigger picture... it ain't that green if it was made in a highly polluting chinese sweat shop and then flown across the world

arghhhhhhhhhhh

[Martin_1962]

What we need is more nuclear now, a big increase in efficiency, turn off these lights when noone is around.

I do not look at it from greenhouse angle but from limited resources angle.

[Gaffers]

"A greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

Has this been coroborated at all or is it just one quote.  Has it been put into perspective, ie how much NF3 is used on one panel given the lifetime of power it can provide without creating any Greenhouse gases.....

[Nickbat]

"A greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

Has this been coroborated at all or is it just one quote.  Has it been put into perspective, ie how much NF3 is used on one panel given the lifetime of power it can provide without creating any Greenhouse gases.....

I understand, (though I cannot say for sure) that as NF3 remains in the atmosphere for approx. 700 years, while a solar cell produces electricity for only approx. 30 years, the net greenhouse emission of solar cells in the long run should be approx. 20 times higher than those of replaced fossil fuel. (Taken from a blog post).

I don't think it matters a great deal. The main point is one of irony, in that the AGW crowd constantly go on about humans contributing to the 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere (and only about a fifth is man-made) and how it is calamitous. They then go on scrapping coal and nuclear and relying on solar and wind. This point shows that solar panels aren't that green, athough the amount of NF3 is prety miniscule, it is very potent. Personally I'd rather have CO2 anyday, especially as plants love it.    

[Martin_1962]

I don't give a damn about CO2 emmisions, I do care about using up fossil fuels.

As to CO2

REFORESTATION!