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.
The point being that, for any "green" invention, the environmental downsides such as, in this case, NF3 genration are
always brushed under the carpet in the knee-jerk towards deploying them everywhere. They'd carry a lot more credibility if they were honest about the big picture of using these technologies instead and pointed out that (hopefully) the advantages outweigh the disadvantages rather than - there's an advantage!, so let's all jump on the bandwagon.
A community centre I regularly visit has a photovoltaic installation on the roof and, inside, a huge digital display showing how many units of zero-carbon electricity they have generated. The face of the display is quite hot to the touch, indicating it consumes a more than negligible amount of power, and is powered-up 24 hours a day. It can be seen gleaming away when I pass the locked building at night. Powered largely by fossil fuels, of course.
I keep meaning to estimate how much of the output of those panels
isn't wasted by that stupid display. Of course, they'd argue that it is energy well sepnt in "educating" the unwashed consumers who look at it. Not that most would have a clue what it's saying.
Kevin
Author
Topic: Solar panels? So green....er, maybe not (Read 1138 times)