California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

bill von novak

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

At the end of the day what ever product you use to harness or convert energy requires a bi product of toxins.

Definitely. A side effect of human life is the production of toxins; we're never going to get away from that. The trick is producing as few as possible.

You know why solar panels are made in 3rd world countries and not the US?

Because labor is cheaper.

Or how about lead acid batteries? What do you do with them when you are done?

Recycle them. We've been doing that for about 40 years now.

Or how about every fluorescent light bulb ever installed on the planet and the level of mercury that contaminates well water and ocean water.

Good example. We used to generate a lot of mercury by burning coal to generate power to run inefficient light bulbs. Now we generate a lot less due to (among other things) compact florescents. Again, the question isn't "how can we be 100% clean?" The question is "how can we be cleaner?"

If we want a constant delivery of abundant energy it will have to require combustion for that process

That's silly. Nuclear, for example, is a proven option, as is large scale hydro in areas that have high rainfall.

and unfortunately we all have to sacrifice in order to feel as if we live comfortable, with those choices. There is no way around it.

Or we can be smart about it, and generate energy while generating less and less pollution.

BB.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Mercury--That was one of the "gotchas"... Reducing mercury from coal fired plants because of conversion to CFL/Florescent bulbs was matched by increased in mercury releases from the greater use of florescent fixtures (by now, CFL/Florescent tube disposal may be exceeding coal powered generation releases).

-Bill

pleppik

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

BB. wrote: »

(by now, CFL/Florescent tube disposal may be exceeding coal powered generation releases).

-Bill

Curious to know if you have any data to back that up. The best I could find is an EPA fact sheet from 2010 which states that more than half the mercury emissions in the U.S. come from burning coal, that if all CFLs produced were landfilled it would increase mercury emissions by 0.12%, and that using a CFL instead of a standard incandescent releases about 80% less mercury over its lifetime.

So on the face of it, it would appear that mercury emissions from light bulb disposal are still at least two orders of magnitude smaller than from coal power plants.

BB.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

I could not find it (missing some older posts from forum?)--Anyway, other than CFL's not lasting near as long as advertised, I still installed a lot of them in my home and am now slowly switching over to LED as the old bulbs fail/new LED become more cost effective.

-Bill

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Where would you like your mercury contamination? Contained within CFL's that can be disposed of carefully (even though they may not be) or pumped out into the open air by coal plants so that you will breath it or drink it?

I've worked for civil engineers. Pollution isn't a thing in itself, it's having substances in the wrong place at dangerous levels. Heavy metals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, and uranium) occur naturally; they are basic elements. But you don't want to ingest any of them.