The solar panel road, dream or the future?

understood. I always figured that was so. I have challenged clean energy advocates about that very issue and I get this blank empty headed expression. Rather frustrating because I could never get any engineers to assist me in what waste is actually produced. If I had that information, it might silence the herds of sheep and allow me to speak to the ones with a better head on things.

*jumps up and down on soap box*

I better get off that box now, before I fall off . . . . .

Umbran said:

Anything done on a modern human industrial scale has environmental impact. That is unavoidable. It is merely a question of whether the impact can be managed to a level where the world around us can bear it. Any time they bring up how "New Technology X saves us Y!" we must ask what it costs us. Sometimes the cost is a good tradeoff, sometimes it isn't. You can't look at conservation just at the end and be successful at it. You have to look at the full life of the technology, start to finish, to identify all the costs before you can really assess it.



Current solar panels are ultimately like any other electronics. We don't do a good job of recycling electronics in the US as it is.

Mind you, the issues aren't just in the panels themselves, but in production of the panels. Setting aside where we get all the rare earth elements to dope the semiconductors with, the processing makes heavy use of caustic substances, and there are wastes. We already produce a lot of such, of course, but add to that stream the results of paving all our roads with it, and it becomes a concern.

Click to expand...

We should be careful not to lump all pollution together and put them on equal footing. Waste production and management are very important issues, but when it comes to energy production the impact on climate is very important. Maybe it should trump other environmental concerns or be a priority, at leat for now.

For example, dams that produce hydro-electricity flood lots of land. Those dams are real environmental disasters, but their CO2 out put is very low compared to coal/oil/gas. Is it the lesser of two "evils"? Cause we aren't giving up on energy consumption anytime soon.

I guess it really depends on how much of a priority limiting climate disruption is.

Yeah, but phosphates and heavy metal in the water ain't good at all. Gold is necessary for computers and communications of today's world.

However in Indonesia there is the largest gold mine in the world leachng heavy metals into the water with the trailings, not to mention other poisons such as cyanide used in gold and lead mining.

[oops, for got to finish]

so what is the trade off here? Killing people and jungle environs in trade for expanding technology?

Scott DeWar said:

Yeah, but phosphates and heavy metal in the water ain't good at all. Gold is necessary for computers and communications of today's world.

However in Indonesia there is the largest gold mine in the world leachng heavy metals into the water with the trailings, not to mention other poisons such as cyanide used in gold and lead mining.

[oops, for got to finish]

so what is the trade off here? Killing people and jungle environs in trade for expanding technology?

Click to expand...

Those problems are a result of lack of regulations of labor and waste treatement by a corrupt guberment.

And it is not a trade off for tech, but preventing or mitigating rising sea levels, droughts, floods, the negative impacts on food production, increase diseases (less food means a weaker immune system), and potential wars for resources. Granted this is a worse case scenario, but not something to just shrug off.

goldomark said:

We should be careful not to lump all pollution together and put them on equal footing.

Click to expand...

No, we should not.

Waste production and management are very important issues, but when it comes to energy production the impact on climate is very important. Maybe it should trump other environmental concerns or be a priority, at leat for now.

Click to expand...

But only slightly more foolish than putting them all on equal footing is putting them on only two footings - "C02" and "everything else", and then saying that everything else is equally irrelevant, so long as we bring down CO2. That thinking will simply have us chasing one crisis after another. We got into this position by failing to consider the results of our actions. Repeating the performance will not serve us well.

You see, it isn't like solar roads are the only (or even our primary) choice in the matter. I would expect to see a mixture of technologies used - so you aren't comparing solar roads to fossil fuel CO2. You're comparing solar roads to other electricity generating technologies.

Which has greater environmental impact, end to end - a solar road, or a wind farm that has the same energy output? Or that hydroelectric dam, you mentioned? Or a nuclear plant? Which of these has the most supportable maintenance costs? What are the expected dollar and environmental costs of system failures? And so on.

Umbran said:

But only slightly more foolish than putting them all on equal footing is putting them on only two footings - "C02" and "everything else", and then saying that everything else is equally irrelevant, so long as we bring down CO2.

Click to expand...

Good thing I'm not saying that.

goldomark said:

Good thing I'm not saying that.

Click to expand...

Well, how about you try to clarify what you are saying, then?

Umbran said:

Well, how about you try to clarify what you are saying, then?

Click to expand...

Voilà!

goldomark said:

We should be careful not to lump all pollution together and put it all on equal footing.

Click to expand...

Just what we need, another reason to make traffic jams even more wasteful. I mean, even if we replaced our major thoroughfares around these parts with solar panels, they wouldn't generate a ton of energy because I don't think they get much sun through all those cars.

Umbran said:

Well, how about you try to clarify what you are saying, then?

Click to expand...

I believe what he is trying to say is that since they are two different problems, it would be a poor judgment to lump them all together as one 'environmental' problem. Yes, air pollution is a problem. Yes, hazardous chemicals leeching into the water and food supply is a problem. There are countless other problems that could be called environmental as well: the destruction of habitats/biodiversity, degradation of the soil by farming, etc. While all of these issues are interconnected and influence each other to various levels, they are all different problems with different solutions, and any one of them getting out of hand has the potential to cause mass extinctions.

As you've said, anything done on an industrial level has a cost along with its benefits, and many times it's a precarious game of balancing these pros and cons. Attempts to curb one form of environmental damage will usually be offset by damage to other factors. Certainly, that is why you can't just lump one specific aspect of 'environmental problems' as the sole mother of all environmental problems. But it's like balancing a checkbook, you have to consider your resources and the consequences of ignoring certain bills for others. If you don't pay your electric bill in favor of the cable bill, you're going to have a bad day. This is why people prioritize clean energy over clean manufacturing, even if many of the trendier fellows don't realize it.