[HN Gopher] We're going to need a lot of solar panels ___________________________________________________________________ We're going to need a lot of solar panels Author : lionheart Score : 107 points Date : 2022-07-22 20:54 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (caseyhandmer.wordpress.com) (TXT) w3m dump (caseyhandmer.wordpress.com) | [deleted] | someweirdperson wrote: | > "Our process works by using solar power to split water into | hydrogen and oxygen, concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere, then | combining CO2 and hydrogen to form natural gas." | | That's a pretty artificial form of natural gas. | standardUser wrote: | Can anyone provide a summary of this blog post? I am finding it | strangely tricky to follow. | jtolmar wrote: | Terraform Industries has a process for converting atmospheric | CO2 and water into hydrocarbons (particularly "natural" gas), | at the cost of a huge amount of electricity. | | Because solar panels keep getting cheaper and oil doesn't, they | think they can out-compete the cost of oil in some markets | (sunny with expensive oil) in the near future, and more places | over time if solar power keeps getting cheaper. | | The author hopes to encourage a huge investment in solar power, | which would be good for the planet and people in general (and | unstated, also Terraform's bottom line). | ku-man wrote: | osigurdson wrote: | >> but the energy demands are astronomical | | Maybe not the best idea then. | akira2501 wrote: | A monoculture of generation and distribution technologies is not | a desirable outcome from an engineering perspective. Your goal | shouldn't be to put PV everywhere and then just "solve the | distribution problem." You're almost certainly going to make | things worse that way. | | Also.. if you have excess residential electrical supplies, I'd | think a good goal would be to get electricity to the people that | don't have it first, rather than imagining new industrial | processes that rely on continued excesses to function. | | It all smacks of thinking that the Earth is a giant inconvenient | ledger that just needs to be balanced, at any cost, apparently. | gregschlom wrote: | It sounds like you didn't read the article. They aren't talking | about putting solar panels everywhere, they're talking about | using massive amounts of solar panel in a specific location and | use the energy to convert the CO2 in the air into methane. | akira2501 wrote: | This is such an odd way to address an argument. From the | article: | | "Substituting solar power into our electrical grid and | atmospheric CO2-derived hydrocarbons into our fuel supply | chain is just the beginning. We want to support a future of | abundance and wealth, while avoiding starvation even as | legacy climate damage shifts rainfall patterns and causes | extreme weather." | | Seems pretty one-track to me. | | Also, there are no manufacturing processes with infinite | scalability. And the article fails to make clear their large | scale intentions. They go back and forth between some Sarahan | style plant, and the total amount of PV available and the | current planned excess power due to this and never offer a | solid plan as far as I can tell. | | Aside from that.. it's a back of the envelope analysis that | just projects trend lines on charts and makes no thoughts for | emergent phenomenon due to the massive market swings it | projects. | adamrezich wrote: | > it's a back of the envelope analysis that just projects | trend lines on charts and makes no thoughts for emergent | phenomenon due to the massive market swings it projects. | | seems like there's a lot of this going around recently | KennyBlanken wrote: | That and nobody has ever suggested that we rely solely on | solar for energy needs. Wind, for example, is cheaper than | solar (though solar is catching up.) | jshen wrote: | Wind and solar both need to be combined with something else | because it's not always sunny and windy. | outworlder wrote: | If we forget about where the power is coming from for the moment, | wasn't the US Navy experimenting with fuel synthesis? Did that go | anywhere? | | A nuclear powered carrier has no use for fuel itself, it only | stores fuel for aircraft operations. Having the ability to make | fuel on site with all the excess cheap electricity seems to be a | game changer. | | Wondering what happened to it. That is the latest I can find: | https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers... | | 300k grant? That's peanuts for something that has incredible | potential. | | Obviously, I'm looking at future civilian applications for the | tech. | user-one1 wrote: | You should check out Prometheus Fuels: | https://prometheusfuels.com/ | beambot wrote: | A project related to the Navy project was "Project Foghorn" at | GoogleX: https://x.company/projects/foghorn/ | | A better technology is currently being scaled up at Prometheus | Fuels: https://www.science.org/content/article/former- | playwright-ai... | martyvis wrote: | Porsche are on to it. | https://newsroom.porsche.com/en_AU/2022/sustainability/porsc... | woah wrote: | Is this better or worse than the one where they are cooking corn | husks to make oil to squirt into the ground? | bullfightonmars wrote: | These are orthogonal concepts this is an attempt to create a | carbon neutral hydrocarbon for energy use, the other is an | attempt at carbon negative sequestration. | AdamTReineke wrote: | This is better. Terraform believes they can make methane from | the air for cheaper than it can be extracted from the ground, | leading to a preference for "carbon neutral" fuels. Part of | their thesis though is the requirement for solar to keep | getting cheaper and cheaper (as it has). | | Excess manufactured methane could also be injected underground, | presumably. | changoplatanero wrote: | What's a more efficient way to split water into hydrogen and | oxygen: using electricity from a solar panel or using | photosynthesis in a plant? | outworlder wrote: | That is a good question. | | Do you have any uses for the plant, or does it create | interesting byproducts for you? Photosynthesis is not very | efficient, but it is great at making complex organic | molecules like sugar or cellulose. | | But a plant needs more than power. It needs nutrients, | usually in the form of fertilizer. | | They also don't generally make hydrogen, not directly at | least. | jjk166 wrote: | Electrolysis is orders of magnitude more efficient, but | your equipment isn't self replicating. | leobg wrote: | What would interest me: Can I do this locally, at the site of the | consumer? Take the unused PV output of my house in summer to fill | my house's tank with natural gas for use in winter? Is that | something that would be technically feasible today? | walrus01 wrote: | We're going to need a lot of solar panels _and_ an efficient way | to transport power from a very sunny place to another location | where the loads are. | | For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie | | The pacific DC intertie right now often ends up being used to | transport power from hydroelectric dams in WA/OR _to_ California. | But there 's nothing to say that something couldn't function the | other way if there was enough willpower and budget to cover, for | instance, a huge chunk of the desert near Edwards AFB in CA with | hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaics. | | I searched for "high voltage DC" in that article and didn't see a | mention of it, or anything much else about long distance | transport of power. | | The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of | square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to | Europe through a sub-sea cable, or series of cables. It's a | matter of the political will and budget to do it. | | https://powertechresearch.com/the-worlds-longest-submarine-h... | thejarren wrote: | Just to add to this conversation a bit, did you know Singapore | is running power wires to gather solar from Australia? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link | dangerlibrary wrote: | walrus01 wrote: | I read the article, I disagree with the concept of using PV | to generate artificial hydrocarbon fuels in general, as not a | great business plan. It's not the best use of the technology | when we should be bypassing that entirely. | | Go use excess PV to pump water uphill back into a reservoir | or something if you need energy storage, not drive a | complicated process to make artificial hydrocarbons to store | in a tank and burn in an engine. | jjk166 wrote: | Pumped reservoir storage is horrifically inefficient, | environmentally terrible for the local ecosystem, and not | scalable. You can't just go and build a reservoir anywhere | you like. | | Chemical energy storage is simple, scalable, and allows for | the easy movement of vast amounts of energy over great | distances to be used anywhere with minimal changes to | existing infrastructure. | Gwypaas wrote: | When talking about pumped hydro the roundtrip efficiency | usually is around 70-80%. Not even close to batteries but | way more scalable. | | Chemical storage is horrific. Creating diesel and burning | it in a turbine or similar you start at 40-50% for the | burning phase, without even converting anything in the | first place. | | If you go the fuel cell route you tend to end up | somewhere at 40-60% efficiency. | | So no, the only use case for chemical storage is either | where you want energy density. Say aviation or maritime | shipping. Or nation state like energy security, where you | can pay the efficiency price. | | For all other use cases any optimization done, or better | usage of the energy, will eat into that horrific round | trip efficiency. | dangerlibrary wrote: | Until energy density of batteries improves by a couple | orders of magnitude, we're at least going to need | hydrocarbons to fly planes, no? | marcosdumay wrote: | Density is almost irrelevant, all that matters here is | cost. | | And one order of magnitude is more than enough. But yeah, | besides planes and rockets, hydrocarbons are important in | several industrial processes. Besides, we don't want to | replace all of the cars, trucks and ships in a single | decade. | walrus01 wrote: | _maybe_ , but it's also a national embarrassment that | most of the major population centers in the US Northeast | seemingly cannot be connected by 350 km/h high speed rail | such as what China has very rapidly built since 2010. | Flights of 1-2 hour duration between many locations in | North America should be replaced with rail in most | scenarios. | | either the political will or budget to do this apparently | does not exist. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China | ben_w wrote: | Not necessarily, we could use plain hydrogen. (Could | probably even do it with beamed power, but that's a tech | I consider to be insanely unwise to deploy). | Scoundreller wrote: | Probably going to be the last thing to decarbonize. | | Might be able to run off biodiesel or similar. Even if | biofuel is double the cost of current dino juice, fuel | makes up 20-40% of major airline's opex, so it's not like | crude-free flying will kill the industry. | | Might even be made up with increased aircraft efficiency, | more intermediate stop operations (saving 15-30% in fuel | by flying 2x medium haul instead of 1x long haul) and | better load factors ("revenue management"). | jjk166 wrote: | Biodiesel is just hydrocarbon fuels produced via solar | energy with extra steps | _mhr_ wrote: | I've never made a comment on HN commenting on someone else's | tone, but I've seen this exact response, word for word, a lot | recently on many posts. I don't like this trend. I find it to | be adversarial and in bad faith. Suppose they did read the | article. Are they likely to reply to you defending | themselves? Next time, please address the actual content of | their comment instead. | bequanna wrote: | > The technology now exists to theoretically cover many | hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the | electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable | | Climate benefits aside, how in the heck is this an improvement | over the current situation? | | Long-term I really don't think it is prudent for Europe to rely | on potentially unfriendly nations to provide them with energy. | walrus01 wrote: | realpolitik would tell me that a scenario where europe was | highly dependent on libya (or morocco, or other north african | countries) for electricity would be vastly preferable to a | scenario being dependent upon russia for gas pipeline | supplies. | | if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough | political will to require libya to do its bidding through | threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst | case, military force to set up a cooperative libyan puppet | regime. the balance of the size of the economies and | population of western europe as a whole vs libya is very | different than western europe vs russia. | | not exactly something that can be done with a nuclear armed | state the size of russia. | silvestrov wrote: | There is sun enough in Spain and Italy (and even France and | south Germany) that we don't need Morocco/Libya. | | Also: heat and dusty environments are really bad for | efficiency. Better with a place where it rains once in a | while. | | Today at 13:00 more than 38% of electricy in Germany was | produced by solar panels! | https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE | walrus01 wrote: | that is a very good point and _of course_ as much as | possible should be generated domestically first. | | If you open a high res aerial view of any random french | or german city right now and look at the roofs of how | many warehouses and huge structures are presently covered | in PV, versus how many _could_ be covered in PV if we | really wanted to, for instance. | ku-man wrote: | conradev wrote: | > if there was enough willpower and budget to cover, for | instance, a huge chunk of the desert near Edwards AFB in CA | with hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaics. | | One such project being built currently: | https://www.mortenson.com/projects/edwards-sanborn-solar-plu... | | More notable than the 950MW generation is the 2400MWh of | batteries | metalliqaz wrote: | But the point of this article is that they extract carbon from | the air to make hydrocarbon fuel, which can be transported | using our existing infrastructure... | l1n wrote: | Because their value prop is to generate synthetic fuel instead. | goethes_kind wrote: | You need synthetic fuel anyway to act as energy | storage/buffer. | jonatron wrote: | https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ not Libya, but | Morocco. | ben_w wrote: | A global grid was my favourite solution until recently. The | problem is that it needs the combined cables to have cross | section in the order of a few (3?) square meters (at 640 kV), | and that in turn is in the order of 52 years of global copper | production (we make more aluminium than copper but Al is a | worse conductor). | | Using even higher voltages makes everything much easier, and | the cables' combined cross sections may need to be less | (depending on how much lower the maximum demand at night is) or | more (depending on future increases in daytime demand). | | Downside is that's still order-of a few trillion dollars, close | to the same as the cost of 36 TWh of batteries (i.e. global | overnight only), and we're likely to make those batteries | anyway for the electric cars and when their condition | deteriorates enough to be taken out of the cars they're still | good enough for grid storage. | walrus01 wrote: | I don't know of any long distance HV AC or DC transmission | lines that use copper. It's all aluminum already. | adaml_623 wrote: | The good news is that humanity has saved up a few trillion | for emergencies. The bad news is that it's been saved up and | hidden in tax havens. Pity | phkahler wrote: | >> I searched for "high voltage DC" in that article and didn't | see a mention of it, or anything much else about long distance | transport of power. | | Since they want to use solar/electricity to produce hydrocarbon | fuels, there is no need to transport electricity. Make the | fuels where the sun shines. Maybe build a pipeline or two out | of the desert. | | I think it might be viable for aircraft even if ground | transport eventually goes all electric. | jp57 wrote: | But it seems they need places with ample sunshine _and_ water | to electrolyze. That rules out the American west, the Sahara, | etc. If they can use seawater, then arid coastal areas could | work. | toomuchtodo wrote: | HVDC or interconnects (losses are tolerable with enough | renewables generation, considering existing curtailment), | battery storage, and renewables generated ammonia for on demand | combustion (chemical storage) will meet these needs. "Build, | Baby, Build", with my apologies to Sarah Palin. | | Edit: with 1200GW of renewables capacity, the US has produced | 20% of its energy from renewables this year, more than nuclear. | Based on the interconnect queue, extrapolate future generation | mix accordingly. | | https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/renewables-do... | | > There was a total of 1,400 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in | interconnection queues across the country as of year-end 2021, | of which 1,300 GW was solar, wind and energy storge capacity, | according to the report, Queued Up: Characteristics of Power | Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection. The installed | capacity of the United States is 1,200 GW. | | > Although not all the projects are likely to reach fruition, | the total still represents a milestone. "The sheer volume of | clean energy capacity in the queues is remarkable," Joseph | Rand, a senior scientific engineering associate at LBNL, said | in a statement. "It suggests that a huge transition is | underway, with solar and storage taking a lead role." | | https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/queued_up_2021_04-13... | walrus01 wrote: | If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low it's also | possible to use electrical heating elements to store heat in | tanks of something that melts and stays hot for long periods | of time (for building heating purposes). | | Or to use cheap mid day electric power when the sun is up to | generate gigantic blocks of ice that can then be used with | cooling loops to air condition buildings. | thatcherc wrote: | One of my favorite high(ish)-concept energy storage | proposals takes the "store heat in tanks of something that | melts and stays hot for long periods of time" is the "sun | in a box"[0] idea: use excess electricity to heat silicon | up to an incandescent 4500 deg F. Later, when you want to | extract the store energy, just shine some of that | incandescent light into some super efficient multi-junction | solar panels! | | Sounds pretty wild but apparently scales up very well | thanks the to square cube law. | | [0] - https://news.mit.edu/2018/liquid-silicon-store- | renewable-ene... | NavinF wrote: | > electrical heating elements | | Very inefficient compared to heat pumps or even peltiers | for that matter. | | > store heat in tanks | | Oh I already do something similar at home for sub-ambient | cooling but I wouldn't call it cheap. | | > If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low | | IMO this is roughly equivalent to saying "assume that you | could clone dinosaurs, and that you could fill a park with | these dinosaurs, and that you could get a ticket to this | 'Jurassic Park,' and that you could stroll throughout this | park without getting eaten, clawed, or otherwise quantum | entangled with a macroscopic dinosaur particle": https://sc | holar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thisworldofo... | toomuchtodo wrote: | Absolutely. California alone is curtailing enormous amounts | of renewables, hundreds of thousands of MWh/month | (depending on the season). That is literally clean energy | being thrown away (which, depending on system design, is | variably tolerable; you're balancing cost, transmission | congestion, and renewables offsetting fossil combustion). | More transmission, more batteries, more storage, more load | shifting (both temporal and geographic)? All of the above. | | https://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.asp | x | worik wrote: | > and an efficient way to transport power from a very sunny | place to another location where the loads are | | The point of the article is to make synthetic hydrocarbons, so | no, do not need HVDC so much. | walrus01 wrote: | My point was that maybe we should transport the electricity | to where it needs to be used over high voltage long distance | lines, rather than running an artificial hydrocarbon fuel | generation process, storing it in tanks or pipelines, and | then sending it to where it needs to be used, and feeding it | into combustion engines. | oceanplexian wrote: | On one hand it's an interesting engineering challenge, but I am | always perplexed how covering hundreds of square km of an | ecosystem with glass is "good for the environment". It sounds | like something future generations will shake their heads at | while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste. | walrus01 wrote: | I'm not saying pave over the mojave desert with PV, exactly, | rather that a dry salt pan or ecosystem that has an absolute | minimum of flora and fauna would be preferable. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin | | creating massive hydroelectric dam reservoirs also has | ecological costs | | in terms of toxic waste it would surely be preferable to the | percentage of electricity right now that is generated using | gas, heavy fuel oil and coal. | StrictDabbler wrote: | Unfortunately the inhabitants of the Mojave turned down a | major solar power project last year because of ecological | disruption", aka "this wouldn't be pretty on our nature | hikes." | | Perhaps we can use the Salton Sea? It is at least | acknowledged as a truly destroyed ecosystem. | [deleted] | goethes_kind wrote: | Matter of interpretation. Is humanity at all good for the | environment? Some would say no. Solar is clean and deserts | are mostly, well, deserts. And climate change seems much | worse than having a tiny bit of our deserts being used for PV | farms. | rektide wrote: | It'a really weird but there's a surprisingly growing base of | farming amid a solar farm, where apparently many plants just | cant stand the pure sun & benefit from some periodic shade | during the day. I dont know how much I believe it but | combined agriculture/solar use seems perhaps legit to be a | thing. | | Also, solar panels dont seem that difficult to recycle. | There's already a decent & growing reclaimation market. | bilsbie wrote: | You just space them out a bit and life will thrive all around | them. A lot of species will appreciate the shade. | jjk166 wrote: | Hundreds of square km is not a lot, and the ecosystems where | these systems would be installed are typically not rich | havens of life. The US's power consumption would require | about 6000-9000 sq km of solar panels (assuming ~15% | efficiency) For comparison in the US there are about | 13000-33000 sq km of parking lots, 93000 sq km of alfalfa | cultivation, 69000 sq km of fallow agricultural land, and the | mojave desert is about 124000 sq km. Yeah with gross | mismanagement you might jeopardize the survival of some rare | lizard or something, but it's a very far cry from a silicon | wasteland. | walrus01 wrote: | > parking lots | | This is how much of downtown Tulsa, OK is covered in | parking lots: | | https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg | | There is no _technological_ problem to covering a parking | lot in PV, it 's a question of the political will and money | to do it. | fermentation wrote: | In every game of Factorio I've played I didn't realize just how | many solar panels I'd needed until I was hitting my power limits | and in desperate need of more. The problem being that | manufacturing these takes... power. | jeffbee wrote: | We have the power already! In California we currently enjoy the | phenomenon of "curtailment" where we can't use solar power when | and where it is produced, so we just disconnect solar panels | from the grid. This usually happens in the spring when sun is | plentiful and demand is low. If crystalline PV production was | collocated with seasonally-curtailed solar power plants, you | have a runaway virtuous cycle of zero-carbon energy production. | | Of course, you'd have to subsidize it because basic economics | won't make it work. | outworlder wrote: | Yes but... In Factorio, the only cost is the original | manufacturing costs. The same goes for storage. Once | manufactured and placed, they will produce power forever as | long as it is daylight. The capacitors will also last forever. | There are no weather patterns to mess up production. | | In other words, once you make one, you have a permanent power | increase. Your power can grow exponentially if you just focus | on building and placing panels. That makes them the absolute | best power source in the game. Not the most compact, though. | But that doesn't matter since the map is infinite and there are | no transmission losses. | | Reality is not as forgiving. We'll need more panels. Way more | :) Even more if we start doing things like fuel synthesis. But | we should. | | I has always bugged me that we use dirty power during summer | to... power ACs! We have all this extra energy literally | falling from the sky. Which is the whole reason why we want to | get rid of it. Air conditioning doesn't actually require that | much power to run with proper insulation. People have been able | to power large RV air conditioning with solar alone. | distrill wrote: | tbh i just skip solar panels. it's such a grind. by the time i | can make them at scale, i need so many of them, and i hate | placing them. even with pretty OP construction bots it's not | worth the effort IMO. | | this might be mitigated if you tile something that can self | expand, but even then you'll have to AFK or just have this | going on for hours while you don't have access to the power | you're trying to generated. | | i end up scaling coal as far as i can and then rushing nuclear. | nuclear is also a grind but at least you have to place them | less frequently. | sneedchucksneed wrote: | elihu wrote: | Another use of natural gas is to make fertilizer. Maybe you'd use | a different process though if your end goal is to make ammonia? | (I'm not an expert, but it seems you'd use electrolyzed hydrogen | either way, but Haber Bosch reacts with nitrogen instead of CO2.) | intrepidhero wrote: | I get sabatier and electrolysis but what is a CO2 concentrator? | Or rather how does it work? I thought that was the expensive and | relatively unknown part of the process. | | Aside: Sweet company website https://terraformindustries.com/ | AdamTReineke wrote: | Their white paper covers it, linked from their site. | | > CO2 concentration is performed using a closed lime/calcite | calcination cycle, operating at ambient temperature and | pressure. | | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu... | outworlder wrote: | Can I borrow one for my Sodastream? :) | marcosdumay wrote: | You may not like the 850degC operational temperature at | home. | | But the cold part of the cycle, that actually concentrates | the CO2 is fun to do at lab-scale, you just have to buy the | CaO (and prepare for it becoming very hot). | seltzered_ wrote: | Website seems like the opposite of one of their competitors, | https://www.prometheusfuels.com/ | mgerdts wrote: | There's a lot of optimism in this article. Perhaps too much as it | seems to gloss over some important details. | | > Our process works by using solar power to split water into | hydrogen and oxygen, concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere, then | combining CO2 and hydrogen to form natural gas. | | Then later it talks about how much desert there is, implying it's | a great place for low-impact solar. How do the electricity and | power come together and how much inefficiency is there in the | wires or pipes? Presumably some of this water is likely to be sea | water. | | Presumably the sea water that would be needed to feed the | hydrocarbon production along with the sea water from desalination | (also discussed later) will have their own problems. | "desalination toxic brine" has 177,000 hits on google. | greenthrow wrote: | It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water | than vice versa. | | I don't agree with their plan to make synthetic hydrocarbons, | but they are right about solar. In 50 years solar will be so | ubiquitous and cheap that people will be horrified that we kept | burning fossil fuels and building nuclear plants for so long. | gibolt wrote: | Solar is already extremely cheap, when costed out over it's | minimal lifetime. At grid scale, it has dipped down to crazy | levels. | | As you said, this trend will keep on going. | leereeves wrote: | According to a couple of studies discussed in [1], solar is | cheap, but storage is still expensive. | | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sou | rce#... | mgerdts wrote: | Making hydrocarbons for airplanes and maybe for cargo ships | makes sense unless the power density of batteries increases | dramatically. Creating hydrocarbons to put into commuter cars | and trucks that traverse developed regions sounds like a bad | idea. | mgerdts wrote: | > It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the | water than vice versa. | | That's my gut feeling as well. Perhaps the location of the | consumer of the hydrocarbons would change that in some cases. | johncearls wrote: | But this way is carbon neutral. Every CO2 molecule you pump | out, started out as a CO2 molecule you took from the air. | There is no reason to dislike fossil fuels, if they no longer | come from fossils. It's the releasing of carbon from millions | of years ago that's creating the excess. | Nzen wrote: | While desalination requires disposing of all the waterborne | particulate, the water can sometimes be precious enough that we | bear it. I heard a radio report yesterday [0] about how | investing in desalination helped mitigate USA CA Catalina | Island's direly depleted resivoir. That's not to say that brine | treatment or disposal isn't costly, more that - so long as | people are committed to living in dry areas and can afford to, | they will pressure their local governments to keep the area | habitable. | | [0] https://www.marketplace.org/2022/07/18/drought-technology- | po... | rob_c wrote: | And a lot of so far non existent recycling technologies and | resources... | seltzered_ wrote: | This is an important point. There was a recent article | inquiring the issues in recycling solar panels installed 20-25 | years ago: | https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california... | . | jeffbee wrote: | That is pure fossil industry propaganda. There is no cadmium | in ordinary terrestrial solar panels. The lead, if it's there | at all, is in the solder and easily recovered by a pass | through a 300-degree intake process. All of the solar panels | installed in California, ever, would easily fit in the | parking lot of Dodgers stadium, stacked to a reasonable | height. They are non-toxic, insoluble bulk crystalline | materials. | seltzered_ wrote: | "This story has been edited to clarify that panels | containing toxic materials are routed for disposal to | landfills with extra safeguards against leakage, and to | note that panels that contain cadmium and selenium are | primarily used in utility-grade applications." | KennyBlanken wrote: | 90% of a solar panel is recyclable. However, it's only | necessary to do so once the panel is no longer economically | viable, and panels are generally warrantied to produce 80%+ of | their nameplate capacity after 20+ years. | | In the EU and elsewhere there's a healthy market in used | panels; when a large scale installation upgrades to | newer/better panels, the used panels go on the market and end | up in places where people don't care about the efficiency per | area. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-22 23:00 UTC)