|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 05 2021 01:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 00:58 Lmui wrote:
Living without a car/public transit infrastructure comes down to density more than anything else. If a subway stop is near dozens of apartments, it makes a lot more sense than a stop near a bunch of single family homes. Connecting very dense urban living areas with dense commercial buildings/workplaces is how you start getting people out of cars. Yeah, stuffing people into giant apartment complexes rather than single family homes certainly makes mass transit more tenable.
Yeah everyone would like to own a home, but that's not always realistic. Places for people on lower incomes, starter homes for people just moving out, college/university students etc. It can lower cost of living significantly for people who can live without cars. Transit pass for a year is $1200-$2100.
You save on the capital cost of a car, running costs, insurance, recurring costs of leases etc.
I'm in Vancouver - I know a fair number of people who rarely/never use cars. If everything you need is within walking distance, and for anything further you can uber/carshare/transit/bike, there's little reason to own a car. Insurance in BC was something near $2000/year, so if you only need a car for weekends or something, it's pretty cheap to just borrow a car/carshare when you need it in comparison.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 05 2021 02:41 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On May 05 2021 00:58 Lmui wrote:
Living without a car/public transit infrastructure comes down to density more than anything else. If a subway stop is near dozens of apartments, it makes a lot more sense than a stop near a bunch of single family homes. Connecting very dense urban living areas with dense commercial buildings/workplaces is how you start getting people out of cars. Yeah, stuffing people into giant apartment complexes rather than single family homes certainly makes mass transit more tenable. Yeah everyone would like to own a home, but that's not always realistic. Places for people on lower incomes, starter homes for people just moving out, college/university students etc. It can lower cost of living significantly for people who can live without cars. Transit pass for a year is $1200-$2100. You save on the capital cost of a car, running costs, insurance, recurring costs of leases etc. I'm in Vancouver - I know a fair number of people who rarely/never use cars. If everything you need is within walking distance, and for anything further you can uber/carshare/transit/bike, there's little reason to own a car. Insurance in BC was something near $2000/year, so if you only need a car for weekends or something, it's pretty cheap to just borrow a car/carshare when you need it in comparison.
Alright, so it becomes more than just "take public transit" and more about "make multiple sacrifices to quality of life in such a way that it's easy for public transit to be cost effective to make." A pretty ugly side effect of your suggestion that immediately rears its head.
You mention cost as an advantage of moving people into dense urban dwellings, but that's not how it often plays out. For one, if you're willing to commute 20-30 miles, it's often far cheaper to own/lease a reasonably sized house further from the city than to own/lease an apartment in the city, so it's not even a question of if you can afford to have a house on the same budget. Or you could save some money by living in an apartment the same distance away from the urban center. And since housing costs tend to dwarf transit costs, any possible savings on "not having a car" look pretty silly in comparison. A $1500 rent plus car is somewhat cheaper than a $2000 rent plus transit pass - and these price disparities look pretty tame compared to the reality on the ground in many well-populated cities around the world!
Frankly, the suggestion that everyone should just live close to the city center is about as tone-deaf as proposing that we could solve the transit problem by everyone just working from home. It's a good option for some but it's not a large-scale solution to the real problem. Housing is by far the biggest cost here, so the savings on "not having a car" are a sad joke since giving up the idea of living without a car is often cheaper (with a quality of life boost to boot). Building a public transit system that accommodates the reality of a less dense than desired city is more realistic than herding people into a garbage living arrangement if the city isn't already optimized around transit.
My city has a light rail running along the major interstates across the city. Would be nice to have more distance on those, and a better bus transit system that gets people from their homes to the interstates. Expensive but viable, and far preferable to the idea of stuffing people into urban apartment complexes.
|
On May 05 2021 03:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 02:41 Lmui wrote:On May 05 2021 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On May 05 2021 00:58 Lmui wrote:
Living without a car/public transit infrastructure comes down to density more than anything else. If a subway stop is near dozens of apartments, it makes a lot more sense than a stop near a bunch of single family homes. Connecting very dense urban living areas with dense commercial buildings/workplaces is how you start getting people out of cars. Yeah, stuffing people into giant apartment complexes rather than single family homes certainly makes mass transit more tenable. Yeah everyone would like to own a home, but that's not always realistic. Places for people on lower incomes, starter homes for people just moving out, college/university students etc. It can lower cost of living significantly for people who can live without cars. Transit pass for a year is $1200-$2100. You save on the capital cost of a car, running costs, insurance, recurring costs of leases etc. I'm in Vancouver - I know a fair number of people who rarely/never use cars. If everything you need is within walking distance, and for anything further you can uber/carshare/transit/bike, there's little reason to own a car. Insurance in BC was something near $2000/year, so if you only need a car for weekends or something, it's pretty cheap to just borrow a car/carshare when you need it in comparison. Alright, so it becomes more than just "take public transit" and more about "make multiple sacrifices to quality of life in such a way that it's easy for public transit to be cost effective to make." A pretty ugly side effect of your suggestion that immediately rears its head.
This is where the argument breaks down directly. I don't want to live in a house. There are plenty of people in the bracket up until 30 that want to live in a city and are fine with a 1 or 2 room apartment. They later move to something larger if they get a family. Then you have the bracket where the kids have moved out that is again fine with living in apartments. Altogether that is a very large fraction of the population that does not see that as lowered quality of life compared to the upsides of living in a city. As with any generalization there are people that hate living in cities.
I simply don't want to have the maintenance of a house. Living in a 100 floor apartment building with nature a 30 minute commuter train ride away would be a great compromise for me. Make the living dense enough that you can have nature nearby.
Secondly, in a large city 20 miles is an hour commute. That is ~30 minutes longer than I would accept without looking for alternative employment.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 05 2021 03:44 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 03:10 LegalLord wrote:On May 05 2021 02:41 Lmui wrote:On May 05 2021 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On May 05 2021 00:58 Lmui wrote:
Living without a car/public transit infrastructure comes down to density more than anything else. If a subway stop is near dozens of apartments, it makes a lot more sense than a stop near a bunch of single family homes. Connecting very dense urban living areas with dense commercial buildings/workplaces is how you start getting people out of cars. Yeah, stuffing people into giant apartment complexes rather than single family homes certainly makes mass transit more tenable. Yeah everyone would like to own a home, but that's not always realistic. Places for people on lower incomes, starter homes for people just moving out, college/university students etc. It can lower cost of living significantly for people who can live without cars. Transit pass for a year is $1200-$2100. You save on the capital cost of a car, running costs, insurance, recurring costs of leases etc. I'm in Vancouver - I know a fair number of people who rarely/never use cars. If everything you need is within walking distance, and for anything further you can uber/carshare/transit/bike, there's little reason to own a car. Insurance in BC was something near $2000/year, so if you only need a car for weekends or something, it's pretty cheap to just borrow a car/carshare when you need it in comparison. Alright, so it becomes more than just "take public transit" and more about "make multiple sacrifices to quality of life in such a way that it's easy for public transit to be cost effective to make." A pretty ugly side effect of your suggestion that immediately rears its head. This is where the argument breaks down directly. I don't want to live in a house.
That's fine; that should be a choice you can make. Both city life and suburb life has its merits.
I've lived in the center of crowded cities and hated it, so I'd personally rather not.
|
I was pretty certain that Biden wasn't going to pay us more than lip service when he said he supported us in his Congressional address, but I'm now cautiously optimistic that he'll be able to get something done
|
You can realistically buy a used car for 2-3k initial cost that will run anywhere between 5 and 10 years and my insurance is roughly at 600sth € per year and I could probably go ~25% lower if I switched type and insurance company. So there's no way you come out ahead by renting a car long term. If you pay 2k in Australia insurance there is either extremely expensive, you trash your car all the time or you have a car that's very expensive to insure.
In a similar vein there is little reason to be indebted unless you are barely scraping by. People are indebted because they pay extra for their shiny status symbol, but that has little to do with the fact that a car can offer you very high and reliable mobility at a fairly affordable price.
And yes, I guess all in all with repairs and insurance car costs might be slightly higher than going by train. But they are also much less prone to fail and can get you in front of the place you want to go, including to transport stuff anywhere from beverage crates to furniture and household electronics.
The thing changes if we're talking about traveling only within the city, as mentioned public transportation tend to be much more reliable and run at a higher interval, with more minor stops and comparatively cheaper prices. Transportation is still a factor where it comes occasionally in handy though. But I do agree that generally trying to move the traffic out of the city is a better way to handle it.
On a different note no, you usually can't do a lot on the train unless you get super lucky and get a train that runs from your start to your target point. Because else you often need to switch trains after 20-30 mins, which effectively means that anything you need to concentrate on is impossible. It definitely is less tiring though especially in Germany where car drivers tend to be very aggressive.
|
I grew up in a low density population area in Spain and can't imagine living there without a car. We had 'good' transport links with several buses per day to the nearby big cities and trains stopped in town every couple of hours. Still, turning 18 and finally being able to drive was a ridiculous increase in quality of life, so we finally do stuff without having to hitchhike everywhere.
It really does come down to population density and the US just has far too much low density housing to make public transport viable for most people. Addressing climate change will be more about getting people out of SUVs and into electric cars than anything else.
|
Same here. I live in a village in The Netherlands and going to work by car saves me 2 hours a day compared to public transport and the Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Public transport works well in urban areas but in rural areas it's not a good alternative.
|
On May 05 2021 01:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 00:58 Lmui wrote:
Living without a car/public transit infrastructure comes down to density more than anything else. If a subway stop is near dozens of apartments, it makes a lot more sense than a stop near a bunch of single family homes. Connecting very dense urban living areas with dense commercial buildings/workplaces is how you start getting people out of cars. Yeah, stuffing people into giant apartment complexes rather than single family homes certainly makes mass transit more tenable.
the infrastructure cost of spreading everyonoe in the hinterlands so that they can dwell in their single family home might cost much more than free public transport.
just a thought.
|
Addressing climate change will be more about getting people out of SUVs and into electric cars than anything else.
Electric cars can reduce pollution in cities, but I don't think they will ever make a dent on the climate (if anything really can). Electricity needs to come from somewhere, and if you believe that "somewhere" is going to be exclusively windmills and solar energy, you are dilusional.
My impression from visits to the US is that the whole way of life is based around cars. Even in most cities, "downtowns" are really huge parking lots with a few restaurantes and malls on them, looking more like the areas where car shops are located in Europe. What can really be done?
|
On May 05 2021 18:13 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Addressing climate change will be more about getting people out of SUVs and into electric cars than anything else. Electric cars can reduce pollution in cities, but I don't think they will ever make a dent on the climate (if anything really can). Electricity needs to come from somewhere, and if you believe that "somewhere" is going to be exclusively windmills and solar energy, you are dilutional. My impression from visits to the US is that the whole way of life is based around cars. Even in most cities, "downtowns" are really huge parking lots with a few restaurantes and malls on them, looking more like the areas where car shops are located in Europe. What can really be done?
I like the dilutional part, as in, am I being able to be diluted? 
Electricity indeed has to come from somewhere, and, as things currently stand, renewables are on par with fossil fuels when it comes to cost per watt. I have said before that a resilient grid will need multiple sources of power and fossil fuels/nuclear will likely play a significant role when there are dips in production from renewables. It's still worth the investment and the reduced pollution is doubly worth it.
There is no excuse to have shitty public transport in densely populated areas, that's a uniquely American problem in the context of developed countries. Much like publicly funded healthcare and sensible gun control legislation. These things WOULD BE easy to solve if the will was there.
|
The matter is much more complicated than You think. The materials (rare metals) used for wind turbines/ solar panels need to come from somewhere, they usually come from China or Africa. Mining, extracting and refining of rare metals is EXTREMLY pollutant and energy consuming. In reality what You do when You use reneables is that You offset part of pollution to poorer countries.
Batteries also doesnt appear out of thin air.
I mean, who cares about children in Kongo mining cobalt for batteries in our Teslas (or smartphones, or consoles). At least there is less CO2 in the air, and those rivers and fields that are being ravaged are too far away for us to be bothered by it.
|
On May 05 2021 19:29 Silvanel wrote:
The matter is much more complicated than You think. The materials (rare metals) used for wind turbines/ solar panels need to come from somewhere, they usually come from China or Africa. Mining, extracting and refining of rare metals is EXTREMLY pollutant and energy consuming. In reality what You do when You use reneables is that You offset part of pollution to poorer countries.
Batteries also doesnt appear out of thin air.
I mean, who cares about children in Kongo mining cobalt for batteries in our Teslas (or smartphones, or consoles). At least there is less CO2 in the air, and those rivers and fields that are being ravaged are too far away for us to be bothered by it.
Just did a quick google: www.usgs.gov
What materials are used to make wind turbines?
According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind turbines are predominantly made of steel (71-79% of total turbine mass); fiberglass, resin or plastic (11-16%); iron or cast iron (5- 17%); copper (1%); and aluminum (0-2%).
Many turbine components are domestically sourced and manufactured in the United States (Wind Technologies Market Report). Wind turbine towers are 65-85% domestically sourced, blade and hub components are 40-70% domestic, and nacelle assemblies are over 90% domestically sourced. However, many internal parts such as pitch and yaw systems, bearings, bolts, and controllers are typically imported.
Silicon solar cells are made out of, well, silicon. Which is not a rare metal.
Which rare metals are you referring to?
There's a difference from consumer electronics, which do use rare metals, and power generation (which to the best of my knowledge do not).
Edit: So after a bit more in-depth googling, here's what I found:
www.pv-magazine.com
A new report by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) shows that rare earth minerals are not widely used in solar energy and battery storage technologies. And despite their name, they aren't actually that rare at all.
So solar panels do not actually use rare metals.
Wind turbines do use rare metals in permanent magnets, mainly in off-shore wind farms, whereas land-based wind farms do not:
At present, rare earths such as neodymium and dysprosium are mainly used in the permanent magnets of offshore wind turbines. Onshore wind turbines also use them, as is the case for turbines in about 3% of wind farms in France, but alternatives exist. For example, it may be possible to make asynchronous or synchronous generators without permanent magnets, to reduce the need for rare earths. But without alternative solutions over the next 10 years, the wind sector may end up accounting for 6% of annual neodymium production and more than 30% of annual dysprosium output, given that the global offshore wind sector is eventually expected to reach 120 GW of cumulative capacity.
Arguably, you'd need some of those if you don't wan to use the alternatives. But, those could be mined in the US if necessary, www.forbes.com
It’s amazing good fortune, then, that out in the barren scrub of Far West Texas 85 miles east of El Paso, an unassuming 1,250-tall mountain called Round Top holds the promise of making America largely self-sufficient in these critical minerals. The mountain contains five out of six light rare earths (such as neodymium), 10 out of 11 heavy rare earths (dysprosium, for example), and all five permanent magnet materials. What’s more, Round Top has large deposits of lithium, critical for batteries in EVs and power storage.
I'm all for not exploiting developing countries, so I understand the argument. But, in my view, the situation is not complicated at all. It makes sense from an economic (i.e. they're cheaper or on par with fossil fuels on a per Watt cost) and social prosperity perspective to invest in renewable energy.
|
On May 05 2021 19:29 Silvanel wrote:
The matter is much more complicated than You think. The materials (rare metals) used for wind turbines/ solar panels need to come from somewhere, they usually come from China or Africa. Mining, extracting and refining of rare metals is EXTREMLY pollutant and energy consuming. In reality what You do when You use reneables is that You offset part of pollution to poorer countries.
Batteries also doesnt appear out of thin air.
I mean, who cares about children in Kongo mining cobalt for batteries in our Teslas (or smartphones, or consoles). At least there is less CO2 in the air, and those rivers and fields that are being ravaged are too far away for us to be bothered by it.
While there are potential technologies that don't require such continued exploitation of Africa(ns) and rare earth elements, it's worth remembering the type of relationship you're describing has been the standard operating procedure between the US/European colonial powers and Africa/South America/The Caribbean for the last ~500 years.
|
its a myth that we need too many rare earths for wind turbines for them to make any significant contribution to our worldwide energy supply..
we do need them though. The magnet is made of neodymium.
Maybe need them is too strong of a word. roughtly a third of all wind power plants in Europe has a nedymium magnet.
To paint a clearer picture. Neodymium wind power plants are more reliable and thus have a huge advantage* in running costs.
* under pre coivd supply conditions of rare earths from China
|
On May 05 2021 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 19:29 Silvanel wrote:
The matter is much more complicated than You think. The materials (rare metals) used for wind turbines/ solar panels need to come from somewhere, they usually come from China or Africa. Mining, extracting and refining of rare metals is EXTREMLY pollutant and energy consuming. In reality what You do when You use reneables is that You offset part of pollution to poorer countries.
Batteries also doesnt appear out of thin air.
I mean, who cares about children in Kongo mining cobalt for batteries in our Teslas (or smartphones, or consoles). At least there is less CO2 in the air, and those rivers and fields that are being ravaged are too far away for us to be bothered by it.
Just did a quick google: www.usgs.govShow nested quote +What materials are used to make wind turbines?
According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind turbines are predominantly made of steel (71-79% of total turbine mass); fiberglass, resin or plastic (11-16%); iron or cast iron (5- 17%); copper (1%); and aluminum (0-2%).
Many turbine components are domestically sourced and manufactured in the United States (Wind Technologies Market Report). Wind turbine towers are 65-85% domestically sourced, blade and hub components are 40-70% domestic, and nacelle assemblies are over 90% domestically sourced. However, many internal parts such as pitch and yaw systems, bearings, bolts, and controllers are typically imported. Silicon solar cells are made out of, well, silicon. Which is not a rare metal. Which rare metals are you referring to? .
Before i begin i want to mention that i have degree in Material Engeenering and altough i now work in IT, i also used to work in my field. I know what i am saying.
Solar panels are are either made of monocrystaline silicon or of thin films deposited by PVD or CVD methods, which are vastly different techonologies.
a)Monocrystalline Silicon panels - the technology for silicon rafination is the same used to refine silicon for processor production. There is currently no way around it. This etchnology (be it Czochralski method or zone refining) are both EXTREMLY energy consuming. The panels produced by this technology rarely produce more energy during its lifetime than was used in process of making them (maybe in Texas or in Andalusia, but not in Poland for example).
b)PVD/CVD deposition - those are much better when it comes to energy consumption. Some of those thin films do require rare metals (see here: https://www.britannica.com/technology/thin-film-solar-cell). But if You are to buy solar panel for the sake of Earth i do ask You buy thin film panel, not monocrystaline silicon one.
Rare metals are also used in energy network and renewables require quite more power stations and supporting devices as networks with them are usually much more decentralized. Centralized energy network is much cheaper and more energy friendly.
For the sake of being complete i have to mention, that there are also solar powerplants that does not use panels but mirrors and heat for melting salts and like. Those are usually truly enviromentally friendly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy.
I would like to also clarify something that some people dont realize. There is difference between "Rare metals" and "Rare EARTH metals". First group is much wider and include "rare earth metals" in itself. And everything in this group is problematic, the point isnt really if metal is a Lanthanoid but if it is rare. The rare thing means You need to move a lot of land to extract a lot of ore and then process this ore (which is extremly energy consuming) to produce small amount of metal. All of of those metals are heaviliy used in more advanced industries.
For more info see here: https://www.aist.go.jp/pdf/aist_e/other_brochures/RareMetals.pdf
On May 05 2021 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Edit: So after a bit more in-depth googling, here's what I found: www.pv-magazine.comShow nested quote +A new report by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) shows that rare earth minerals are not widely used in solar energy and battery storage technologies. And despite their name, they aren't actually that rare at all. So solar panels do not actually use rare metals.
Not true as i explained above. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell#Copper_indium_gallium_selenide
Gallium, Selenium, Cadium, Arsen and Tellurim all are considered rare metals and are commonly used in thin film solar panels.
To finish i just want to point out, that i myself am great oponent of coal/gas power plants. I just feel the need to educte people about hidden cost of using some technolgies of which people are not aware of. The batteries, the switch stations, the wind trubines and the silion and thin films, they do not appear out of thin air. Materials for those need to be mined, refined, processed and shipped. The fact that enviromantal cost of this in renewables is often kept in China and Africa does not mean its not there.
If we want clean energy future - WE FUCKING NEED NUCLEAR!
|
On May 05 2021 21:00 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2021 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 05 2021 19:29 Silvanel wrote:
The matter is much more complicated than You think. The materials (rare metals) used for wind turbines/ solar panels need to come from somewhere, they usually come from China or Africa. Mining, extracting and refining of rare metals is EXTREMLY pollutant and energy consuming. In reality what You do when You use reneables is that You offset part of pollution to poorer countries.
Batteries also doesnt appear out of thin air.
I mean, who cares about children in Kongo mining cobalt for batteries in our Teslas (or smartphones, or consoles). At least there is less CO2 in the air, and those rivers and fields that are being ravaged are too far away for us to be bothered by it.
Just did a quick google: www.usgs.govWhat materials are used to make wind turbines?
According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind turbines are predominantly made of steel (71-79% of total turbine mass); fiberglass, resin or plastic (11-16%); iron or cast iron (5- 17%); copper (1%); and aluminum (0-2%).
Many turbine components are domestically sourced and manufactured in the United States (Wind Technologies Market Report). Wind turbine towers are 65-85% domestically sourced, blade and hub components are 40-70% domestic, and nacelle assemblies are over 90% domestically sourced. However, many internal parts such as pitch and yaw systems, bearings, bolts, and controllers are typically imported. Silicon solar cells are made out of, well, silicon. Which is not a rare metal. Which rare metals are you referring to? . Before i begin i want to mention that i have degree in Material Engeenering and altough i now work in IT, i also used to work in my field. I know what i am saying. Solar panels are are either made of monocrystaline silicon or of thin films deposited by PVD or CVD methods, which are vastly different techonologies. a)Monocrystalline Silicon panels - the technology for silicon rafination is the same used to refine silicon for processor production. There is currently no way around it. This etchnology (be it Czochralski method or zone refining) are both EXTREMLY energy consuming. The panels produced by this technology rarely produce more energy during its lifetime than was used in process of making them (maybe in Texas or in Andalusia, but not in Poland for example). b)PVD/CVD deposition - those are much better when it comes to energy consumption. Some of those thin films do require rare metals (see here: https://www.britannica.com/technology/thin-film-solar-cell). But if You are to buy solar panel for the sake of Earth i do ask You buy thin film panel, not monocrystaline silicon one. Rare metals are also used in energy network and renewables require quite more power stations and supporting devices as networks with them are usually much more decentralized. Centralized energy network is much cheaper and more energy friendly. For the sake of being complete i have to mention, that there are also solar powerplants that does not use panels but mirrors and heat for melting salts and like. Those are usually truly enviromentally friendly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy. I would like to also clarify something that some people dont realize. There is difference between "Rare metals" and "Rare EARTH metals". First group is much wider and include "rare earth metals" in itself. And everything in this group is problematic, the point isnt really if metal is a Lanthanoid but if it is rare. The rare thing means You need to move a lot of land to extract a lot of ore and then process this ore (which is extremly energy consuming) to produce small amount of metal. All of of those metals are heaviliy used in more advanced industries. For more info see here: https://www.aist.go.jp/pdf/aist_e/other_brochures/RareMetals.pdfShow nested quote +On May 05 2021 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Edit: So after a bit more in-depth googling, here's what I found: www.pv-magazine.comA new report by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) shows that rare earth minerals are not widely used in solar energy and battery storage technologies. And despite their name, they aren't actually that rare at all. So solar panels do not actually use rare metals. Not true as i explained above. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell#Copper_indium_gallium_selenideGallium, Selenium, Cadium, Arsen and Tellurim all are considered rare metals and are commonly used in thin film solar panels. To finish i just want to point out, that i myself am great oponent of coal/gas power plants. I just feel the need to educte people about hidden cost of using some technolgies of which people are not aware of. The batteries, the switch stations, the wind trubines and the silion and thin films, they do not appear out of thin air. Materials for those need to be mined, refined, processed and shipped. The fact that enviromantal cost of this in renewables is often kept in China and Africa does not mean its not there. If we want clean energy future - WE FUCKING NEED NUCLEAR!
As someone who actively works and does research in the area (since we apparently need appeals to authority in our posts) there are many inaccuracies in your post.
The energy payback time for solar is well-studied, and is about 4 years for current poly-Si systems. There's a nice pdf from NREL about it: www.nrel.gov, which concludes with:
Based on models and real data, the idea that PV cannot pay back its energy investment is simply a myth. Indeed, researchers Dones and Frischknecht found that PV-systems fabrication and fossil fuel energy production have similar energy payback periods (including costs for mining, transportation, refining, and construction).
Mono-silicon panels have a higher power conversion efficiency, but a much higher production cost, so their market share is small and shrinks every year (was 26% in 2016, less than 20% now), so the only way you'd put mono-Si on your rooftop nowadays is if a company is trying to get rid of existing stock (in which case the panels are already made, so the point is moot). Production of mono-Si is winding down and is only being used where higher power conversion efficiency is necessary for the application.
You are confusing several technologies when you mention CIGS in the same line as thin-film silicon. Silicon solar cells generally follow two architectures, PERC or HIT, I can quote you scientific articles behind them, but you can just check them out in wikipedia if you're interested. Neither uses rare metals, so this point is factually incorrect.
The vast majority of currently produced solar panels are made out of silicon. The market share for thin film solar (so CdTe or CIGS, currently) is tiny, and there's a new competitor on the scene (perovskite solar cells) that doesn't use rare metals, so neither currently nor in the future is there a need to invest in technologies that require rare metals when talking about PV.
|
For someone claiming to make research in the field You make tone of mistakes. I will explain it again.
FIRST
Gallium, Tellurium, Arsen, Indium, Selenium are all RARE METALS. Not RARE EARTH METALS but RARE METALS nonttheless. All problems commonly associated with rare earth metals are also present there to some degree.
SECOND, the distinction i made was between
1)Monocrystalline silicon technology
2)Thin films technologies - which includes many materials and technologies and also include amorphus silicon and polycrystaline silicon but i didnt really felt the need to go into such details. At no point i did suggest that polycystaline silicon thin films technologies have the same problems as monocrystaline silicon.
Sorry to bust You bubble but CIGS is THIN FILM - it is in the first line of wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_solar_cells
And so is polycrystaline. And so is PERC and so is HIT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystalline_silicon#PERC_solar_cell
Please read in details how those cells are created. You will understand that they always use some variant of PVD or CVD.
Quote from wiki:
"""
Fabrication of HIT cells
The details of the fabrication sequence vary from group to group. Typically, good quality, CZ/FZ grown c-Si wafer (with ~1ms lifetimes) are used as the absorber layer of HIT cells. Using alkaline etchants, such as, NaOH or (CH3)4NOH the (100) surface of the wafer is textured to form the pyramids of 5-10μm height. Next, the wafer is cleaned using peroxide and HF solutions. This is followed by deposition of intrinsic a-Si passivation layer, typically through PECVD or Hot-wire CVD.[22][23] The silane (SiH4) gas diluted with H2 is used as a precursor. The deposition temperature and pressure is maintained at 200o C and 0.1-1 Torr. Precise control over this step is essential to avoid the formation of defective epitaxial Si.[24] Cycles of deposition and annealing and H2 plasma treatment are shown to have provided excellent surface passivation.[25][26] Diborane or Trimethylboron gas mixed with SiH4 is used to deposit p-type a-Si layer, while, Phosphine gas mixed with SiH4 is used to deposit n-type a-Si layer. Direct deposition of doped a-Si layers on c-Si wafer is shown to have very poor passivation properties.[27] This is most likely due to dopant induced defect generation in a-Si layers.[28] Sputtered Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) is commonly used as a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer on top of the front and back a-Si layer in bi-facial design, as a-Si has high lateral resistance. It is generally deposited on the back side as well fully metallized cell to avoid diffusion of back metal and also for impedance matching for the reflected light.[29] The silver/aluminum grid of 50-100μm thick is deposited through stencil printing for the front contact and back contact for bi-facial design. The detailed description of the fabrication process can be found in.[30]
"""
EDIT:
I will add that the fact that the cells have different architecture, and different amount/types of layers and different system of electricity generation does not change the essence of what they are. And they are made using CVD or PVD.
EDIT 2:
This wiki might be helpful. You will see that multijunction cells are essentialy multiple diffrent layers of thin films one upon another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Multijunction_cells
|
We are getting side-tracked here. Your initial point was that PV and wind turbines require rare metals and therefore require the exploitation of people in developing countries.
Specifically, this is what you said:
The matter is much more complicated than You think. The materials (rare metals) used for wind turbines/ solar panels need to come from somewhere, they usually come from China or Africa. Mining, extracting and refining of rare metals is EXTREMLY pollutant and energy consuming. In reality what You do when You use reneables is that You offset part of pollution to poorer countries.
Batteries also doesnt appear out of thin air.
I mean, who cares about children in Kongo mining cobalt for batteries in our Teslas (or smartphones, or consoles). At least there is less CO2 in the air, and those rivers and fields that are being ravaged are too far away for us to be bothered by it.
The vast majority of PV panels on the market do not require rare metals and the energy payback is less than 4 years.
Most wind turbines on land (so not off-shore) do not require rare metals or alternatives exist to not have to use rare metals and local production is possible.
Therefore, the matter is not complicated. Investment in renewables at this point in time is solid.
|
The NRA trying to file bankruptcy, not for any financial trouble, but in order to reincorporate from New York to gun friendly Texas. I hope they get absolutely fucked by the judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
