First off, Solar Cells are made from Silicon, which sounds harmless….
In order to understand how a solar cell works, a little background theory in semiconductor physics is required. For simplicity, the description here will be limited to describing the workings of single crystalline SILICON solar cells
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Solar_cell_-_Theory/id/5376728
Are Solar Cells Poisonous…..
According to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, the gas sulfur hexafluoride, commonly employed to clean reactors in silicon production, is considered by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change to be “the most potent greenhouse gas per molecule; one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide.”
The manufacturing of solar power panels consumes a lot of silicon, presenting us with a nasty paradox. If solar power production is ramped up as part of a global effort to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning fossil fuels, the chances of accidental releases of sulfur hexafluoride in the silicon production process will only increase, which, says the SVTC, could “greatly undermine the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions gained by using solar power.”
I hope you noticed it said….one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide
so in production the gas it gives off is 25 times more dangerous than CO2 in greenhous gases
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/01/14/toxic_solar_power/
What about the potentional waste …
The usual story told about e-waste is… it’s toxic,” said Chintan Director Bharati Chaturvedi. “There’s no mention of the people involved. There are not conversations about these human beings.
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/environmental-activists-expose-dangers-e-waste
And the many other enviromental issues not listed here, but the real story is why are they reducing CO2 but it will boom the increase of sulfur hexafluoride which one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
When will the true global warming effects from mass producing the solar cells and electronics to produce enough energy to replace 1 coal plant be reported by the media?
And you believe Solar is GREENER than Coal…..think again.
you never even bothered to read anything did you darwi
you never even bothered to read anything did you darwi
i will post silica mining and its dangers to the enviroment and health next post
More Pages:
- Earth Science – PLEASE HELP?
- Solar Cells…?
- Solar Turbines: PLEASE..SMART PEOPLE ONLY!..SERIOUSLY? (5/6/2011)
- Will the American Physical Society amend its ‘official’ statement on climate change?
- Solar Panel: I Have Just Read An Ad For Power4Home Solar Panel Kit. Has Anyone Actually Bought This Kit/books. Is It A Scam? (4/27/2011)
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
i never knew solar energy is this complexx. now let me think abt it….
I am sure you will be ridiculed by the alarmists on this site. Good luck. As I have always said, there is no such thing as Green Products as there are always drawbacks and usually one issue is switched to another, eg like the mercury in CFC bulbs.
It is a great marketing technique by those in business of these items to create a hysteria to buy their products.
Here is the MSDS. I will for once have to agree with Antarcticaice. Can’t believe I said that. But the premise of the question still exists on many transference of one issue to another as in the new lightbulbs that are mandated. 1 mg of mercury per bulb x billions is a lot of potential mercury in the environment.
http://www.tu-harburg.de/mst/deutsch/lehre/msds/sulfur_hexafluoride.pdf
For one thing, you’re only talking about photovoltaics. Solar thermal has none of the toxic drawbacks that you list, since it’s basically just concentrated sunlight and a fluid. Since this technology is also much cheaper than PV, if solar power ever is used on a large scale it will probably be thermal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Solar_Power
And you’re also forgetting that there is more to coal than just CO2. It also emits arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. Then you have mountaintop removal to mine the coal, emissions to transport the coal, acidification of mountain streams due to mining runoff, etc. Not to mention that coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world.
You said:
so in production the gas it gives off is 25 times more dangerous than CO2 in greenhous gases
You meant 25,000 times more dangerous.
you are right SF6 is an extremely toxic byproduct of silicone production
however I work in a chemistry lab and it turns out that sulfur hexafluoride is extremely hard to come by and very expensive but very useful
im sure the “solar barons” of the 21st century are not going to let this hexagonal cash go to waste
TY we should all EMail this, Fax this and Mail these links to Democrats and the Republicans in the Congress who voted for Cap n Trade / Obama’s Energy Plan.
&
The same information should go to each Senator.
There is a reason that the Private Sector is not FUNDING this.
ALSO, what are the Home Owners Insurance costs? The cost if 1 or more panels break? And how do you dispose of them? Do people have to climb on their solar panels to clean them??????
TY for listing this!
I live & work in ‘silicon valley,’ so I’m familiar with the fun – and polution – of the semi-conductor industry. We’ve kept a fairly tight reign on polution here, but lots of unpleasant chemicals are used, and released, to create the semi-conductor chip in your computer – which is really pretty tiny. To provide solar energy as a significant power source, we wouldn’t be producing itty bitty semiconductors that fit in an i-pod, we’d have to make thousands of hectares of them. While that’s great for employment prospects, here, the environmental impact of /making/ solar panels would be enormous – however ‘green’ thier actual operation might be.
Same goes for the batteries needed for electric, or even hybrid cars.
Don’t even get me started on hydrogen…
Here we go again, so you are suggesting we should keep using good old oil that does no harm to the environment as there are never any oil spills and the Co2 released from 800,000,000 cars is not a problem.
O.K. some facts on sulfur hexafluoride even at 22800 (the actual figure) times the effect of Co2 the amount released is tiny compared to the Co2 released by just cars worldwide each day. Linked with your comment on batteries you seem to have missed some details a car running on petrol will produce Co2 for every km/mile it travels for it entire life. A battery once produced will continue without adding further pollution for 2-5 years and and the end is highly recyclable.
As far a solar cells go yes they have a number of toxic chemicals involved in their production but again once produced they are clean and can last ~ 20 years while coal/oil will produce co2 every moment they are burned over that period.
One pet theory of deniers is that Co2 can’t be causing GW because it’s to heavy and can’t rise in the atmosphere, it can pool in very calm conditions when released from underground natural pockets and there are accounts of people be suffocated when this happens, but they are rare. Under normal atmospheric conditions it is lifted by atmospheric convection
sulfur hexafluoride has one other property you failed to mention it weight it is much heavier than Co2 and as such is to heavy to have much effect of GW.
“I hope you noticed it said….one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide”
I did, but as current production is only 8,000 tons you don’t really seem to have a point, especially as 3/4 of that production is not used for solar cells but for manufacturing mainly magnesium casting and medical use and ways are already being sort to use a different gas in magnesium casting
http://www.csiro.au/solutions/ps1fw.html
Folks: “SF6 is an extremely toxic byproduct of silicone production”
Sorry, but SF6 while it is a strong GH gas is completely non-toxic it is used as a contrast and injected for ultrasounds.
One of the Mythbuster guys breathed it in as a gas which has the opposite effect of helium (I did see that episode) it makes the voice deeper but because of the weight of the gas is difficult to breath out.
They have been trying this for more than 30 years and it’s not much difference from then to now.
Dawei talks about solar thermal which is basically the garden hose in the sun effect. It may work in the desert but I tried it in the south east here and it was a waste of time using 55, 380 and 5000 gals of water.
Antart. uses the same scare tactics like 80,000 cars, millions and kazillions of Co2 being pumped into the air. The truth is that Co2 is a trace gas. Why do you think it’s measured in parts per million. How can one explain the global temp. dropping and Co2 rising, not only now but also in the past. One can die from high oxygen concentrations also.
Doubling of the Co2 won’t make much difference. If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We don’t.
Interesting link. Also, it should be noted that photovoltaic solar energy is indeed big business. As you commented, the environmental risks are quite real.
From Wikipedia:
“Photovoltaics (PV) is the field of technology and research related to the application of solar cells for energy by converting sun energy (sunlight, including sun ultra violet radiation) directly into electricity. Due to the growing demand for clean sources of energy, the manufacture of solar cells and photovoltaic arrays has expanded dramatically in recent years.[1][2][3]
Photovoltaic production has been doubling every 2 years, increasing by an average of 48 percent each year since 2002, making it the world’s fastest-growing energy technology.[4] At the end of 2008, the cumulative global PV installations reached 15,200 megawatts.[5][6] Roughly 90% of this generating capacity consists of grid-tied electrical systems. Such installations may be ground-mounted (and sometimes integrated with farming and grazing) [7] or built into the roof or walls of a building, known as Building Integrated Photovoltaics or BIPV for short.[8]
Net metering and financial incentives, such as preferential feed-in tariffs for solar-generated electricity, have supported solar PV installations in many countries including Australia, Germany, Israel,[9] Japan, and the United States.[1]“