Slashdot Mirror
The World Set a New Record For Renewable Power in 2017, But Emissions Are Still Rising (qz.com)
In 2017, the world deployed an ever-expanding amount of solar and wind power, setting a new record for renewable-power capacity added to the grid. From a report: In fact, the money spent on renewable installations was more than twice the sum spent on nuclear and fossil-fuel power, according to the annual Global Status Report published by renewables policy group REN21. Over the past 10 years, global installed renewable-power capacity, which includes hydropower, has doubled.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
But the capacity factor is low and the O&M cost is not free. The land required is not free. The capital cost is not free. The owners cost is not free. The cost of T&D is not free. Levelized cost means renewables still cannot compete with natural gas.
You will be using fossil fuel your entire lives. Get over it.
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
If you ignore the fact that solar has and will continue to double in efficiency / decreased price per watt / decreased price of installation over regular, repeatable time periods, you have a point.
High-level waste is compact and mostly solid -- shield it, store it, and don't freak out about it.
Tell that to the folks who used to live near Fukushima. Or Chernobyl. Nuclear power is very safe... until it isn't. Nuclear waste is mostly manageable but incredibly toxic and nobody wants it nearby.
Far better than pumping tons of pollutants into the air from burning fossil fools.
Probably true but definitely not without problems. And people are a lot less scared of fossil fuels even if they shouldn't be.
If we switched to GaAs-based or CdTe based solar panel technologies, you might have had a point. But silicon cells? Nothing really dangerous about them.,
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste."
Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water.
copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires!
trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above).
and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)