Solar Panels Increased Emissions Of A Gas 17,200 Times More Potent Than CO2

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/solar-panels-increased-emissions-of-a-gas-17200-times-more-potent-than-co2/

"New federal data shows a potent greenhouse gas — that’s also a byproduct of solar panel construction — is on the rise.

Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a key chemical agent used to manufacture photovoltaic cells for solar panels, suggesting government subsidies and tax credits for solar panels may be a driving factor behind the 1,057 percent in NF3 over the last 25 years. In comparison, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions only rose by about 5 percent during the same time period.

NF3 emissions have rapidly increased in Asia as well due to its rapidly growing solar panel market, and researchers think that many nations are under-reporting their NF3 emissions by roughly a factor of 4.5.

NF3 emissions are 17,200 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100 year time period."

where's my safety pin!?!

Waddaya wanna bet that we hear back, for the first time ever in these discussions, that a "cost/benefit" analysis is necessary, and by that analysis the panel manufacturing is a net benefit? I've asked over and over for a total net cost/benefit analysis of the entire anthropogenic global warming issue, and have never seen a real response., just hand-waving and "end of the world" euphemisms.

This is because if they have done the analysis, they would not tell you the truth about the cost being higher than the benefits. And if they have not done the analysis, they are afraid to because it is as obviously as no hair on my head that the benefits do NOT out way the costs. All of this because this global warming crap is a multi trillion dollar business that most of the countries in the world are involved in. The big picture is hard to swallow for some...

But but but
Al gore say "man bad, earth gooder"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't find my notes on this stuff.  I have a binder somewhere because I was tasked with tracking this stuff down.  Since I'm a "LEED certified professional" (got it as part of my previous job) and other things, I was tasked with researching PV for Hawaii and Guam projects to withstand hurricanes.  Came across this type of info before, but that was maybe 5 years ago now.  Seems like things haven't gotten better.

Stuff like sustainability and "green energy" are so PC and popular now.  That said, there are those (or maybe one) who will call for regulation as solving the issue.

Too bad you can't find that stuff. I would love to peruse through all the details....

6) Renewable Energy

This isn’t a prediction about a disaster that didn’t happen. It’s a prediction about a solution that never materialized. Don’t worry about the fact
that we want to shut down fossil fuels and dirty coal, we were told, because there’s a bright new future from “Renewable Energy.”

But all of the alternatives we were promised fall into two categories. There are those that are still too unreliable and expensive; Germany
is about to be crushed by the massive cost of its renewable energy boondoggle. And then there are those which have gone from being the
alternative championed by environmentalists to being the targets of the environmentalist anger. This is by far the most common trajectory.

You know how old I am? I’m so positively ancient that I remember when one of Jimmy Carter’s big answers to the impending shortage of
oil was to increase federal funding for research on how to extract oil from shale. It ended the way you would expect: it went nowhere. But
some decades later, private oil companies did find a way to more economically extract oil from shale—and environmentalists promptly made
it public enemy #1.

I am even old enough to vaguely remember the era when nuclear energy—that bête noire of the greens—was touted as an alternative to
fossil fuels. Or when hydroelectric dams were celebrated as an emissions-free, radiation-free, feel-good source of electricity, rather than a
fish-killer and impediment to the free flow of wild rivers. Or when wind farms were the future of energy, before they were denounced as
bird-killers and a blight on the landscape. Now, even large-scale solar energy is under attack. And I’m still waiting for environmentalists to
figure out exactly what goes in to those solar panels.

Overall, it’s been 45 years since the first Earth Day and the alternatives to the energy sources they oppose now generate about 12% of
the nation’s electricity—and then only with massive subsidies, mandates, and tax breaks.

And all of this to deal with a problem that doesn’t even exist.

But by now you can get an idea for the major outlines of an environmental hysteria. The steps are: a) start with assumption that man is
“ravaging the Earth,” b) latch onto an unproven scientific hypothesis that fits this preconception, c) extrapolate wildly from half-formed
theories and short-term trends to predict a future apocalypse, d) pressure a bunch of people with “Ph.D.” after their names to endorse
it so you can say it’s a consensus of experts, e) get the press to broadcast it with even less nuance and get a bunch of Hollywood celebrities
who failed Freshman biology to adopt it as their pet cause, then finally f) quietly drop the whole thing when it doesn’t pan out—and move on
with undiminished enthusiasm to the next environmental doomsday scenario.

When men fail as entirely as they have—well, I’m not going to ask them to fall on their swords. But we might ask them to understand why,
when they assure us their newest doomsday predictions are really, really true this time, we’re not inclined to believe a single word they say.

Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions


http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

Journalists and people always tend to over-exaggerate numbers without really considering what they mean. The 17,200 figure itself is meaningless without an accompanying number describing the actual amounts of NF3 gas being generated. Percent increase of NF3 by itself is also meaningless. And even if you know the actual amounts of NF3 gas, the article states "Solar panels aren’t the only source of NF3, which is also used to produce semiconductors and LCD flat screens" so you need to know the amount of NF3 gas being generated from the creation of solar panels alone.

Furthermore, as the NF3 gas is only generated in the creation process, over time the production of solar panels might stop increasing after we have enough.

Aside from that it's very debatable what the 17,200 figure itself means. It is only explained partially in the linked paper within the linked article. And probably if you know how it's derived it will not have a very confident scientific basis or meaning behind it. Many people and some experts debate whether global warming exists or is accurately modeled at all, and rightfully so.

Finally, even if the NF3 production of solar panels is somewhat of a problem, this is unrelated to the fact that they produce energy via alternative methods, conserving our limited fossil fuel sources, etc. So LEED will probably always embrace it. From what I recall in practice LEED is mostly concerned with whether or not our buildings waste electricity. So to be LEED certified our buildings have to not be overly brightly lit, and it helps to have mechanisms that turn off lights automatically (though this may be annoying to the inhabitants) or generate their own electricity, etc.

This.

I wonder if over the past decade and year after year if in any way semiconductors and LCD flat screens have become more popular?  Nah no one has stuff that uses semiconductors.  And we all still use tube tvs.  While alternative energy may not be perfect now we MUST keep improving and move toward it.   I don't care if you think gas is the best liquid since water it will run out in due time.  Whether you believe in climate change or not it will run out.

Various studies show that the total remaining recoverable oil resources would last 190 years, natural gas 230 years, and coal, a whopping 2900 years.

In all likelihood, demand for fossil fuels will ultimately peak and then begin to fall – the big question is when. Just as the Stone Age did not end because we ran
out of stones, the Fossil Fuel Age will not end because we will run out of fossil fuels. Reserves will likely stay in the ground, far after societies have moved on from them.

The key to the warning "we will run out" makes huge assumptions that all things remain the same as today.  Look back 100 years, and tell me we are not living in an age of technological miracles.  Given what we have seen, and what we can not know in the future, it's more likely we will never run out of fossil fuels.  Ever.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/punditry/how-long-will-fossil-fuels-last-115092201397_1.html

It's good to be skeptical about climate change but it could be true. In any case if you are skeptical about climate change then NF3 emissions mean nothing to you, so nothing sinister about solar power there.

Fossil fuels running out seems a much more likely thing. We don't produce any more of it, we just suck what exists out of the ground in a few locations. Maybe it won't run out as quickly as some claim, but to assume it would never run out is foolish.