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.

To assume we will never find ways of producing adequate energy other than burning fossil fuels is what's foolish.

I'm very interested in Hydrogen fuel cell technology.  We can replace all coal and oil burning electric plants with nuclear.  So many things we can replace fossil fuels with, but the technology needs to mature.

To assume we will never find ways of producing adequate energy other than burning fossil fuels is what's foolish.

I'm very interested in Hydrogen fuel cell technology.  We can replace all coal and oil burning electric plants with nuclear.  So many things we can replace fossil fuels with, but the technology needs to mature.

This is the reason why we fund "alternative energy" like solar.  Nuclear isnt that great of an option cause of the waste.  Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best.  But the point is all this alternate technology needs to have money invested in.  Oil companies don't want that. 

This is the reason why we fund "alternative energy" like solar.  Nuclear isnt that great of an option cause of the waste.  Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best.  But the point is all this alternate technology needs to have money invested in.  Oil companies don't want that.

You're half right.  investing in VIABLE, EFFECTIVE alternative energy technologies is needed.  Pouring more money into current solutions only steals those resources away from potentially better solutions.  Jumping on the bandwagon too early will only get you as far as that wagon can take you!  Take the blinders off.  Throwing money at today's green energy solutions only makes the green energy companies and investors richer.  Pouring more money into solar won't make it substantially better.  Using that money to fund R&D in other solutions makes more sense.

You're half right.  investing in VIABLE, EFFECTIVE alternative energy technologies is needed.  Pouring more money into current solutions only steals those resources away from potentially better solutions.  Jumping on the bandwagon too early will only get you as far as that wagon can take you!  Take the blinders off.  Throwing money at today's green energy solutions only makes the green energy companies and investors richer.  Pouring more money into solar won't make it substantially better.  Using that money to fund R&D in other solutions makes more sense.

The problem is solar, wind and other stuff are viable.  While they might not be perfect now with the current manufacturing technology just to say that cause they arn't perfect now we should abandon it?  In the ideal world they are one of the best sources of energy once they are working.  They require no input other than the sun or mother earth.  Solar is one of the more ideal solutions as fission technology is a bit off.  Its something we know works.  To completely defund it cause there are some issues with it isnt right.   Every year solar panels improve, they are made with higher efficiency and less waste.  Nothing wrong with making some people rich, its part of capitalism.  They will only get rich if it works.  In the end someone somewhere profits over energy.

The problem is solar, wind and other stuff are viable.  While they might not be perfect now with the current manufacturing technology just to say that cause they arn't perfect now we should abandon it?  In the ideal world they are one of the best sources of energy once they are working.  They require no input other than the sun or mother earth.  Solar is one of the more ideal solutions as fission technology is a bit off.  Its something we know works.  To completely defund it cause there are some issues with it isnt right.   Every year solar panels improve, they are made with higher efficiency and less waste.  Nothing wrong with making some people rich, its part of capitalism.  They will only get rich if it works.  In the end someone somewhere profits over energy.

You're arguing extremes -- either/or.  I never said that.

You must really love straw!

Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best. 

umm, mr scientist at heart:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_sun's_reaction_fission_or_fusion?#slide=1

Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best.

Nope, try again!

umm, mr scientist at heart:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_sun's_reaction_fission_or_fusion?#slide=1

You have to have at least a 97% scientist concurrence rate to state that as "fact".

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.

Exactly. Thank you for being a voice for the whole picture and not just the part that is politically useful.

umm, mr scientist at heart:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_sun's_reaction_fission_or_fusion?#slide=1

Oops I was wrong. 

Both fission and fusion are viable reactors though.

You have to have at least a 97% scientist concurrence rate to state that as "fact".

When proven wrong with irrefutable facts I will agree with whatever side has been proven correct.

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.

Yes, LEED Certification is aimed at electricity cost savings (also lower carbon emissions), but if you have gone through the certification process, lighting is a typically a very small part of that.  At least for most office buildings.  Not sure about residential as I have little experience in that.  For office buildings, typically the big energy draws are with HVAC.

If you look at LEED V4, there are 6 primary categories:

1) Location and Transportation
2) Sustainable Sites
3) Water Efficiency
4) Energy and Atmosphere
5) Materials and Resources
6) Environmental Quality

Of those, there are maybe 10 points aimed at energy, and most of those are largely tied in to OVERALL building efficiency, which typically isn't controlled by lighting. 

It's a complete racket!  You can get points by pretty much a pay for points system.  Enhanced commissioning gets you points.  How?  You have to hire many LEED certified professionals to work together to commission the building.  You get a point for registering the project in USBGC, for which there is a fee.  It's also a prerequisite (or used to be).  That's why there are new regulations, including where I work, that allows another certification organization. 

Yes, stuff like active and zone lighting does help, but that's like maybe 10% of the whole picture.  It's misinformation like that and people who don't take the time to dig into the actual requirements and see what's going on behind the curtain that allows the sustainable industry to thrive.  Again, I believe it's a good idea in general, but not in the twisted, corrupted, manipulated, etc form that currently exists. . . .

I've never worked on certifying any project myself so both my interpretation and memory of the points system in the LEED book are probably faulty. I think I had probably concentrated on the chapters of the book that I might potentially be responsible for in jobs, as well as focused on what I thought could reasonably be changed. For example if there are points for stuff like where the site is, or what kinds of materials or practices are used in constructing it, but that's all decided upon, then even though that could be a decent number of points I can't do anything about it so it's not my concern.

A lot of stuff in the design and construction industry seem to be corrupt to me. We bribe politicians to get government contracts...

I've never worked on certifying any project myself so both my interpretation and memory of the points system in the LEED book are probably faulty. I think I had probably concentrated on the chapters of the book that I might potentially be responsible for in jobs, as well as focused on what I thought could reasonably be changed. 1) For example if there are points for stuff like where the site is, or what kinds of materials or practices are used in constructing it, but that's all decided upon, then even though that could be a decent number of points I can't do anything about it so it's not my concern.

2) A lot of stuff in the design and construction industry seem to be corrupt to me. We bribe politicians to get government contracts...

1) I hear ya.  When I typically get involved in the project is at a phase in design that all of that stuff is decided and we're stuck with making it work.  That and LEED definitely is biased to certain types of projects and locations and places like Hawaii and other places in the Pacific, like Guam, Samoa, etc are at a huge disadvantage in terms of meeting LEED certification.  Myself, I was certified a while ago and I am not at all up-to-date on all the specific requirements, but we still go through this on pretty much all of my projects that I manage, just that now consultants are responsible for all of that. 

2) Yeah, definitely.  There's less of it going on after the campaign spending stuff came to light in the 2006-2010 timeframe.  Lots of people and businesses got into a LOT of trouble for that.  That said, that was the rules of the game.  You either played by those rules or you didn't survive.  Does it happen on the federal level?  Sure.  Every project nowadays, we seem to get a Congressional inquiry as to why someone in their state couldn't get the work. . . sigh.  Well, because your cousin's, uncle's, best friend isn't qualified. . . Anyways, yeah, it's frustrating.