BREAKING: Massive Solar Spill In Colorado, 5.2 Million Affected

[cui bono]

https://twitter.com/140elect/status/436915286764027904

[Trillo]

1. Makes more sense than fracking. NT

[phantom power]

2. this is a solar spill:

More than 1,200 people living close to a realgar mine in central China’s Hunan Province have fallen victims to decades-long arsenic refining, local authorities announced following media reports that arsenic poisoning caused at least 500 mine workers to die from cancer.

The refinery opened in Shimen County in 1950 after the discovery of Asia’s biggest deposits of realgar, a mineral from which arsenic is derived.

Since then, 808 people living in a community built to accommodate mine workers and their relatives have been diagnosed with arsenic poisoning.

Another 400 were found in nearby Heshan Village and 13 in Wangyangqiao Village, the county government said.

“For years, chemical wastewater, arsenic ash and sulfur dioxide were discharged without processing, severely polluting water and soil within 9 square kilometers and causing severe arsenic poisoning,” its statement read.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/Refinery-blights-lives-of-over-1200/shdaily.shtml

[eppur_se_muova]

4. And arsenic is connected to solar power how ??? nt

[phantom power]

7. it is used to manufacture them

Such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide#Solar_cells_and_detectors

Or:
http://www.wisegeek.org/how-does-a-solar-cell-work.htm

Cadmium is also used, another metal with a rich history of poison in places like China, where we export our pollution.

[kristopher]

13. How much Cd and As does thin film solar use of the total mined?

phantom power and friends: solar and wind bad, nuclear good.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/18/comment.politics3

[phantom power]

15. It's a great question that I have been trying to answer

I found a figure of 30 metric tons of arsenic per year for the "semiconductor industry", but that obviously includes things like LEDs, and computing. It was also ambiguous whether it was the United States or world wide.

It surely depends on what technology is being used. It can either be part of the actual substrate, like GaAs, or a doping compound, like boron-arsenic doping. Other tech doesn't use arsenic, but might use cadmium, or other substances entirely.

My point, as usual, is that cutsie jokes about "sunlight spills" do nothing but demonstrate that nobody ever bothers to think about the fact that these things have to be made, in factories, from substances that aren't benign. In countries that may have no environmental regulations or labor safety laws (like the United States). And then they have to either be disposed of, or recycled. Which isn't cost free.

And in our renewable future, we are going to make a lot more of them, so the environmental impact is going to get a lot larger.

They aren't lovingly cobbled together by the solar fairies from sunshine and rainbows, who occasionally spill sunshine and give us a sunny day.

[kristopher]

25. Actually your point is far more dishonest than that.

You intentionally try to lead people to the conclusion that the damage you are portraying should be laid at the feet of the solar industry.

You have nothing to base that on except for the fact that a very small fraction of the mined elements you are pointing to is used in a type of solar panel that has an extremely small and diminishing share of the solar panel market. Further most of the thin film companies are US companies are engaged in "best industry practices" that make them more profitable through the use of technologies that recycle nearly all of their on-site waste. This commitment to efficiency dramatically decreases the amount of raw materials required to be mined.

Given your long standing promotion of nuclear power, why should anyone think that your post is anything but disingenuous propaganda on behalf of the nuclear industry?

[fleabiscuit]

27. Ya but in a crude way he has a valid point.

Corporations are always trying to pass off to someone else externalities. Finding a fair system of getting all corporations to pay for all the costs of what they do or produce would seem a good thing to strive for. There I’m sure solar power would shine.

[kristopher]

28. That wasn't his point.

I've seen that same schtick dozens of time from the same cliche.

[phantom power]

47. you know, you're the one who brought up nukes, not me

Yes, I'm totally pro-nuke. Renewables have environmental impact on the manufacturing, maintenance and disposal side, that is completely ignored, by most people, which dumb "sunlight spill" jokes prove all the time here.

That's the truth, whether or not I'm pro-nuke, and whether or not you like it.

[kristopher]

48. That's because it's what motivated your inappropriate interjection

People don't *ignore* the environmental impact of renewables; they just recognize that the *relative degree* of environmental impact when compared to fossil and nuclear is minuscule. That's why you had to fabricate the problem. No one has to strain at gnats to find a Sellafield, Hanford, Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Are you totally blind to the degree of envy you reveal with your "dumb "sunlight spill" jokes" remark and what that says about the entire situation?

[Chico Man]

53. Check this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

[pasto76]

38. uh hey, biggest usage of arsenic in the world is STILL pesticides

yeah. Poultry farmers are allowed to lace chicken feed with it to keep it pest free. and it 'provides an appetizing pinkish hue' to the chicken meat.

30 tons is 2 dump trucks.

I also dont remember any wars about arsenic mines. there have been 2 in my lifetime for oil.

your point is still there, although greatly diminished. And the lesser of these evils, clearly.

[Progressive dog]

46. Arsenic is a waste product from mining

and 90% (in the USA) of usage is pressure treated lumber as of 2007. None is produced in the USA.

From Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the CDC

Inorganic arsenic occurs naturally in soil and in many kinds of rock, especially in minerals and ores that contain copper or lead. When these ores are heated in smelters, most of the arsenic goes up the stack and enters the air as a fine dust. Smelters may collect this dust and take out the arsenic as a compound called arsenic trioxide (As2O3). However, arsenic is no longer produced in the United States; all of the arsenic used in the United States is imported.

If we still are just spewing arsenic into the air, it might be safer if we used it in solar panels.

[madokie]

31. Whatever we do lets not mention the numbers of people who have been harmed

from the mining of uranium since the beginning of the Atomic age. Would you care to make a guess on that?

[Chris Diesel]

41. Who's "WE"?

That's sort of like the RWers saying anybody that drives a car is responsible for the BP Gulf oil spill.

Just because somewhere up the chain there's a corrupt corporation that's cutting corners doesn't mean everyone down chain is responsible.

I didn't have anything to do with the ending of protective tariffs for USA goods or the initiation of tax breaks for the offshoring corporations. So it's not "WE".

Somewhere somehow there's a corporation that mining toxic minerals without undue pollution. Just like there are a few oil companies that do a lot better job than BP.

[eppur_se_muova]

50. The Wiki describes GaAs only for (very) high-cost, high-efficiency solar cells ...

Used in satellites and Mars probes, not ordinary power production. This is a tiny portion of the market.

As for the use of arsenic as a solid-state dopant -- this is typically at the ppm level.

Yes, cadmium is a concern, and I was surprised to see how much of the market is now taken by CdTe ( http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/cadmium-telluride.html ). I had expected some alternative to surpass it by now, but I guess it is just too simple and too cheap for others to be competitive. As long as the solar panels are recycled, it shouldn't become a problem, but that's an "if" statement. This is something to keep an eye on.

Silicon is still the most common material for PVs, and I hope it stays that way. But let's be concerned about toxins actually used in PV production (Cd) and not rarae aves (As).

[Chico Man]

52. Check this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

[eppur_se_muova]

54. China can't make bread and milk without poisoning people.

I'm well aware that Chinese mfrs produce huge amounts of toxic waste in making solar cells, but it is NOT INHERENT IN THE PROCESS OR THE PRODUCT. Other companies in other countries use all the same chemicals in all the same process steps and have learned NOT TO SPILL THEIR SHIT EVERYWHERE. China, on the other hand, manages to produce tons of toxic waste making the simplest, most harmless (so you would think) manufactured articles possible. This should lead to condemnation of Chinese "safety" practices, not the specific article being mfrd.

(and no arsenic associated with PVs mentioned in that article, which was my specific question.)

[Chico Man]

57. Dangerous chemicals are absolutely inherent in the process and the product

Many chemicals are used to make different types of photovoltaic cells. Here are some of the most common chemicals associated with solar panel manufacturing and their impacts.

Crystalline silicon (c-Si)
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin film
Copper indium selenide (CIS) and copper indium gallium (di)selenide (CIGS)

http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=30242

[eppur_se_muova]

59. They're not dangerous if you're not exposed to them. That's true of ALL chemicals.

And, again, other companies manage to do much, much better than China. The problem here is not just carelessness, it's genuine mendacity -- bribes are paid to keep these factories in production, no matter how polluting. We can produce the same products in the USA without anywhere near the problems China has. The problem lies in CHINA, not in the chemicals they're handling. Blaming the chemicals is like trying to prohibit cars because some people drive drunk. And some of the pollution in China is astounding -- they're actually dumping the chemicals used to make the solar cells, because it's easier than recycling them !

"Many chemicals are used to make different types of photovoltaic cells" ... Fucking DUHHHH. Many chemicals are used to make the clothes you wear and the food you eat. Which ones are killing you and destroying the environment ? Focus on those. But don't think that arsenic is a big deal in PV manufacture -- except for high-end specialties (satellites, space probes), it's not used in any significant quantities. Cadmium and selenium are the ones that raise red flags; of the two, cadmium is by far the one most likely to see expanded use.

[Chico Man]

64. The OP asserts there are no risks in the use of solar energy

Care to address that?

[Chico Man]

44. Thank you

Let's not pretend solar is completely void of environmental impact. Folks, read this and come back here and let's raise the level of discourse, shall we?

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=30242

www.ecotopia.com/Apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm

[eppur_se_muova]

60. I haven't seen anyone claiming that. EVERYTHING has environmental impact.

But comparing solar side-by-side with any other technology, well, it looks pretty damned good, and it keeps getting better -- IF we just avoid things like cadmium, selenium, and mercury in the quest for efficiency at all cost.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. Utterly insignificant. The arsenic used in global solar panel manufacturing isn't even a quarter of

what we use in chicken feed in the U.S.

Arguing against solar energy because of the arsenic used in making the parts is completely disingenuous.

[greiner3]

3. YOu got me;

I couldn't figure out, before I read your post, whether the title was incorrectly worded or a piece from the Onion.

But, you made me look, and am glad you did!

[fizzgig]

5. solar and wind power make so much sense here

we have plenty of both. i'm trying to not go blind or get blown away today.

[awoke_in_2003]

20. Now if we could only efficiently harness...

the power of hot air, we could install a system on Capitol Hill

[lob1]

26. If we could figure out a way to harness corruption in Washington,

we'd have cheap power that'd last the world forever.

[davidpdx]

39. True

But what is left over would smell worse than shit.

[2banon]

29. good one! n/t

[Cha]

6. Brilliant!

[spanone]

8. bravo!

fookin' A

[fleabiscuit]

9. LOL excellent.

Feb 22 on southern Oregon coast and we're going through a massive Solar Vortex instead of a Polar Vortex set to settle in on our friends in Alabama. Bright and sunny during a typical crummy winter month.

There's nothing to "climate change" though. Look away. Oil good, solar bad. Wind will stop rotation of Earth.

[classof56]

22. Pretty darned nice over here in Central Oregon, too.

Thanks for sharing the Solar Vortex. Must admit, though, there's nothing quite like a sunny day on the southern Oregon coast. Lucky you!

[davidpdx]

40. I grew up in those parts

though a bit more inland. I really miss Oregon.

[malthaussen]

10. Good one. n/t

[ElboRuum]

11. Lots of funny headlines today.

OK, I got a chuckle out of this one.

[another_liberal]

14. "Solar spill."

I'm going to use that one!

[bkanderson76]

16. Must Have Been Solar of the 'Lower Grade'....and that don't mean much

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. Leaded or unleaded?

It is important.

[L0oniX]

17. !

[Autumn]

18. I was talking to a neighbor today, a wind farm is set to start

construction not too far from us.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. Wait til it breaks

Wind.

[Autumn]

23. Yeah, now I'm nervous.

Might as well have one out here, the damn wind never stops.

[trusty elf]

43. Speaking of breaking wind.....

US Rep. Joe Barton (R-of course) is apparently worried that wind turbines could slow the wind down, thus heating up the planet.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. OMG! OMG! OMG!

[Nanjing to Seoul]

30. the problem is renewable sources of energy are extremely limited now

People like to say that Iceland uses nothing by Geothermal, but when your country is situated on a constructive plate margin with shield volcanoes everywhere, you can do that.

HEP is normally far away from population centers
Solar doesn't work in places that do not get alot of sun
Tidal power needs oceans
Wind power needs mountains and convectional air currents.

We are unfortunately married to unsustainable non-renewable energy for the foreseeable future.

Unless people want a Nuclear plant in their backyard. That's non-polluting.

[fleabiscuit]

33. A lot depends on how we look at things and our attitudes.

Efficiency for solar watts per $ has gone way up and without subsides to fossil fuels would probably be a better investment now for our country.

Do you remember the speeches President Obama has mentioned the building trades, and jobs? The man is quite aware, unfortunately it seems that time constraints only allows him to touch on subjects briefly in public.

http://architecture2030.org/the_problem/buildings_problem_why

“Architecture 2030 Will Change the Way You Look at Buildings

Why?

Buildings Consume More Energy Than Any Other Sector
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Building Sector consumes nearly half (47.6%) of all energy produced in the United States. [1] Seventy-five percent (74.9%) of all the electricity produced in the U.S. is used just to operate buildings. Globally, these percentages are even greater.

Buildings are the Largest Contributor to Climate Change”
-snip-
“The Health of the Economy is Tied to the Building Sector”
-snip-

[Nanjing to Seoul]

35. i am not denegrating solar power. energy sustainability is a huge part of the IGCSE and A-level

Physical Geography class I teach.

Knowing what I know about geographic limitations, even with investment and subsidy, it is still much more expensive and harder to use on a mass populated area than non-renewable, unsustainable fossil fuel energy.

It's not there yet. It's coming, but it's not there yet. What is pushing the drive to renewable energy is the fact that the surface level oil reserves are all but gone. Now, they have to drill deeper into the earth of less quality oil, which drives up prices as well.

Sustainable renewable energy is coming. . .it's just not here yet.

[fleabiscuit]

66. I believe I said something about how we look at it and our attitudes.

There are various reason why people think "it is still much more expensive and harder to use on a mass populated area than non-renewable."

One is called - jobs. The cost of jobs. That's not popular with purchased legislators or coal and petroleum corporations.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

67. That is correct, but again, I'm looking at it as feasibility

Iceland can't use solar much
Iowa can't use tidal
Indiana can't really use HEP
Connecticut can't really use wind

Renewable is still very location dependent.

[fleabiscuit]

68. Well sure.

(snark) It's hard replace those solar cells that the op put up with a coal fueled electrical plant.
(end of snark)

Every energy source is location dependent. Instead of a coal plant in the back yard someone might have an alcohol fuel cell next to the white lightening still they've used for years. Party on!

[kristopher]

49. Not true at all, but that's a favorite piece of fossil/nuclear propaganda

You might want to update your knowledge base so you don't spread the same false information in the future.

Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy
Feb 15, 2014

Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues recently developed detailed plans to transform the energy infrastructure of New York, California and Washington states from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable resources by 2050. On Feb. 15, Jacobson will present a new roadmap to renewable energy for all 50 states at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.

The online interactive roadmap is tailored to maximize the resource potential of each state. Hovering a cursor over California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.

"The new roadmap is designed to provide each state a first step toward a renewable future," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. "It provides all of the basic information, such as how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed to power each state, how much land area would be required, what would be the cost and cost savings, how many jobs would be created, how much pollution-related mortality and global-warming emissions would be avoided."

The 50-state roadmap will be launched this week on the website of The Solutions Project, a national outreach effort led by Jacobson, actor Mark Ruffalo (co-star of The Avengers), film director Josh Fox and others to raise public awareness about switching to clean energy produced entirely by wind, water and sunlight. Also on Feb. 15, Solutions Project member Leilani Munter, a professional racecar driver, will publicize the 50-state plan at a Daytona National Speedway racing event in Daytona, Fla., in which she will be participating.

"Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today, said Jacobson...

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-stanford-scientist-unveil-state-renewable.html


The Solutions Project"
http://thesolutionsproject.org

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Power Sources

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Open Access Article

Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold:
1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And
2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs.

Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost.

At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

65. There is a difference between a plan for mass production of renewable energy

And the implementation of said plan. If what you posts is economically viable and attainable, I am all for it. If it produces the energy the plan states on a small scale, it could be extrapolated into a large scale. Your first article is a plan for three coastal states, not 50. The second is a political abstract.

Do not call me a propagandist. . .I am not against sustainable renewable energy. Unfortunately, non-renewable is still what we use to mass produce energy. It is unsustainable, but it still what most of the world uses due to its cost.

[fleabiscuit]

71. As a non propagandist you must have unlocked your mind.

Stating, "...what most of the world uses due to its cost." please, what are you counting as the the costs?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

73. In LEDCs, the cost of their crippling debt, the exploitation of their vast resources, the brain

drain that prevents investment.

I teach this subject on a daily basis in my IGCSE and A-level Geography course. In it we discuss viable energy alternatives. A2 level geography is nothing more than an economics course on sustainability.

Tidal power, Solar power, Wind power, Geothermal power (with the exception of Iceland) are normally too much up front cost for an LEDC to absorb in the short term. And most LEDCs aren't looking at sustainability. . .they are looking to escape the vicious cycle of debt.

But again, what do I know? I just teach this subject and have for the past seven years.

[fleabiscuit]

78. Look on the bright side.

If a person is over 40 it might not matter all that much, for the rest there's a predicted chance it may matter a great deal, perhaps horribly so. I have to defer to Donald Rumsfeld for what we know or don't know. Cheers.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

79. That's for the snarky swipe of calling me a Republican. BTW, I'm 35 years old.

Regards, 朋友

[fleabiscuit]

80. I think you've gotten confused.

~

[elzenmahn]

55. Nonpolluting?

Tell that to the people of Fukushima, of Chernobyl, or in the vicinity of Three Mile Island...

[Nanjing to Seoul]

62. You don't seem to grasp a simple concept like sarcasm.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. We spent more than a trillion dollars blowing up Iraq and putting it back together...

Maybe if we'd spent a trillion dollars on renewable sustainable energy instead, we'd be a lot closer. Just a thought...

[Nanjing to Seoul]

74. Agreed. The political will is not there, but that is a variable I am not counting in this

equation right now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

76. What a pantload. Name this flat, landlocked, constantly-overcast-yet-windless heaven on earth,

and I'll find you a great place for a nuclear power plant built with 100% private investment.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

77. Another DUer that fails to grasp sarcasm with my nuclear comment.

[defacto7]

32. K & R

[woo me with science]

34. Very, very nice.

[badtoworse]

36. Solar is great when the sun shines. When it doesn't, you still need the thermal power plants

When I see posts like this, I assume the poster knows nothing about how a power grid actually works

[elzenmahn]

56. Actually...

Germany has one of the largest solar-power systems in the world. It's decentralized - in that the customers get (or used to get) tax credits for the solar panels they install on their roofs. The unused power goes back into the grid.

And Germany is not exactly a place that gets sunshine 24/7.

[Viking12]

72. 2 potential solutions to that obstacle

1) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/huge-thermal-plant-opens-solar-industry-grows-22490852

2) decentralization

[needledriver]

37. Why is normal solar activity called a spill?

Shouldn't a spill be some sort of exceptional event?

A spill is when stuff gets out of where it is supposed to be. A glass of milk is a glass of milk until it is knocked over - then it is a spill.

Oil that stays inside the wells and the ships and the pipelines is not spilled, so this meme doesn't make any sense.

A real solar spill would burn out satellites and power grids all over the world, utterly disrupt worldwide communications, and cause up to an estimated $2.4 trillion dollars in damage - it would not be just a nice day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

[Chris Diesel]

42. It's a Joke

A nuanced joke and a statement.

The sun's light rays SPILL across the horizon.

While oil and nuclear spills are horrific and a blight on the earth and mankind, sun spills down from the sky every day and is greeted with happiness and enthusiasm.

A real solar spill would be merely fate. Not greed pig corporations trying to weasel another dirty dollar.

[ctsnowman]

45. lol thanks for the post.

[Chico Man]

51. This is how you handle silicon tetrachloride

A byproduct of photovoltaic manufacturing



Not as severe as fossil fuels, but hardly a "nice day".

[eppur_se_muova]

61. Both those chemicals have other uses -- try looking up the prices for high-purity SiCl4 or HSiCl3.

There's really not much excuse for destroying them in that fashion -- and I can't imagine what idiots thought that was a good way to do it, letting all that silica dust free to blow around. Someone just didn't want to spend the money to purify them for re-use, or pay transport costs. Makes as much "sense" as flaring off natural gas to avoid transport. There's no other reason for destroying such valuable intermediates (NOT by-products). SiCl4 is used to make optical fibers, and HSiCl3 to make high-purity silicon for semiconductors. The two can be separated by simple distillation, which is used in their original production anyway. Blame this on cheapness/laziness of mfgrs.

[Chico Man]

63. So because they are intermediates...

They are ok?

The OP asserts there are no risks involve with solar energy. Care to address that assertion?

[Corruption Inc]

58. Does that mean all the kitty cats will get sunburned? LOL

How could anything be more important or interesting that kitty cat pictures? LOL

[librechik]

70. It is gorgeous and warm here for February. Which means of course, snow by midnight

welcome to colorful Colorado!