/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9971290]

is it true that the production of solar panels and electric cars is as bad for the environment as using the "non green" alternatives, such as gasoline for cars and coal for energy? To specify i want to know if the impact on the climate and environment is less in general when using these green options.

The toxin in solar panals may be very bad for the environment but they dont spill and can be discarted safely when out of admission. car batteries may be toxic to make but they can be made in a secure environment where the toxins can be contained. These are my thoughts on the matters but i am looking for someone who can explain this to me in a grander scale with more background knowledge on the subject.

I guess we all have heard the friend or two who yells; solar panels are just as bad for the environment! or; the production of an electric car produces as much co2 as driving a range rover for 200 000 km! Now i looked for sources but didnt find many reliable ones and none claimed the above. So an extra question to you guys, is there any truth in the above statements?

[Anonymous No.9971293]

>>9971290
Are solar panels not just doped silicon?
What's toxic about them? Heavy metals?

[Anonymous No.9971298]

>>9971293
lead, chromium, and cadmium apparently, but i know nothing about the reusability of these metals and if it is even possible to do so from discarted solar panels or how the discarted panels are handled.

[Anonymous No.9971552]

>>9971290
The waste can be dealt with, and in any case coal is just as bad or worse than what's in solar panels. Standards to prevent toxic metal leaching from rainfall and for proper disposal or recycling should be put in place. But overall there is less mining and less emissions associated with solar panels than coal.

[Anonymous No.9971585]

No, it's a net benefit. It costs energy to create anything, but over decades of operation they save you from having to produce energy via other means, such as fossil fuels, so it's a net gain and reduction of emissions.

[Anonymous No.9971660]

>>9971585
We're talking materials, not energy

[Anonymous No.9971666]

>>9971660
Compared to coal and the toxic run off in coal mining operations? No, they're relatively safe for the environment.

[Anonymous No.9971724]

>>9971585
>>9971660

indeed its not so much about the net energy but more about the impact on the environment to gather the energy, say would it be better to run your house on solar panels for 30 years or on natural gas for 30 years, keeping in mind the mining of the recources and production process? also is nuclear power an alternative? I have seen first hand what it can do when the waste isnt managed properly,but in terms of
futur solutions is this the most viable option to sustain our energy need until we find a real green solution?

[Anonymous No.9971728]

>>9971290
>is it true that the production of electric cars is as bad for the environment as using the "non green" alternatives

Yeah because people just buy electric cars to put on a pedestal and only look at it.

[Anonymous No.9971740]

>>9971290
>is it true that the production of solar panels and electric cars is as bad for the environment as using the "non green" alternatives, such as gasoline for cars and coal for energy?
no. they're a better alternative, not a perfect one. perfect would be fusion.

[Anonymous No.9971764]

>>9971728
electric cars can only be considered green if they're charged off a renewable grid. instead they're just a few degrees better than direct fossil fuels. better than gas, but not great.

[Anonymous No.9971767]

if you tell me how many words your essay has to be ill try and help

[Anonymous No.9971787]

>>9971764
They don't stink up your local city. That's why China, Europe, etc are banning gas cars.

[Anonymous No.9971816]

>>9971767
i can honestly say its not for an essay, as you might have guessed there is an alterior motive though, namely a discussion with friends who spouted the stuff that i mentioned in the opening statement. Being not as well informed on the topic as i would like to be i didnt really have a rebutal except asking for sources and all i got was: dont be so naive. So now i am doing my research and didnt find any reliable sources that claimed the same as their statements. Especially the rangerover one seemed such bullshit that i wanted to scream fake news, luckely i restrained myself.

[Anonymous No.9971825]

>>9971816
its ok i dont know much about it either and this thread is interesting sorry for being a cunt good luck on answers

also remember that arguing with people who don't believe in the scientific method (i.e. people who choose facts that they like based on their preconceived notions rather than choosing notions based on the facts they receive) is really a bad idea and could only result in the loss of friends or amicability

[Anonymous No.9971838]

>>9971666
...coal being the preferred method of high temperature resource processing?

Silicon doesn't melt at room temperature, and processing the n and p type doping agents has an energy cost as well.

[Anonymous No.9971895]

>>9971825
no worries
I dont know, they are usally reasonable when i make grounded arguments, this time however i had only had second hand arguments that i didnt understood quite as well that i could go in depth and explain them well enough to make a good case. Even though it might make the atmosphere more tense, i would still deem it worthy to convince them if that meant they would look differently on the whole green energy aspect, convince them they could help it progress even if it were only a little bit.

[Anonymous No.9972320]

>>9971290
>is it true
No, it's a fckn lie from the fossil-fuel cartel.

[Anonymous No.9972362]

>>9972320

still i cant find any sources that claim the same and for it to be propganda from the petrol gang i would assume there would be some amount of misleading information out there, yet i can hardly find any. Could it perhaps be just an "urban legend" that people like to tell with no real directed origin?