Aa
This Is Life in a 400 PPM World
I dunno. I think the dogs and I are just old and out of shape, but we all seem to be panting (a sign the body is trying to rid itself of excess CO2) a lot more lately.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-400-ppm-world
"It already ranks as one of the grimmest measurements ever taken. Climate scientists found that for the first time in approximately three million years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million. The reason that figure was splashed across the front page of the New York Times—and why top White House advisors find it "truly frightening"—should be well understood by now. Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas, and the more that accumulates in the atmosphere, the more sunlight it traps—and the more the globe warms.
We've now added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to change the lives of every human on the planet. This isn't an exaggeration. An increasingly large portion of the CO2 clogging our atmosphere comes from human activity—from our coal-fired power plants, our petroleum burning cars, our factories. Before we had any of those, carbon dioxide accounted for just 280 ppm. That means we've already turned up the dial on the planet's central heating by some 42 percent.
As with most heating units, it will take a little time for the temperatures to catch up with the new setting. But many of those changes are already under way. Life in a world where carbon accounts for 400 ppm is going to be quite different from the old 280 ppm world. The climate is now fundamentally different than it was 40, 30, even 20 years ago.
When I was born, in the mid-1980s, the amount of CO2 that had accumulated in the atmosphere was just enough to account for 350 ppm—the amount climatologists like NASA's Dr. James Hansen have identified as the threshold between a stable climate and an unpredictable, potentially volatile one. Between the 1800s and then, humans—mostly the United States and Europe—had built enough carbon-belching power plants and factories to add 70 ppm to the atmosphere.
Yet in my short life alone, human activity has pumped enough carbon pollution into our skies to raise the bar a full 50 ppm more. That's a huge change—out of the 120 ppm humans have added in total, nearly half of it has occurred in just under 30 years. That's the rest of the world following suit, building fossil fueled power plants and industrializing; the same way the U.S. did.
And that's enough carbon to transform our climate to the point that it better resembles another geologic era entirely: The Pliocene. That era, which took place from 5.8 to 2.6 million years ago, was the last time there was so much CO2 was blanketing the planet. According to the geological record, the CO2 levels of 360-400 ppm that marked the Pliocene made the world a drastically different place than the one that you and I grew up in.
Here are some characteristics of the 400 ppm world then—and those that are likely to be reprised in coming years:
-Sea levels were, on average, between 50 and 82 feet higher.
-Temperatures were 2-3˚C higher, or about 4-6 ˚F, than they are today.
-Arctic temperatures were between 10-20 ˚C hotter.
-Many species of both plants and animals existed several hundred kilometers north of where their nearest relatives exist today.
-Vast swaths of land turned into swamps.
This is our 400 ppm world. Hotter, nastier, even less predictable than the one you got comfortable with. This is the world that your kids are going to be growing up in. And some of the irrevocable damage has already been done.
"We've taken one of the largest physical features on earth--the Arctic--and we've broken it; new data shows 80 percent of the ice that was there 40 years ago is gone. So now we'll find out what disappears between here and 450," Bill McKibben, the environmentalist and author of Eaarth: Life on a Strange New Planet, told me in an email.
What seems like pessimism is actually gloomy pragmatism. McKibben knows that if we keep our factories humming, our cars guzzling, and coal plants firing, we'll hit 450 ppm in less time than we hit 400.
"Sadly, we're shooting right past 400 ppm and likely to commit to at least 450 ppm within a matter of years if we don't begin ramping down our greenhouse gas emissions," the preeminent climatologist Michael E. Mann told me.
And if there's one thing that's worse than a 400 ppm world, it's a 450 ppm world.
"If we cross 450 ppm we likely commit to just under 4˚ F warming of the globe relative to preindustrial," Mann continued. "That's a world where the most extreme summers we've ever seen, like last summer, with its record heat and drought, decimated crops, unprecedented wildfires, and devastating Superstorm Sandy, will be the typical summer. And the extreme summers? There is no analog in our past for what that would look like."
That world is just decades, even years away. I won't recite a full list of dangers a world like this holds—the one that includes displaced climate refugees, tensions over diminishing resources, increased reach of tropical diseases, battered coastal populations—but suffice to say that the 400 ppm world and its successors can be ugly places.
The Arctic is already melted. Sea levels are rapidly rising. We've seen a full 1˚ F of temperature rise since mid-century. Scientists are predicting that climate change is indeed going to devastate plant and animal habitats worldwide, much as it did in the Pliocene. This is the 400 ppm world, and it's upon us. The only question now is if we're going to keep cranking the central heat—are we going to turn this sauna into an inferno? We'd have to embrace a whiplash transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy—otherwise we can say hello to planet hotbox.
"Fortunately, there is still time to avoid that future," Mann says. "But not a whole lot of time. Breaching the sobering milestone of 400 ppm simply puts an exclamation mark on that."
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-400-ppm-world
"It already ranks as one of the grimmest measurements ever taken. Climate scientists found that for the first time in approximately three million years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million. The reason that figure was splashed across the front page of the New York Times—and why top White House advisors find it "truly frightening"—should be well understood by now. Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas, and the more that accumulates in the atmosphere, the more sunlight it traps—and the more the globe warms.
We've now added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to change the lives of every human on the planet. This isn't an exaggeration. An increasingly large portion of the CO2 clogging our atmosphere comes from human activity—from our coal-fired power plants, our petroleum burning cars, our factories. Before we had any of those, carbon dioxide accounted for just 280 ppm. That means we've already turned up the dial on the planet's central heating by some 42 percent.
As with most heating units, it will take a little time for the temperatures to catch up with the new setting. But many of those changes are already under way. Life in a world where carbon accounts for 400 ppm is going to be quite different from the old 280 ppm world. The climate is now fundamentally different than it was 40, 30, even 20 years ago.
When I was born, in the mid-1980s, the amount of CO2 that had accumulated in the atmosphere was just enough to account for 350 ppm—the amount climatologists like NASA's Dr. James Hansen have identified as the threshold between a stable climate and an unpredictable, potentially volatile one. Between the 1800s and then, humans—mostly the United States and Europe—had built enough carbon-belching power plants and factories to add 70 ppm to the atmosphere.
Yet in my short life alone, human activity has pumped enough carbon pollution into our skies to raise the bar a full 50 ppm more. That's a huge change—out of the 120 ppm humans have added in total, nearly half of it has occurred in just under 30 years. That's the rest of the world following suit, building fossil fueled power plants and industrializing; the same way the U.S. did.
And that's enough carbon to transform our climate to the point that it better resembles another geologic era entirely: The Pliocene. That era, which took place from 5.8 to 2.6 million years ago, was the last time there was so much CO2 was blanketing the planet. According to the geological record, the CO2 levels of 360-400 ppm that marked the Pliocene made the world a drastically different place than the one that you and I grew up in.
Here are some characteristics of the 400 ppm world then—and those that are likely to be reprised in coming years:
-Sea levels were, on average, between 50 and 82 feet higher.
-Temperatures were 2-3˚C higher, or about 4-6 ˚F, than they are today.
-Arctic temperatures were between 10-20 ˚C hotter.
-Many species of both plants and animals existed several hundred kilometers north of where their nearest relatives exist today.
-Vast swaths of land turned into swamps.
This is our 400 ppm world. Hotter, nastier, even less predictable than the one you got comfortable with. This is the world that your kids are going to be growing up in. And some of the irrevocable damage has already been done.
"We've taken one of the largest physical features on earth--the Arctic--and we've broken it; new data shows 80 percent of the ice that was there 40 years ago is gone. So now we'll find out what disappears between here and 450," Bill McKibben, the environmentalist and author of Eaarth: Life on a Strange New Planet, told me in an email.
What seems like pessimism is actually gloomy pragmatism. McKibben knows that if we keep our factories humming, our cars guzzling, and coal plants firing, we'll hit 450 ppm in less time than we hit 400.
"Sadly, we're shooting right past 400 ppm and likely to commit to at least 450 ppm within a matter of years if we don't begin ramping down our greenhouse gas emissions," the preeminent climatologist Michael E. Mann told me.
And if there's one thing that's worse than a 400 ppm world, it's a 450 ppm world.
"If we cross 450 ppm we likely commit to just under 4˚ F warming of the globe relative to preindustrial," Mann continued. "That's a world where the most extreme summers we've ever seen, like last summer, with its record heat and drought, decimated crops, unprecedented wildfires, and devastating Superstorm Sandy, will be the typical summer. And the extreme summers? There is no analog in our past for what that would look like."
That world is just decades, even years away. I won't recite a full list of dangers a world like this holds—the one that includes displaced climate refugees, tensions over diminishing resources, increased reach of tropical diseases, battered coastal populations—but suffice to say that the 400 ppm world and its successors can be ugly places.
The Arctic is already melted. Sea levels are rapidly rising. We've seen a full 1˚ F of temperature rise since mid-century. Scientists are predicting that climate change is indeed going to devastate plant and animal habitats worldwide, much as it did in the Pliocene. This is the 400 ppm world, and it's upon us. The only question now is if we're going to keep cranking the central heat—are we going to turn this sauna into an inferno? We'd have to embrace a whiplash transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy—otherwise we can say hello to planet hotbox.
"Fortunately, there is still time to avoid that future," Mann says. "But not a whole lot of time. Breaching the sobering milestone of 400 ppm simply puts an exclamation mark on that."
Storage for waste bothers me. There was/is a nuke waste storage facility planned or being built in Nevada in ancient lava tubes. It literally is in the "middle of nowhere", (some 100 miles or so in the desert outside of Las Vegas) and all of the "science" seems sound making this a reasonable storage site.
The problem for me is, there are always problems with things like this. There has to be a water table near by and I don't like the idea of potentially poisoning the water table. It might not ever happen... or it may.
Nuclear power seemed like a reasonable alternative until we started looking at all of the waste. Solar power looked to be the next big deal and we didn't have the foresight to see the amount of toxic waste produced there. I guess we are to assume that the toxic by products of energy production is more safe???
I am interested in the CSP plant.
The problem for me is, there are always problems with things like this. There has to be a water table near by and I don't like the idea of potentially poisoning the water table. It might not ever happen... or it may.
Nuclear power seemed like a reasonable alternative until we started looking at all of the waste. Solar power looked to be the next big deal and we didn't have the foresight to see the amount of toxic waste produced there. I guess we are to assume that the toxic by products of energy production is more safe???
I am interested in the CSP plant.
OK so the whole subject of storage was bugging me 'cause (a Don't really like lead-acid batteries & b) Anything that depends on consumers to check and maintain a system is doomed to failure.
Turns out heat storage is more efficient than electrical storage anyway.
"As the temperature increases, different forms of conversion become practical. Up to 600 °C, steam turbines, standard technology, have an efficiency up to 41%. Above 600 °C, gas turbines can be more efficient. Higher temperatures are problematic because different materials and techniques are needed. One proposal for very high temperatures is to use liquid fluoride salts operating between 700 °C to 800 °C, using multi-stage turbine systems to achieve 50% or more thermal efficiencies.[28] The higher operating temperatures permit the plant to use higher-temperature dry heat exchangers for its thermal exhaust, reducing the plant's water use – critical in the deserts where large solar plants are practical. High temperatures also make heat storage more efficient, because more watt-hours are stored per unit of fluid.
Since the CSP plant generates heat first of all, it can store the heat before conversion to electricity. With current technology, storage of heat is much cheaper and more efficient than storage of electricity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
Turns out heat storage is more efficient than electrical storage anyway.
"As the temperature increases, different forms of conversion become practical. Up to 600 °C, steam turbines, standard technology, have an efficiency up to 41%. Above 600 °C, gas turbines can be more efficient. Higher temperatures are problematic because different materials and techniques are needed. One proposal for very high temperatures is to use liquid fluoride salts operating between 700 °C to 800 °C, using multi-stage turbine systems to achieve 50% or more thermal efficiencies.[28] The higher operating temperatures permit the plant to use higher-temperature dry heat exchangers for its thermal exhaust, reducing the plant's water use – critical in the deserts where large solar plants are practical. High temperatures also make heat storage more efficient, because more watt-hours are stored per unit of fluid.
Since the CSP plant generates heat first of all, it can store the heat before conversion to electricity. With current technology, storage of heat is much cheaper and more efficient than storage of electricity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
A wonderfully intelligent debate happening here...this is the best of CE and the part I missed. Reading all of this is what makes me happy to be back! Love you all!!! xoxo
Lead-acid batteries for that matter. I think we can find a small corner of nowhere to store that waste. It's got to be better than all the cadmium and other bi-products panels produce. And we'll still need transmission lines strung all over the place. I just think this is the *least* toxic, most-readily-converted-to method.
desrt, we agree on the method, who'd of thunk it. Now what about storage?
Molten salts? Huge flywheels?
Molten salts? Huge flywheels?
P.S.
I'm sorry the climate/weather svcks in that vast stretch of land that can be used for this purpose between the Mojave and Chihuahua deserts. I accept my share of the blame. I confess to driving an internal combustion powered truck.
I'm sorry the climate/weather svcks in that vast stretch of land that can be used for this purpose between the Mojave and Chihuahua deserts. I accept my share of the blame. I confess to driving an internal combustion powered truck.
Adgal:
I understand how much is made out of fossil fuel based plastic in this world - I just don't want us to burn the stuff.
Pro brice:
I don't particularly care for direct production of electricity by toxic heavy metals containing solar panels. I believe the most efficient, long-term non-polluting method is solar powered steam generated electricity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Solar_Project
This would also put all those pipe fitters in Canada, Texas, and North Dakota to work immediately with very little need to retrain.
OH:
The greed of the oil companies can be overcome if you can show them this is just as profitable. I fear people's complacency and inertia more than I do any conspiracy.
I understand how much is made out of fossil fuel based plastic in this world - I just don't want us to burn the stuff.
Pro brice:
I don't particularly care for direct production of electricity by toxic heavy metals containing solar panels. I believe the most efficient, long-term non-polluting method is solar powered steam generated electricity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Solar_Project
This would also put all those pipe fitters in Canada, Texas, and North Dakota to work immediately with very little need to retrain.
OH:
The greed of the oil companies can be overcome if you can show them this is just as profitable. I fear people's complacency and inertia more than I do any conspiracy.
I really appreciate your pragmatism and what you say is absolutely correct.
I don't know what can be done to make these "green" products more green or less toxic but that is something for the industries to be working on with the scientists and environmentalists. I guess what i am saying is that because there are flaws in the alternatives, let us not give up on these alternatives, lets keep working to make them better.
Mass transit will be expensive...but think of the jobs! Ha, maybe a little economic boost.
It is always nice talking about this stuff with you guys. We have different perspectives but I feel an understanding and mutual respect and i really appreciate that. :-)
I don't know what can be done to make these "green" products more green or less toxic but that is something for the industries to be working on with the scientists and environmentalists. I guess what i am saying is that because there are flaws in the alternatives, let us not give up on these alternatives, lets keep working to make them better.
Mass transit will be expensive...but think of the jobs! Ha, maybe a little economic boost.
It is always nice talking about this stuff with you guys. We have different perspectives but I feel an understanding and mutual respect and i really appreciate that. :-)
I'll say that we are trying, hence the birth of solar, wind and wave power technologies that have been and are further being developed. The problem with that is, the products that need to be manufactured to produce this power probably comes from a petroleum product and there is probably some kind of coal fired power plant (or nuclear power plant which we know has some very dangerous side effects and waste developed) behind the production of said parts.
Mass transit is beautiful. But, by and large, those things (buses and trains) are made of metal, plastic, fiberglass, etc. A bicycle is also wonderful but they too are made of petroleum products or metals that need refining that takes an awful lot of energy to produce....
I don't have the answers by any means, but our alternatives are very, very limited at best.... at this time.
Mass transit is beautiful. But, by and large, those things (buses and trains) are made of metal, plastic, fiberglass, etc. A bicycle is also wonderful but they too are made of petroleum products or metals that need refining that takes an awful lot of energy to produce....
I don't have the answers by any means, but our alternatives are very, very limited at best.... at this time.
"Having this stuff go to ... hazardous waste sites, that's what you want to have happen," said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a solar advocacy group.
Environmental advocates say the solar industry needs greater transparency, which is getting more complicated as manufacturing moves from the U.S. and Europe to less regulated places such as China and Malaysia.
The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a watchdog group created in 1982 in response to severe environmental problems associated with the valley's electronics industry, is now trying to keep the solar industry from making similar mistakes through a voluntary waste reporting "scorecard." So far, only 14 of 114 companies contacted have replied. Those 14 were larger firms that comprised 51-percent of the solar market share.
"We find the overall industry response rate to our request for environmental information to be pretty dismal for an industry that is considered 'green,'" the group's executive director, Sheila Davis, said in an email.
While there are no specific industry standards, Smirnow, head of the solar industry association, is spearheading a voluntary program of environmental responsibility. So far, only seven of the group's nearly 81 manufacturers have signed the pledge.
"We want (our program) to be more demanding, but this is a young industry and right now manufacturing companies are focused on survival," he said.
Environmental advocates say the solar industry needs greater transparency, which is getting more complicated as manufacturing moves from the U.S. and Europe to less regulated places such as China and Malaysia.
The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a watchdog group created in 1982 in response to severe environmental problems associated with the valley's electronics industry, is now trying to keep the solar industry from making similar mistakes through a voluntary waste reporting "scorecard." So far, only 14 of 114 companies contacted have replied. Those 14 were larger firms that comprised 51-percent of the solar market share.
"We find the overall industry response rate to our request for environmental information to be pretty dismal for an industry that is considered 'green,'" the group's executive director, Sheila Davis, said in an email.
While there are no specific industry standards, Smirnow, head of the solar industry association, is spearheading a voluntary program of environmental responsibility. So far, only seven of the group's nearly 81 manufacturers have signed the pledge.
"We want (our program) to be more demanding, but this is a young industry and right now manufacturing companies are focused on survival," he said.
I agree rivll, but nothing comes for free (especially that trillion $ train (g)))
Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Homeowners on the hunt for sparkling solar panels are lured by ads filled with images of pristine landscapes and bright sunshine, and words about the technology's benefits for the environment — and the wallet.
What customers may not know is that there's a dirtier side.
While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.
To dispose of the material, the companies must transport it by truck or rail far from their own plants to waste facilities hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of miles away.
The fossil fuels used to transport that waste, experts say, is not typically considered in calculating solar's carbon footprint, giving scientists and consumers who use the measurement to gauge a product's impact on global warming the impression that solar is cleaner than it is.
After installing a solar panel, "it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state," said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
The waste from manufacturing has raised concerns within the industry, which fears that the problem, if left unchecked, could undermine solar's green image at a time when companies are facing stiff competition from each other and from low-cost panel manufacturers from China and elsewhere.
"We want to take the lessons learned from electronics and semiconductor industries (about pollution) and get ahead of some of these problems," said John Smirnow, vice president for trade and competitiveness at the nearly 500-member Solar Energy Industries Association.
The increase in solar hazardous waste is directly related to the industry's fast growth over the past five years — even with solar business moving to China rapidly, the U.S. was a net exporter of solar products by $2 billion in 2010, the last year of data available. The nation was even a net exporter to China.
New companies often send hazardous waste out of their plants because they have not yet invested in on-site treatment equipment, which allows them to recycle some waste.
Nowhere is the waste issue more evident than in California, where landmark regulations approved in the 1970s require industrial plants like solar panel makers to report the amount of hazardous materials they produce, and where they send it. California leads the consumer solar market in the U.S. — which doubled overall both in 2010 and 2011.
The Associated Press compiled a list of 41 solar makers in the state, which included the top companies based on market data, and startups. In response to an AP records request, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control provided data that showed 17 of them reported waste, while the remaining did not.
The same level of federal data does not exist.
The state records show the 17 companies, which had 44 manufacturing facilities in California, produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water from 2007 through the first half of 2011. Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, but more than 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states: Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona.
Several solar energy experts said they have not calculated the industry's total waste and were surprised at what the records showed.
Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.
Before the company went bankrupt, leading to increased scrutiny of the solar industry and political fallout for President Barack Obama's administration, Solyndra said it created 100 megawatts-worth of solar panels, enough to power 100,000 homes.
The records also show several other Silicon Valley solar facilities created millions of pounds of toxic waste without selling a single solar panel, while they were developing their technology or fine-tuning their production.
View gallery."FILE - In this Oct. 6, 2010 file photo, workers monitor …
FILE - In this Oct. 6, 2010 file photo, workers monitor a control bank at Solyndra's solar panel fac …
While much of the waste produced is considered toxic, there was no evidence it has harmed human health.
The vast majority of solar companies that generated hazardous waste in California have not been cited for waste-related pollution violations, although three had minor violations on file.
In many cases, a toxic sludge is created when metals and other toxins are removed from water used in the manufacturing process. If a company doesn't have its own treatment equipment, then it will send contaminated water to be stored at an approved dump.
According to scientists who conduct so-called "life cycle analysis" for solar, the transport of waste is not currently being factored into the carbon footprint score, which measures the amount of greenhouse gases produced when making a product.
Life cycle analysts add up all the global warming pollution that goes into making a certain product — from the mining needed for components to the exhaust from diesel trucks used to transport waste and materials. Not factoring the hazardous waste transport into solar's carbon footprint is an obvious oversight, analysts said.
"The greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting this waste is not insignificant," Mulvaney said.
Mulvaney noted that shipping, for example, 6.2 million pounds of waste by heavy-duty tractor-trailer from Fremont, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay area, to a site 1,800 miles away could add 5 percent to a particular product's carbon footprint.
Such scores are important because they provide transparency to government and consumers into just how environmentally sustainable specific products are and lay out a choice between one company's technology and another's.
The roughly 20-year life of a solar panel still makes it some of the cleanest energy technology currently available. Producing solar is still significantly cleaner than fossil fuels. Energy derived from natural gas and coal-fired power plants, for example, creates more than 10 times more hazardous waste than the same energy created by a solar panel, according to Mulvaney.
The U.S. solar industry said it is reporting its waste, and sending it to approved storage facilities — thus keeping it out of the nation's air and water. A coal-fired power plant, in contrast, sends mercury, cadmium and other toxins directly into the air, which pollutes water and land around the facility.
Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Homeowners on the hunt for sparkling solar panels are lured by ads filled with images of pristine landscapes and bright sunshine, and words about the technology's benefits for the environment — and the wallet.
What customers may not know is that there's a dirtier side.
While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.
To dispose of the material, the companies must transport it by truck or rail far from their own plants to waste facilities hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of miles away.
The fossil fuels used to transport that waste, experts say, is not typically considered in calculating solar's carbon footprint, giving scientists and consumers who use the measurement to gauge a product's impact on global warming the impression that solar is cleaner than it is.
After installing a solar panel, "it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state," said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
The waste from manufacturing has raised concerns within the industry, which fears that the problem, if left unchecked, could undermine solar's green image at a time when companies are facing stiff competition from each other and from low-cost panel manufacturers from China and elsewhere.
"We want to take the lessons learned from electronics and semiconductor industries (about pollution) and get ahead of some of these problems," said John Smirnow, vice president for trade and competitiveness at the nearly 500-member Solar Energy Industries Association.
The increase in solar hazardous waste is directly related to the industry's fast growth over the past five years — even with solar business moving to China rapidly, the U.S. was a net exporter of solar products by $2 billion in 2010, the last year of data available. The nation was even a net exporter to China.
New companies often send hazardous waste out of their plants because they have not yet invested in on-site treatment equipment, which allows them to recycle some waste.
Nowhere is the waste issue more evident than in California, where landmark regulations approved in the 1970s require industrial plants like solar panel makers to report the amount of hazardous materials they produce, and where they send it. California leads the consumer solar market in the U.S. — which doubled overall both in 2010 and 2011.
The Associated Press compiled a list of 41 solar makers in the state, which included the top companies based on market data, and startups. In response to an AP records request, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control provided data that showed 17 of them reported waste, while the remaining did not.
The same level of federal data does not exist.
The state records show the 17 companies, which had 44 manufacturing facilities in California, produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water from 2007 through the first half of 2011. Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, but more than 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states: Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona.
Several solar energy experts said they have not calculated the industry's total waste and were surprised at what the records showed.
Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.
Before the company went bankrupt, leading to increased scrutiny of the solar industry and political fallout for President Barack Obama's administration, Solyndra said it created 100 megawatts-worth of solar panels, enough to power 100,000 homes.
The records also show several other Silicon Valley solar facilities created millions of pounds of toxic waste without selling a single solar panel, while they were developing their technology or fine-tuning their production.
View gallery."FILE - In this Oct. 6, 2010 file photo, workers monitor …
FILE - In this Oct. 6, 2010 file photo, workers monitor a control bank at Solyndra's solar panel fac …
While much of the waste produced is considered toxic, there was no evidence it has harmed human health.
The vast majority of solar companies that generated hazardous waste in California have not been cited for waste-related pollution violations, although three had minor violations on file.
In many cases, a toxic sludge is created when metals and other toxins are removed from water used in the manufacturing process. If a company doesn't have its own treatment equipment, then it will send contaminated water to be stored at an approved dump.
According to scientists who conduct so-called "life cycle analysis" for solar, the transport of waste is not currently being factored into the carbon footprint score, which measures the amount of greenhouse gases produced when making a product.
Life cycle analysts add up all the global warming pollution that goes into making a certain product — from the mining needed for components to the exhaust from diesel trucks used to transport waste and materials. Not factoring the hazardous waste transport into solar's carbon footprint is an obvious oversight, analysts said.
"The greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting this waste is not insignificant," Mulvaney said.
Mulvaney noted that shipping, for example, 6.2 million pounds of waste by heavy-duty tractor-trailer from Fremont, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay area, to a site 1,800 miles away could add 5 percent to a particular product's carbon footprint.
Such scores are important because they provide transparency to government and consumers into just how environmentally sustainable specific products are and lay out a choice between one company's technology and another's.
The roughly 20-year life of a solar panel still makes it some of the cleanest energy technology currently available. Producing solar is still significantly cleaner than fossil fuels. Energy derived from natural gas and coal-fired power plants, for example, creates more than 10 times more hazardous waste than the same energy created by a solar panel, according to Mulvaney.
The U.S. solar industry said it is reporting its waste, and sending it to approved storage facilities — thus keeping it out of the nation's air and water. A coal-fired power plant, in contrast, sends mercury, cadmium and other toxins directly into the air, which pollutes water and land around the facility.
What are the alternatives that you speak of?
I wouldn't want to ride a horse in LA.
________________________________
LOL!
No, for sure not. I lived in L.A. for one year and there is no way of traveling w/o a car. They set it up that way. I think a good start is to make sure all metropolitan areas have really good and clean energy efficient mass transit.
My son, who lives in NYC sold his car and is very happy taking the subway and biking it.
I do not pretend to have all the answers nor do I think the solutions can be worked out in our lifetime but I believe we must work now with an urgency to do what we can to slow the damage being done.
Think of it. If you eat all your cake now there is none for tomorrow.
Very simple but true and we are seeing the signs of the pending devastation in our lives now so how can we not try to do something for the very brief time we have here, for the sake of the generation growing up now? How can we possibly leave then this mess and say we didn't even try?
Adgal-It is not possible to get mad at you. You are mother theresa of CE.:)
________________________________
LOL!
No, for sure not. I lived in L.A. for one year and there is no way of traveling w/o a car. They set it up that way. I think a good start is to make sure all metropolitan areas have really good and clean energy efficient mass transit.
My son, who lives in NYC sold his car and is very happy taking the subway and biking it.
I do not pretend to have all the answers nor do I think the solutions can be worked out in our lifetime but I believe we must work now with an urgency to do what we can to slow the damage being done.
Think of it. If you eat all your cake now there is none for tomorrow.
Very simple but true and we are seeing the signs of the pending devastation in our lives now so how can we not try to do something for the very brief time we have here, for the sake of the generation growing up now? How can we possibly leave then this mess and say we didn't even try?
Adgal-It is not possible to get mad at you. You are mother theresa of CE.:)
I sometimes wonder if people even grasp how many products we use today are oil based. Look it up and then tell me we can just drop it. Sure, people lived for centuries without it, but in todays world? I can tell you I'm not too keen on the idea of taking my son to school, then heading off to work in -30 with snow up to our waist on a horse or bike. Then working a full day, coming home and getting the fires going - course I don't have a fireplace, so this might be a challenge anyway. I am with Brice - yes, it can be done but it needs to be a process. There is no possible way to just go cold turkey. If you live in a warm climate, maybe, but sure not where I live. And requiring it means transporting it - this is reality. We do need to be investing in alternatives.
I also get a little frustrated with the constant dumping on the oil companies. Are they making a heapload of money? Sure. However, they are also massive employers, and their folks don't work minimum wage. They give an awful lot back. One of the programs I am responsible for that sends adults back to school to improve their situation (ie: get off welfare and become productive members of society) is 100% funded by oil and gas. And most of them are investing in alternatives - they aren't stupid, they know someday this boom will come to an end. They do a lot of good and aren't all evil.
This issue is not a black and white one - there are so many issues at stake here and it's going to take time for change to happen. Yes, it must happen, but it's going to take time.
I also get a little frustrated with the constant dumping on the oil companies. Are they making a heapload of money? Sure. However, they are also massive employers, and their folks don't work minimum wage. They give an awful lot back. One of the programs I am responsible for that sends adults back to school to improve their situation (ie: get off welfare and become productive members of society) is 100% funded by oil and gas. And most of them are investing in alternatives - they aren't stupid, they know someday this boom will come to an end. They do a lot of good and aren't all evil.
This issue is not a black and white one - there are so many issues at stake here and it's going to take time for change to happen. Yes, it must happen, but it's going to take time.
The answer is not to go backwards but to go forward.
Trying to stay still only results in stagnation or worse.
Trying to stay still only results in stagnation or worse.
and slaughtering whales for lamp oil probably isn't a solution anymore either
I wouldn't want to ride a horse in LA.
Change is the solution yet despite changing constantly, from the moment of our births, people resist it so.
The so-called alternatives already exist. It is only the greed and power of the oil companies that have people convinced that they cannot do without oil.
People lived without oil for centuries, it is not needed for existence.
The so-called alternatives already exist. It is only the greed and power of the oil companies that have people convinced that they cannot do without oil.
People lived without oil for centuries, it is not needed for existence.
T. Boone Pickens is also investing a chunk of his money in alternative energy sources like solar and wind farms (more specifically). With that, petroleum products are very much a part of those philosophies as well.
The bottom line is you can't just jump from A to C. You have to get there via B and B stands for bridge fuel, ie. natural gas. Cleaner, abundant and reliable 24/7. Boone Pickens is one of the few visionaries that understands this.
Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I 100% agree we need to find more sustainable solutions that cause less harm. No question. I guess I just find it unrealistic that the oil dependancy is going to end anytime soon. I would like it to, just don't think it will. It will happen slowly and over time in my opinion. There needs to be alternatives that make sense, and the job creation issue is a big one too. An awful lot of people make their livelyhood working in oil and gas type jobs, so that needs to be thought through. As for the pipeline being the safest method of transport - well, no transport at all would be the safest. But it is the safest of the options, at least based on what I have read. I just don't feel there is a short term solution here. It's going to take time and education as well as a whole lot more research. Just my opinion, you know I love ya!
http://madocstudio.com/photographie/projets-personnels/sables-bitumineux-alberta/
PLEASE WATCH THIS!
It is not about political parties, liberal or conservative.
It is about our existence.
If anything in the world matters it has to be based on a sustainable planet.
PLEASE WATCH THIS!
It is not about political parties, liberal or conservative.
It is about our existence.
If anything in the world matters it has to be based on a sustainable planet.
It's going to take a very long time to wean ourselves - not going to happen in our lifetime for sure. And pipeline is still the safest mode of transporting it. So what is the solution? ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but if the world really and truly sees that we will not have a sustainable planet very soon *unless* we wean ourselves from this dependency then hopefully we can make the sacrifices necessary so that our children and grandchildren will still have a home.
The pipeline is *not* the safest mode... we simply cannot destroy the communities near that proposed pipeline with poisoned earth and water as well as the emissions that will add to air pollution ten fold and accelerate global warming to the degree that your child will grow up in a world of water and food shortages unknown to our civilization.
Nothing is worth that..nothing.
I agree but if the world really and truly sees that we will not have a sustainable planet very soon *unless* we wean ourselves from this dependency then hopefully we can make the sacrifices necessary so that our children and grandchildren will still have a home.
The pipeline is *not* the safest mode... we simply cannot destroy the communities near that proposed pipeline with poisoned earth and water as well as the emissions that will add to air pollution ten fold and accelerate global warming to the degree that your child will grow up in a world of water and food shortages unknown to our civilization.
Nothing is worth that..nothing.
I know we are doing damage to our environment but I don’t buy into the extent of what is being proclaimed. This Earth is forever changing on it’s own. Here is just one reason that causes me to doubt-
WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA
Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea.
The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes mountains in the past 15 million years.
Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.
According to the leader of the expedition, Dr. Michael J. Novacek, the chairman of the museum's paleontology department, the presence of interesting fossils on the plateau was detected by an amateur Chilean paleontologist who had been the mayor of a local town.
''Thanks to him,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we learned of the fossils and conducted a reconnaissance of the area one year ago. On the strength of what we found then, we returned this year prepared for a full-scale exploration. 'A Strange and Wild Place'
''The place is truly a lost plateau reminiscent of the settings of adventure novels, a strange and wild place that had entirely escaped the attention of scientists. There are no roads into the area, and the fierce mountain winds are too dangerous for helicopter operations.''
The plateau, some 850 miles south of Santiago near the border between Chile and Argentina, lies just to the south of Lake General Carrera. The lake is the second largest lake in South America after Lake Titicaca, which straddles the border between Bolivia and Peru.
The nine-member expedition, which included Dr. John J. Flynn of Rutgers University and Andre R. Wyss of Columbia University, studied both the geology and Miocene fossils of the area under a grant from the Eppley Foundation.
''We are in some haste to prepare a paper describing our discovery,'' Dr. Novacek said. ''In science, it is important sometimes to stake one's claim.''
Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils
Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said. ''That was another great piece of luck, since we couldn't have brought in excavating equipment on horseback,'' he said. ''Best of all, despite weathering, many of the smallest fossils were remarkably intact and will be relatively easy to study.''
The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.
''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths. Clues on Joining of Continents
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA
Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea.
The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes mountains in the past 15 million years.
Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.
According to the leader of the expedition, Dr. Michael J. Novacek, the chairman of the museum's paleontology department, the presence of interesting fossils on the plateau was detected by an amateur Chilean paleontologist who had been the mayor of a local town.
''Thanks to him,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we learned of the fossils and conducted a reconnaissance of the area one year ago. On the strength of what we found then, we returned this year prepared for a full-scale exploration. 'A Strange and Wild Place'
''The place is truly a lost plateau reminiscent of the settings of adventure novels, a strange and wild place that had entirely escaped the attention of scientists. There are no roads into the area, and the fierce mountain winds are too dangerous for helicopter operations.''
The plateau, some 850 miles south of Santiago near the border between Chile and Argentina, lies just to the south of Lake General Carrera. The lake is the second largest lake in South America after Lake Titicaca, which straddles the border between Bolivia and Peru.
The nine-member expedition, which included Dr. John J. Flynn of Rutgers University and Andre R. Wyss of Columbia University, studied both the geology and Miocene fossils of the area under a grant from the Eppley Foundation.
''We are in some haste to prepare a paper describing our discovery,'' Dr. Novacek said. ''In science, it is important sometimes to stake one's claim.''
Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils
Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said. ''That was another great piece of luck, since we couldn't have brought in excavating equipment on horseback,'' he said. ''Best of all, despite weathering, many of the smallest fossils were remarkably intact and will be relatively easy to study.''
The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.
''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths. Clues on Joining of Continents
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
