Shock News : Solar Cells Are Far More Evil Than CO2

BERKELEY, Calif., June 4, 2012 – Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California – Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. ”

Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening.

The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth’s atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.

Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than Carbon Dioxide According to New Book, Green Illusions – Press Release

h/t to Dave G


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Shock News : Solar Cells Are Far More Evil Than CO2

  1. Dave N says:

    Oh yeah, the IPCC is totally believable.

  2. catweazle666 says:

    This is only a surprise to anyone who is so deluded that they believe that environmentalists actually care a damn for the environment, of course.

  3. Sean says:

    And remember, it takes 3 years of power generation from a solar cell to make up for the electricity used to manufacture it.

    • Is that before or after the subsidies?

    • Gail Combs says:

      You mean you can actually recover the electricity to manufacture it? Or is that just the electricity for the factory where the parts are assembled. (GRIN)

      ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) has to be the easiest set of numbers to fudge.

      Do you think your number included the energy for mining all the ore and refining the minerals to make the raw materials?

      The energy for transportation of the ore, the refined raw materials, the manufactured parts, the assembled panel to the site?

      In general there are AT LEAST six or seven different corporations involved in going from the ore to the finished product used by the consumer.

      An easier example is farming.
      Just for a tractor.
      Ore ==> Smelter ==> casting parts ==> fabricator ==> dealer/sales room ==> farmer
      crude oil==> refinery ==> polymer manufacturer ==> tire manufacture ^
      Repeat for all the different tractor parts and do not forget warehousing and transportation. Don’t forget all the machines for each step of the process also had to be manufactured.

      That is why Reagan came up with 151 taxes on a loaf of bread.

    • Konrad says:

      Only if it’s not mounted in an aluminum frame behind an toughened glass panel. Then you wouldn’t recover the energy of manufacture in the lifespan of the cells.

  4. Justa Joe says:

    They want you to accept that CO2 is “virulent” and “threatening.” They imply that these new gases are increasing to dangerous levels without ever actually stating what their concentration is in the atmosphere. It almost as if this some kind of parody of the gullibility of warmists.

    • Gamecock says:

      “Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2”

      And 17,000 times 0 is what? Where’s my calculator?

      • Luke of the D says:

        Not only that… but how exactly do the know these substances will “last 10,000 years once it has been released into the atmosphere?” How do you test that hypothesis?

  5. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Fnordfn oh noes!

  6. Colorado Wellington says:

    Faster, please. Our civilization will need to understand these compounds well to survive the next glaciation. CO2 is hugely important but it doesn’t cut it as GH gas.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      We need real atmospheric science and research of safe, affordable, non-toxic GHGs. Right now our chances of stopping the next glaciation don’t look good.

  7. Remitrom says:

    But “global warming” is to blame coz if the world wasn’t warming we wouldn’t need to produce solar panels
    Oh, hang on a minute……….

  8. Ernest Bush says:

    When you add the influence of these gasses on actual global warming to that of water vapor, they can’t be represented on a pie chart. You just draw a thin line and an arrow attached to a ridiculously small number.

    The effect on humans working at the plants and those living nearby, however, is not good. I’d rather live next to a nuclear power plant and take a chance on breathing in escaping radioactive gases after an accident. The odds for developing life-threatening problems is much lower.

  9. Bart says:

    Apparently, someone there finally got wind of Jevons Paradox.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s