What waste does it exactly produce? The solar panel itself and the wires?
I think the article is referring to the waste produced in making, implementing, and then recycling the panels. The act of creating power itself doesn't produce any waste. 
Topic: Solar Energy Produces 300 Times More Toxic Waste Than Does Nuclear Power (Read 475 times)
January 20, 2018, 11:00:11 AM
January 19, 2018, 05:53:26 PM
These are some of the dumbest and most misleading statements I have read in a long time. It is not even worth the typed words to tear the three bullet points at the end of the original post apart.
January 19, 2018, 04:45:05 AM
What waste does it exactly produce? The solar panel itself and the wires?
September 21, 2017, 08:24:24 AM
people have to realize that we can't continue harming the environment, there are already ecological ways to create energy and we need to make a massive change in our way of life, otherwise we're all doomed
July 11, 2017, 09:00:36 PM
I couldn't understand the panel itself produces toxis material or is it generated as a result of electricity production?
It's the building and disposing of solar panels that creates waste, not the actual power production. This truth usually holds true to most non coal/oil methods of generating electric. July 10, 2017, 05:22:21 PM
Yeah...
I doubt that the solar panel "toxic waste" is quite as toxic as the nuclear power plant "toxic waste".
Still, I do think that the dangers of nuclear power are overestimated and that it should play a bigger role in energy now.
I doubt that the solar panel "toxic waste" is quite as toxic as the nuclear power plant "toxic waste".
Still, I do think that the dangers of nuclear power are overestimated and that it should play a bigger role in energy now.
I couldn't understand the panel itself produces toxis material or is it generated as a result of electricity production?
July 02, 2017, 05:24:43 AM
Yeah...
I doubt that the solar panel "toxic waste" is quite as toxic as the nuclear power plant "toxic waste".
Still, I do think that the dangers of nuclear power are overestimated and that it should play a bigger role in energy now.
I doubt that the solar panel "toxic waste" is quite as toxic as the nuclear power plant "toxic waste".
Still, I do think that the dangers of nuclear power are overestimated and that it should play a bigger role in energy now.
July 01, 2017, 06:22:17 PM
I just hope they figure out commercial fusion soon.
July 01, 2017, 11:17:00 AM
Well, as somebody who's family is getting windmills, I can say firsthand that Solar/Wind power (in the state they are in now) are extremely overpriced and are in no way "clean," like everybody says.
Also, the article says that the devices last around 25 years, and a lot don't even make it to that (especially windmills). Not to mention those devices need constant maintenance and replacement parts. A lot of "small" windmill need repairs on a monthly basis, and while solar panels are less break proned they still wear out somewhat fast.
Also, the article says that the devices last around 25 years, and a lot don't even make it to that (especially windmills). Not to mention those devices need constant maintenance and replacement parts. A lot of "small" windmill need repairs on a monthly basis, and while solar panels are less break proned they still wear out somewhat fast.
July 01, 2017, 10:50:37 AM
Nuclear power more profitable than solar. If you do not neglect the security systems of significant harm to the environment nuclear energy will bring. Even if the dreamers will make solar panels the whole earth, they still will not develop the necessary people amount of energy.
You might be right, right now. But if people used solar entirely, electric power would be more profitable. After all, the sun and stars are electric... not nuclear... https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/.
July 01, 2017, 10:14:27 AM
Fuel nukliradalah all kinds of material that can be used to produce energy nuclear, so if we do the analogy to chemical fuel that is burned to produce energy.
Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App
Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App
July 01, 2017, 07:08:13 AM
Nuclear power more profitable than solar. If you do not neglect the security systems of significant harm to the environment nuclear energy will bring. Even if the dreamers will make solar panels the whole earth, they still will not develop the necessary people amount of energy.
July 01, 2017, 06:09:28 AM
The whole article is a subtle push by someone in the oil industry. Big Oil is seeing that it might be doomed. Even the ME oil sheiks and barons are diversifying out of oil. The article is simply trying to scare people away from something that is taking Big Oil down.
July 01, 2017, 04:44:40 AM
Probably because the incident of nuclear leakage is very high radiation becomes a scourge for some people but not elegant also if some people again use solar power with excess without reviewing the negative side
July 01, 2017, 04:30:32 AM
What that article was basically saying is that solar power is not healthy for the environment because of the fact that we don't take the disposal of the equipment used to make solar power as seriously as we take the disposal of nuclear energy equipment.
And that's not really saying much at all in regards to the energy itself.
And that's not really saying much at all in regards to the energy itself.
June 30, 2017, 09:22:54 PM
Solar Energy Produces 300 Times More Toxic Waste Than Does Nuclear Power
Read more and click the links at https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/06/29/solar-energy-produces-300-times-toxic-waste-nuclear-power/.
Quote from: https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/06/29/solar-energy-produces-300-times-toxic-waste-nuclear-power/
One of the major reasons why hundreds of billions of dollars are poured into solar energy is that people are looking for "emissions free", "clean" energy.
We've discussed the inherent problems with solar and wind energy already, but one alternative is usually overlooked: nuclear power.
Nuclear power is "green" from the environmentalist standpoint as it produces next to no emissions. It's also reliable and inexpensive.
Plus, the technology already is already commercially viable, and scalable. For example, 5% of the world runs on nuclear energy, and France ran on nuclear power for decades with no issues.
There was a time when nuclear energy looked like it would take the world by storm. And honestly, if the world spent even half of the money it spent on solar energy on nuclear power, we could've made the transition to an emissions-free world decades ago.
So why didn't the world just switch to nuclear when the whole green energy trend hit?
Two reasons: meltdowns and waste.
Debunking the "Problems" with Nuclear Power
First, nuclear meltdowns are sensationalized and very, very unlikely, but that didn't stop people from irrationally fearing nuclear meltdowns in their backyard—Chernobyl is a tough image to get out of your head.
And who can blame them? With the media's sensational coverage of incidents like Three Mile Island, or the Fukishima disaster, it's no wonder people were a little put off about nuclear power.
But that's not the only reason.
The second (and possibly more important) problem is nuclear waste. We can't dispose of it (or so they say). Environmentalists hate that we just toss it in old mines and forget about it.
This is a legitimate concern, but I hope the same crowd that rallies against nuclear in favor of solar power won't miss the irony of these recent findings about toxic waste.
A new report from Environmental Progress shows that solar panels produce an obscene amount of waste, especially relative to the amount of power they produce.
Here are some of the key findings:
1. Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
2. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the waste is stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
3. In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
We've discussed the inherent problems with solar and wind energy already, but one alternative is usually overlooked: nuclear power.
Nuclear power is "green" from the environmentalist standpoint as it produces next to no emissions. It's also reliable and inexpensive.
Plus, the technology already is already commercially viable, and scalable. For example, 5% of the world runs on nuclear energy, and France ran on nuclear power for decades with no issues.
There was a time when nuclear energy looked like it would take the world by storm. And honestly, if the world spent even half of the money it spent on solar energy on nuclear power, we could've made the transition to an emissions-free world decades ago.
So why didn't the world just switch to nuclear when the whole green energy trend hit?
Two reasons: meltdowns and waste.
Debunking the "Problems" with Nuclear Power
First, nuclear meltdowns are sensationalized and very, very unlikely, but that didn't stop people from irrationally fearing nuclear meltdowns in their backyard—Chernobyl is a tough image to get out of your head.
And who can blame them? With the media's sensational coverage of incidents like Three Mile Island, or the Fukishima disaster, it's no wonder people were a little put off about nuclear power.
But that's not the only reason.
The second (and possibly more important) problem is nuclear waste. We can't dispose of it (or so they say). Environmentalists hate that we just toss it in old mines and forget about it.
This is a legitimate concern, but I hope the same crowd that rallies against nuclear in favor of solar power won't miss the irony of these recent findings about toxic waste.
A new report from Environmental Progress shows that solar panels produce an obscene amount of waste, especially relative to the amount of power they produce.
Here are some of the key findings:
1. Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
2. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the waste is stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
3. In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
Read more and click the links at https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/06/29/solar-energy-produces-300-times-toxic-waste-nuclear-power/.
Jump to: