Environmental impact of renewable energy

[bcking 3,157]

Perhaps a slight change of pace for the forums here.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39347620

 

Interesting article, and interesting topic. Everything has impact, and a lot of people want to push "renewable energy" very strongly, but unfortunately things like solar panels require material that we need to mine for. They have discovered a huge deposit on the sea floor, but mining it could destroy the marine environment. Mining on land has a similar impact. There is no "perfect answer".

 

Thoughts?

[TBoneTX 43,250]

Too often, environmentalists seem to favor "intentions" without an eye toward consequences.

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Too often, environmentalists seem to favor "intentions" without an eye toward consequences.

Left are all about imagination and not practicality. It's science! 

[Dashinka 23,306]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Perhaps a slight change of pace for the forums here.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39347620

 

Interesting article, and interesting topic. Everything has impact, and a lot of people want to push "renewable energy" very strongly, but unfortunately things like solar panels require material that we need to mine for. They have discovered a huge deposit on the sea floor, but mining it could destroy the marine environment. Mining on land has a similar impact. There is no "perfect answer".

 

Thoughts?

This is interesting, but the source of the rare earths aren't usually the issue, but rather the processing needed to separate and concentrate them for something useful.  I think there are a couple of really nasty areas in China, Russia and the 'stans' of Central Asia that are the results of rare earth processing.

 

But this article does at least bring up the fact that even so called "green" energy solutions have a dirty side to them which makes sense as everything we have to fabricate is 'dirty' to some extent.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

This is interesting, but the source of the rare earths aren't usually the issue, but rather the processing needed to separate and concentrate them for something useful.  I think there are a couple of really nasty areas in China, Russia and the 'stans' of Central Asia that are the results of rare earth processing.

 

But this article does at least bring up the fact that even so called "green" energy solutions have a dirty side to them which makes sense as everything we have to fabricate is 'dirty' to some extent.

 

 

Well I would say this article suggests that even just sourcing the rare earths may present an issue.

 

We either source them on land or we source them under the sea. It seems like the quantities are much larger underwater, but the impact may be greater. It isn't like drilling a well underwater. Yes there is a risk of leakage/breaks in the well but the actual well itself has a relatively small impact. Here they intend to essentially break up the rock underwater, which would disseminate billions of microscopic rare earth particles throughout the ocean floor. All in the pursuit of "environmentally friendly energy".

 

I honestly can't say which is better, but it is a much more complicated discussion than the full blown "environmentalists" seem to think it is.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

Perhaps a slight change of pace for the forums here.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39347620

 

Interesting article, and interesting topic. Everything has impact, and a lot of people want to push "renewable energy" very strongly, but unfortunately things like solar panels require material that we need to mine for. They have discovered a huge deposit on the sea floor, but mining it could destroy the marine environment. Mining on land has a similar impact. There is no "perfect answer".

 

Thoughts?

1. There are no current underwater mining operations licensed..this appears to be a discussion about "should we research the viability of mining underwater?" along with ( I assume) this professors request for more research funding.

2. There are many industries that use or depend upon tellurium (including stainless steel, most electronics and tires) and so the demands cannot be pinned to just solar.

3. Newer solar technologies are not dependent upon toxic cadmium and tellurium and in fact are generating greater efficiency over the legacy technologies. The most common solar panels are Crystalline Silicon made of the most abundant element on earth next to oxygen.

 

So the articles is much ado about nothing solar...but interesting.

 

[Dashinka 23,306]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

1. There are no current underwater mining operations licensed..this appears to be a discussion about "should we research the viability of mining underwater?" along with ( I assume) this professors request for more research funding.

2. There are many industries that use or depend upon tellurium (including stainless steel, most electronics and tires) and so the demands cannot be pinned to just solar.

3. Newer solar technologies are not dependent upon toxic cadmium and tellurium and in fact are generating greater efficiency over the legacy technologies. The most common solar panels are Crystalline Silicon made of the most abundant element on earth next to oxygen.

 

So the articles is much ado about nothing solar...but interesting.

 

Does the technology exist to do rock mining a kilometer underwater?  I am no expert, but I don't think it would be the same as drilling for oil.  

 

I do agree that rare earths are not just used for solar panels, but there are a lot of green technologies as well as not so green technologies that do use them for various components.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Does the technology exist to do rock mining a kilometer underwater?  I am no expert, but I don't think it would be the same as drilling for oil.  

 

I do agree that rare earths are not just used for solar panels, but there are a lot of green technologies as well as not so green technologies that do use them for various components.

I'll ask my wife if she knows specifically. From the wording in the article it seems like the technology is possible, just hasn't been done yet.

 

The way she described it this morning sounded very crude. Basically a large underwater machine breaking apart the rock and then collecting what it can. So it would lose a lot to the ocean environment in the form of particulates. It would be as controlled as drilling a well.

 

Not sure if she knows more since she since technically doesn't work in mining. But she at least knows more than me.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

5 hours ago, IAMX said:

Left are all about imagination and not practicality. It's science! 

There aren't any Republican environmentalists? No Republicans in the EPA? Wow. The right is all about hallucinations.