The Solar Industry's New Dirty Secret
[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]
"It's no secret that manufacturing solar panels often requires toxic heavy metals, explosive gases, and rare-earth elements that come from shoddy mines in war-torn republics. But here's a surprise: The solar industry is actually getting dirtier in some respects. The latest Solar Scorecard from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), released last week, reports that the industry has slipped on several key environmental metrics, with many solar-panel manufacturers now refusing to provide any information about their manufacturing practices at all.
In terms of market share, only 35 percent of the solar-panel industry responded to this year's SVTC survey, compared to 51 percent last year. According to SVTC, several major solar companies have provided almost no meaningful information about their environmental performance—stats such as the toxicity of their panels, the use of conflict minerals, or the sustainability of their supply chains—through reports to the group or on their websites.
"If they are not providing the information, we have to assume the worst," says SVTC executive director Sheila Davis."
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/08/solar-industrys-new-dirty-secret
= new reply since forum marked as read
I doubt we'll ever have 100% saturation on solar, but it's not far off the daily electric peak.
Schools, stores, and businesses should all have solar. There's usually a big area available for installation, and their peak use is during the day when solar is kicking out energy.
We had peaker plants before solar, and we're going to have them after solar too. 
nuclear energy is the "best candidate".
Awards:
1977 Goddard Special Achievement Award (Pioneer Venus)
1978 NASA Group Achievement Award (Voyager, Photopolarimeter)
1984 NASA Exceptional Service Medal (Radiative Transfer)
1989 National Wildlife Federation Conservation Achievement Award
1990 NASA Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive
1991 University of Iowa Alumni Achievement Award
1992 American Geophysical Union Fellow
1993 NASA Group Achievement Award (Galileo, Polarimeter/Radiometer)
1996 Elected to National Academy of Sciences 1996 GSFC William Nordberg Achievement Medal
1996 Editor’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing for Geophysical Research Letters
1997 NASA Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive
2000 University of Iowa Alumni Fellow
2000 GISS Best Scientific Publication (peer vote): ‘Global warming - alternative scenario’
2001 John Heinz Environment Award
2001 Roger Revelle Medal, American Geophysical Union
2004 GISS Best Scientific Publication (peer vote): ‘Soot Climate Forcing’
2005 GISS Best Scientific Publication (peer vote): ‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance’
2006 Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
2006 GISS Best Scientific Publication (peer vote): ‘Global Temperature Change’
2007 Laureate, Dan David Prize for Outstanding Achievements & Impacts in Quest for Energy
2007 Leo Szilard Award, American Physical Society for Outstanding Promotion & Use of Physics for the Benefit of Society
2007 Haagen-Smit Clean Air Award
2008 American Association for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
2008 Nevada Medal, Desert Research Institute
2008 Common Wealth Award for Distinguished Service in Science 2008 Bownocker Medal, Ohio State University
2008 Rachel Carson Award for Integrity in Science, Center for Science in the Public Interest
2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, American Meteorological Society
2009 Peter Berle Environmental Integrity Award
2010 Sophie Prize for Environmental and Sustainable Development
2010 Blue Planet Prize, Asahi Glass Foundation
Nuclear energy is the safest form of dispatchable energy except for hydro.
The waste produced by an average coal plant is 400,000 tons/year of carcinogenic fly ash. The waste from a comparable nuclear plant is 27 tons/year.
Renewables shut down fossil and nuclear. There is proof.
German power company RWE is shutting six domestic plants and rival E.ON is threatening to relocate to Turkey as the sector tots up the cost of the government's energy policy turnaround.
...But the turnaround is depriving utilities, including market leaders RWE and E.ON, of massive profits from their atomic plants and turning their gas and coal-fired stations into loss-makers as they are sidelined by rival renewable sources of energy.
...Following the boom of solar power in recent years, nourished by generous subsidies, the capacity of renewable sources of energy is such that, if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, Germany can actually do without its conventional power plants.
In the period from April to June, a number of RWE's plants were operating at less than 10 percent of capacity, said finance chief Guenther.
And with wholesale electricity prices at the current lows in Europe, that means substantial losses. That was the case with gas-fired plants until recently, but coal-fired generators are now barely profitable as well, he said....
http://www.afp.com/en/node/1039622
It is in the process of happening here also and it is why the nuclear/coal utilities are so damned petrified of people putting a few solar panels on their roofs. In spite of the lies it is only going to get worse for them (you).
by Stuart Burns on AUGUST 20, 2013
Not one to shy away from overstatement, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a writer we would normally quote extensively; well-renowned as the Telegraph newspaper is, for which he frequently writes in the Business section, but his article last week on solar power trumping shale gas even had us sitting up and taking notice.
True, many of the figures quoted in his article come from firms involved in the solar industry and as such we can expect them to put a positive gloss on the numbers, but we wouldn’t count the US Energy Department to be biased and they are quoted as saying they expect the cost of solar power to fall by 75% between 2010 and 2020.
By then, average costs will have dropped to $1 per watt for big solar farms, $1.25 for offices and $1.50 for homes, achieving what the Telegraph terms the Holy Grail of grid parity with new coal and gas plants without further need for subsidies. That’s the crunch, isn’t it – the subsidies. But if we think subsidies in the US or UK have been high, consider Germany, early starter in the solar power race.
Households have been bled dry to subsidize solar power – around €100 billion or more has been frittered away on costly feed-in tariffs. In addition, German investors have lost their shirts on a string of solar ventures that have gone bankrupt, only to see the gains leaked out to copycat companies in China which are able to undercut German rivals in their own market with cheap labor and giveaway credit.
Still, that artificially created market has spurred investment around the world; even the US defense establishment is heavily involved, with Evans-Pritchard quoting a string of projects, each of which will help bring down costs and improve efficiencies....
Read More at http://agmetalminer.com/2013/08/20/cost-of-solar-power-to-drop-75-by-2020-us-military-embraces-it/
Copyright © 2013 MetalMiner
