We can’t. Mostly because the Chinese industry is less regulated and can respond to booms in demand without investing in things like silicon tetrachloride recycling. This isn’t normally a problem because it’s profitable to reuse the silicon tetrachloride generated, but when you need to expand production to cover a gap in capacity the tens of millions of dollars of equipment needed adds time and cost to production expansion. You wouldn’t be able to get away with it in the U.S., but the Chinese companies can and do just dump it.
Of course, you’re not actually interested in that just trying to get in another dig at America. This seems to be a common theme with you. Perhaps an apology is needed.
On behalf of my country, I am sincerely sorry that you’re still butthurt that we own the moon. Unfortunately international law prohibits us relinquishing ownership, but you can always try for Mars. We promise to keep releasing ‘Fast and Furious’ movies to make up for it.
What facts do you want verified? There’s multiple reports from your beloved Bloomberg about the use of forced labor in Chinese solar panel manufacturing plants if you want to start there. There’s hundreds of reports of silicon tetrachloride poisoning in Chinese waterways, I don’t really believe that’s a legitimate request for information.
As long as PV manufacture/disposal produces no more pollution than hydrocarbon extraction/waste disposal, they are still less polluting than burning hydrocarbons. Where is the data showing otherwise (data, not stories)?
And by the way, include pumping toxic water into the American groundwater system in that calculation of pollution from hydrocarbons. It counts. One reason to frack is to avoid buying foreign oil, but we are filling American groundwater systems with toxins wilily-nilly, and pretending it won’t come back to bite us someday.
China pollutes. Old news. They use slave labor for making everything from T-shirts to Barbie dolls–but apparently it only counts with PV cells.
Stop pretending to care what happens in China. If their slave labor offends us, let’s make a total embargo on all Chinese imports. But be prepared when the farm states scream that China has stopped buying their products.
Where is the data on comparative non-HGH pollution between the two types of energy? Not stories, but comparative data.
No, energy storage constraints are the reason not to use solar technology. Somebody brought up lifecycle costs of solar and the response was to make them in America. That eliminates the argument that solar is now cheap enough to be a large part of our energy infrastructure. That claim was premature anyways, but if you eliminate the manufacturing processes that make it that cheap it’s even more so.
They’re talking about mass solar farms instead of nuclear.
PV panels on your house work great and I have them myself, as I’ve stated multiple times. I also have a Powerwall even though it doesn’t really pay, it’s a nice transition before the generator has to come on.
The mass solar farms that get government subsidies annoy me. Several years ago there was a study done in Florida about this issue. The end result was; had the government given the same tax write off to the home owners in Florida to install solar water heating [a no brainer in FL] as they did to Florida Power and Light to install their mass solar they could have paid for the cost of installed solar hot water heaters on every home in Florida and realized a greater reduction in KW demand. But, home owners have no lobbyists.
“Which explains why Florida Power and Light (FPL) is spending millions on Greta Thunberg look-a-like TV commercials touting their solar projects. FPL is the sole provider for more than half the state of Florida so it’s not like they have a need to market their product, the consumer has no choice where to buy electricity.”
And I might add, it’s why FPL figures it’s worth the lobbyist bills to prevent widespread installation of any technique or device not provided by, sold by, or under direct control of FPL.
It is not in any utility provider’s interest to reduce consumption or increase consumer efficiency no matter how much they tout their “green” programs. There is only one type of green those people recognize and it has a picture of a dead president on it.