Antitoxic9087
and you don't seem to understand...
solar panels in a desert seems relative low impact infrastructure
honestly I think this discussion is probably a few decades ahead of our time, and were it not for op I would never raise it in this sub. there will probably come a time, however, when I consider supporting ai rights morally imperative. in any case I agree animal rights are more urgent and real atm.
I think we need to be cautious about this type of animal vs machine thinking, since ultimately all existences are "manufactured" in one way or another, and the main component (carbon or silicon) should not be a relevant criterion in morality. The ability to feel pain or form other forms of complex sentients, IMO, should.
on the flip side, under what criteria will further utilization of ai become exploitation to the machine and considered an issue in the vegan movement?
I looked into the gwp* thing and it is more appropriate for macroscopic / global analysis than for the carbon accounting of individuals. if one reduces 1 unit per year of emission of short live GHG now, can they claim the positive climate effects by comparing with the counterfactual baseline, where they continue to emit the GHG with the same rate forever? That is the equivalent of claiming an infinite amount of emission reduction.
in any case it is always possible to use a pulse response function to account for the gwp of any instantaneous emission increase/decrease, since gwp* is just the convolution of the pulse response over time.
just thinking: why stop at 2? I suppose a grid of heat towers with mirrors beneath would provide maximum utilization of the solar radiation
I have a LED lightbulb that starts to flicker. Is there anyway to fix it, or any parts of it that could be useful for other uses(i.e. diodes for use in electrical circuits)?
Correction: After checking the product serial number carefully it is a fluorescent lightbulb as many pointed out. Thanks for the correction and advice.
(PS I am renting a house now so the type of lightbulb is of my landlord's choice. Obviously were I to choose I would rather have a LED lightbulb)
Original comment paper: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization
I read the paper. Behind paywall unfortunately, but the Cleantechnica article quote the paper well enough.
TLDR:
- Material waste from solar very small compared with other activities.
- Most common PVs contain almost none harmful materials. Trace amounts of lead in crystalline silicon modules and the cadmium in CdTe modules are the only potential harm IEA found. But Pb is being phased out, and CdTe compound is quite stable in CdTe modules. Both cadmium and tellurium are recycled into new modules.
- Module lifetime and reusability is increasing.
Treating decommissioned PV modules as a commodity and opportunity for material recovery, and not as hazardous waste would be environmentally and economically beneficial.
Although renewable + bess still wins according to most recent studies on that matter, cost comparison between nuke and renewable / Bess is not that useful. Assumptions on the longevity of nuke reactors, for example, helps little if the fleet of reactors end up constantly break down and require repairment as in France and Belgium. So lcoe of nuke over long time span is highly uncertain and contingent; even in construction phase nuclear projects already entails higher risk in time and budget overrun than renewables. Plus the positive feedback loop of learning curve, evident in renewable and Bess, is not so visible for nuclear.
What is more useful for sake of current policy discussion is deployment rate and scalability, which renewable plus batteries clearly wins.