[cyphar]

Sorry, you're quite right that they don't use rare earth metals -- I was thinking of the Cadmium telluride and CIGS combinations used in some thin-film solar panels (which aren't rare earth metals -- it's been a while since I've done chemistry), but looking at it some more it seems like they aren't toxic (even though the constituent elements are). My bad (though I don't know who Shellenberger is.)

However, since the currently proposed solution for renewables is to pair them with large battery banks to solve the reliability issue, the greenness issues with batteries still stand.

[kristopolous]

> However, since the currently proposed solution for renewables is to pair them with large battery banks to solve the reliability issue, the greenness issues with batteries still stand.

Incorrect. First of all, utility scale power storage can be done many ways, such as pumping water up a hill in the daytime and then letting it flow back down the hill at night.

These are called "kinetic battery towers" or more generically "gravity batteries" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery

As far as classical batteries go there's many chemistries coming online soon that are far less hazardous such as sodium ion batteries

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery

There's also saltwater chemistries, sugar based, paper nanotube, it's a long list.

When considering nuclear we're always told to look at the currently nonexistent small scale next gen advanced nuclear of the future. Then it gets compared to renewable energy technology from 15 years ago.

It's either intellectually sloppy or dishonest. Either way it's bad engineering. We can do better than nuclear - cheaper, safer, quicker to build, less management required, more scalable, etc. We don't have to worry about secret weapons programs or have international treaties to build them, no tsunami or earthquake risks, and best of all, the alternatives actually exists today

[cyphar]

> Incorrect. First of all, utility scale power storage can be done many ways, such as pumping water up a hill in the daytime and then letting it flow back down the hill at night.

This requires specific geography (natural elevation and water reservoirs that can be used for this purpose without affecting the local environment and without creating a flood risk for local residents) which is not available everywhere in the world where we would need to generate power (and if we're playing the game where every negative externality is an issue with the technology, there's also the general environmental concerns with dams). I think it's disingenuous to argue that the primary plan at the moment is not batteries -- that is where an enormous amount of time and resources are being invested, and the entire conversation about the reliability issue with renewables is usually hand-waved away with "batteries".

> These are called "kinetic battery towers" or more generically "gravity batteries" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery

These sound reasonable when you first hear the idea, but they're unworkable for a few reasons (wind, you don't get that much storage from each block, and if the blocks are concrete you're probably going to be net-negative when it comes to CO2 for a long time). Pumped-storage hydro is a far better solution where you can use it (with the caveats above).

> When considering nuclear we're always told to look at the currently nonexistent small scale next gen advanced nuclear of the future. Then it gets compared to renewable energy technology from 15 years ago.

Maybe that is what other people argue, I am not arguing that. But I do find it funny you go out of your way to talk about a technology (sodium-ion batteries) which the Wikipedia article you linked explicitly says has basically no market share and has very significant drawbacks (limited energy density and very limited recharge cycles) -- if we can't talk about non-existing nuclear technology then we also shouldn't talk about currently-non-viable battery technology.

> It's either intellectually sloppy or dishonest. Either way it's bad engineering.

I don't understand why you're arguing against things I am not saying. The original criticism I was responding to argued that nuclear power has many negative externalities that nobody talks about (the list even included the usage of concrete) -- my point was simply that if that is the metric you wish to use, then no form of renewable energy can be considered green (any power station immediately becomes non-green purely because it uses concrete!). My point was simply that's a ludicrous metric to use.

[pfdietz]

CIGS has close to zero market share. CdTe is around 5%, last I checked.

The vast majority of PV sold is crystalline silicon. The only toxic element used there is lead in backing sheets, but even that is being phased out (in part for environmental reasons, and in part because higher efficiency versions of Si cells can't tolerate the heating needed to bond to the lead; in any case there is nothing essential about the lead.) The only rare element used is silver for front contacts, but that could be replaced by copper with the use of a very thin layer of nickel or molybdenum to prevent reaction of the copper with the silicon.

The environmental impact from PV is largely from the mundane components, like steel, aluminum, and glass. PV to power the world would use these materials in small quantities compared to that used for global industrial society as a whole (global annual production of steel is 2 billion tonnes, for example). If that society deals with the impact of its overall non-energy activities, it could deal with the impact of building and maintaining a PV energy source to power it.