Solar Panels cause global warming!

ainwood

Consultant.
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 5, 2001
Messages
30,085
Well, the manufacture of them might cause global warming - a chemical used in the manufacturing process called nitrogen trifluoride gets released into the atmosphere, and it has a GWP of 17,000 (cf CO2 = 1. Ie. it is 17,000 times more potent than CO2 at absorbing IR).

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/10-08GreenhouseGas.asp
Potent Greenhouse Gas More Prevalent
in Atmosphere than Previously Assumed
Compound used in manufacture of flat panel
televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels
is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide

October 23, 2008

By Robert Monroe

Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego



A powerful greenhouse gas is at least four times more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated, according to a team of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

Using new analytical techniques, a team led by Scripps geochemistry professor Ray Weiss made the first atmospheric measurements of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which is thousands of times more effective at warming the atmosphere than an equal mass of carbon dioxide.

The amount of the gas in the atmosphere, which could not be detected using previous techniques, had been estimated at less than 1,200 metric tons in 2006. The new research shows the actual amount was 4,200 metric tons. In 2008, about 5,400 metric tons of the gas was in the atmosphere, a quantity that is increasing at about 11 percent per year.


Different generations of collection cylinders used to collect air samples from locations around the world over the past 30 years. Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego geochemistry researchers Ray Weiss and Jens Muehle led a study that found that the greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, used in the manufacture of flat-panel monitors, escapes to the atmosphere at levels much higher than previously assumed.
"Accurately measuring small amounts of NF3 in air has proven to be a very difficult experimental problem, and we are very pleased to have succeeded in this effort," Weiss said. The research will be published Oct. 31 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

Emissions of NF3 were thought to be so low that the gas was not considered to be a significant potential contributor to global warming. It was not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions signed by 182 countries. The gas is 17,000 times more potent as a global warming agent than a similar mass of carbon dioxide. It survives in the atmosphere about five times longer than carbon dioxide. Current NF3 emissions, however, contribute only about 0.04 percent of the total global warming effect contributed by current human-produced carbon dioxide emissions.

Nitrogen trifluoride is one of several gases used during the manufacture of liquid crystal flat-panel displays, thin-film photovoltaic cells and microcircuits. Many industries have used the gas in recent years as an alternative to perfluorocarbons, which are also potent greenhouse gases, because it was believed that no more than 2 percent of the NF3 used in these processes escaped into the atmosphere.

The Scripps team analyzed air samples gathered over the past 30 years, working under the auspices of the NASA-funded Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) network of ground-based stations. The network was created in the 1970s in response to international concerns about chemicals depleting the ozone layer. It is supported by NASA as part of its congressional mandate to monitor ozone-depleting trace gases, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Air samples are collected at several stations around the world. The Scripps team analyzed samples from coastal clean-air stations in California and Tasmania for this research.

The researchers found concentrations of the gas rose from about 0.02 parts per trillion in 1978 to 0.454 parts per trillion in 2008. The samples also showed significantly higher concentrations of NF3 in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, which the researchers said is consistent with its use predominantly in Northern Hemisphere countries. The current observed rate of increase of NF3 in the atmosphere corresponds to emissions of about 16 percent of the amount of the gas produced globally.


Scripps geoscientists Ray Weiss (green shirt) and Jens Muehle amid collection cylinders used to collect air samples from a variety of locations around the world. Weiss and Muehle led a study that found that the greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, used in the manufacture of flat-panel monitors, escapes to the atmosphere at levels much higher than previously assumed.
In response to the growing use of the gas and concerns that its emissions are not well known, scientists have recently recommended adding it to the list of greenhouse gases regulated by Kyoto.

"As is often the case in studying atmospheric emissions, this study shows a significant disagreement between 'bottom-up' emissions estimates and the actual emissions as determined by measuring their accumulation in the atmosphere," Weiss said. “From a climate perspective, there is a need to add NF3 to the suite of greenhouse gases whose production is inventoried and whose emissions are regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, thus providing meaningful incentives for its wise use.”

“This result reinforces the critical importance of basic research in determining the overall impact of the information technology industry on global climate change, which has already been estimated to be equal to that of the aviation industry,” added Larry Smarr, director of the California Institute for Telecommunications at UCSD, who was not involved in the Scripps study.

Michael Prather is a UC Irvine atmospheric chemist who predicted earlier this year that based on the rapidly increasing use of NF3, larger amounts of the gas would be found in the atmosphere. Prather said the new Scripps study provides the confirmation needed to establish reporting requirements for production and use of the gas.

“I’d say case closed. It is now shown to be an important greenhouse gas,” said Prather, who was not involved with the Scripps study. “Now we need to get hard numbers on how much is flowing through the system, from production to disposal.”
 
Well, the manufacture of them might cause global warming

The "might" is superfluous in that sentence. For solar panels you need silicon. And pretty much the only way to extract silicon from quartz is reducing it with carbon -> carbon oxide.

The NF3 might only make the problem worse.
 
NF3 production isn't what's causing global warming though. It's contributing to greenhouse gases, for sure, but excessive CO2 is what's causing global warming.

"If not for" is a useful way of determining causation, in many cases.
 
which is why several big firms are looking at using vacuum deposition of the film without the gas.
 
The "might" is superfluous in that sentence. For solar panels you need silicon. And pretty much the only way to extract silicon from quartz is reducing it with carbon -> carbon oxide.

The NF3 might only make the problem worse.

actually, there is a very good reason to get away from silicon: it is expensive! The Stuttgart university research group has FOR YEARS now used glass, normal window glass, and vacuum deposition, to create cheaper, longer-lasting and as-effective-as-the-old-ones solar panels. I *think* the new Würth factory is making use of that technology.
 
How is NF3 needed for the production of solar panels? Is not possible to pass to another chemical?
 
For every techo-fix "solution" there is a cost.

Anyway, I thought you didn't believe in global warming.
 
Yea, either way plant more trees.

NF3 production isn't what's causing global warming though. It's contributing to greenhouse gases, for sure, but excessive CO2 is what's causing global warming.

"If not for" is a useful way of determining causation, in many cases.
 
What's the half-life of this GHG? How much of this GHG is produced in order to 'prevent' X CO2 via solar power? Can the scrubbing of this GHG be increased? Would this GHG have been discovered without gov't grants for research?

Oh, and colour me sad at the unintended consequences. I guess the best you can do is to try your best, and to be alert to the downstream consequences of your actions.
At least we've finally found a man-made GHG which actually has less net contribution than volcano CO2 (without factoring in half-life)
 
Top Bottom