Estevan considered for solar power

[oneoff]

Net capacity of Shand is 276 MW, fly ash control 99% and sulfer removed from exhaust gases; nitrogen polluting contaminants reduced by 50% though various cleaner burning techniques.

Not too many deliberate lies and misleading statements in post above????.

[oneoff]

HERE COMES THAT UNANSWERED KEY QUESTION AGAIN

What will net capacity be for the shiny new 10 Mw PV farm on a quarter section of land dedicated for it at Estevan Sask?

[burnt]

A seldom discussed fact in the PV solar scheme is the hazardous waste in the form of silica dust, highly toxic gases and extremely injurious greenhouse gases emitted during the production of solar panels.

It appears that the toxic residues and gases produced may be far worse than the emissions from coal plants, but the envirowhackos seem to conveniently leave those truths out of any discussion.

Not only that, but some of the noxious gases produced contribute 25,000 more to greenhouse gases than CO2, LOLLLZ! (from the IPCC)

[URL="http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cel l_Production_A_Primer.html"]http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cel l_Production_A_Primer.html[/URL]

It takes a special kind of hypocrite or ignoramus to try to promote PV electricity as being cleaner than the dirtiest coal-fired plant left in Canada. It's just that with PV solar, we don't see the junk it produces and since it's not in our back yard, why would we worry, right?

So, "green" energy isn't just as green as it is said to be.

Sickening, feeble-minded simpletons that foist this garbage on the rest of us. A classic case of the inmates running the asylum.

[chuckChuck]

"New production practices are on the c-Si manufacturing horizon, and new technologies are being developed to significantly reduce energy consumption. Efforts are being made to make thinner wafers - microcrystalline Si and nanocrystalline Si - that use less silicon, but these require manufacturing techniques from nanotechnology that may pose new kinds of occupational risks. "

Definitely lots of hazardous materials in Solar PV manufacture. How many other products do we consume in large quantities that have hazards as well? A lot! I am sure if we looked at any product including those used in agriculture we can find a list of hazards that may be of significant concern.

Should we more concerned about solar pv than say electronics in general? Who knows?

Is it a valid reason to stop manufacturing solar pv, LED TVs, pesticides, or using the oil sands because of hazards associated with their production?

[furrowtickler]

Again until this proven solar tech can be safely manufactured and costs are reduced significantly - a carbon tax should not be imposed. It will not do anything to change climate and is just a tax grab .
When all these green tech are proven and readily available at reasonable costs the turn down the dial on "fossil fuels". Until then don't kill the economy and those of us who actually produce tangible wealth and not wealth circulators.

[bucket]

DEF for diesel engines was promoted and approved by government only to find out its being mothballed within the next few years.....

[fjlip]

What is wrong with DEF? killing us too? Replace with what?

[oneoff]

Were we not told that one of the compelling reasons to do away with coal was the very high health risks and costs associated with asthma incidence in places like Estevan and coal mining hazards wherever it is worked with.

And I'm pretty sure chuck is now saying that risk of manufacturing solar materials is totally acceptable whilst I firmly believe it was one of the reasons to say any lump of coal mined was a health tragedy

There is a limit to tolerance at which one should be able to say ...enough is enough hypocrisy.

[oneoff]

Should we more concerned about solar pv than say electronics in general? Who knows?

Just be consistent and the answer will become clear to anyone.

[tweety]

They never said they are going to use the whole quarter, only part. a good chunk is for community energy projects as well.

I for one am glad they are doing this here in our province. Not a huge scale, 20 mw is tiny compared to a "normal" installation.

In 1954 a typical panel put out 20 watts, in 2012, 200 watts, in 2016, 265 watts. Notice the trend?

17 sq ft per panel and 265 watts and 20 MW is about 30 acres. Not exactly a quarter section.

Now relax you oil and coal barrens, and let a little sunshine into your lives.