I think the Reuters article is a little off. The term "clean energy" is insulting to oil and gas, as if they were "unclean". Ironically, wind and solar are far from their own definition of "clean", as anyone familiar with the mining for lithium and rare earth metals knows. Words have connotations. Anyway, I think Trump will be much more successful at stopping the subsidies than the Reuters article suggests.
I agree - they are not eviornmentally good, and infact the solar panels are more toxic than the US nuclear waste. - They are not fiscally nor enviornmenalty good. Great point!
There is some confusion about the toxicity of solar panels. One source I read said there are 2 different manufacturing processes. 5% of total (last figure I’ve seen) are toxic. The other 95%, with the Photovoltaic cells made from silicon (as I remember) are not toxic. However, the real problem is they aren’t worth recycling and our landfills are going to be overflowing - ugh.
I think the Reuters article is a little off. The term "clean energy" is insulting to oil and gas, as if they were "unclean". Ironically, wind and solar are far from their own definition of "clean", as anyone familiar with the mining for lithium and rare earth metals knows. Words have connotations. Anyway, I think Trump will be much more successful at stopping the subsidies than the Reuters article suggests.
I agree - they are not eviornmentally good, and infact the solar panels are more toxic than the US nuclear waste. - They are not fiscally nor enviornmenalty good. Great point!
Thanks for the comment, Stu.
There is some confusion about the toxicity of solar panels. One source I read said there are 2 different manufacturing processes. 5% of total (last figure I’ve seen) are toxic. The other 95%, with the Photovoltaic cells made from silicon (as I remember) are not toxic. However, the real problem is they aren’t worth recycling and our landfills are going to be overflowing - ugh.