I used to be really big on solar energy, putting panels on my house as well as a local school when I was on the school board. But that may all be for naught. There’s a new boogeyman in the world of global warming: Nitrogen Trifluoride
On Lubos Motls The Reference Frame he has as pointed out that a greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The concentration of NF3 in the atmosphere was artificially increased by a factor of 20 during the last two decades. The measurements of the concentration surpassed the previous estimates by a factor of five.
According to the Scripps Institute; ” the present 5,400 tons in the atmosphere…is on the rise at 11 percent per year” – that will stay there for 700+ years – creates the equivalent warming of all Finland’s CO2 emissions.
According to Lubos, given the fact that the solar panels produce about the same percentage of the global energy as Finland, it is reasonable to guess that the state-of-the-art solar panels that would replace fossil fuels would cause a comparable amount of warming per Joule as fossil fuels.
So let’s just say – everything causes global warming, and leave it at that.
For reference, I’ve listed some other common industrial gases below:
Global Warming Potentials Of Gases
(100 Year Time Horizon)
GAS GWP
========================
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 23
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296
Hydrofluorocarbons
HFC-23 12,000
HFC-125 3,400
HFC-134a 1,300
HFC-143a 4,300
HFC-152a 120
HFC-227ea 3,500
HFC-43-10mee 1,500
Fully Fluorinated Gases
SF6 22,200
CF4 5,700
C2F6 11,900
C4F10 8,600
C6F14 9,000
The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a question, that I have yet to find an answer for. What is the GWP for water vapor? Every time I see a list, it is omitted. I should be on this list I think.
Thanks.
Sorry, it should say “It should be on this list I think”.
D’oh.
The power utilities are trying to keep a low profile on SF6. This wondrous gas is a fantastic dielectric insulating material, as well as an excellent arc quencher in high voltage circuit breakers. It is found in tens of thousands of HV circuit breakers all over the world, as well as HV potential transformers and gas-insulated buswork. Some of the smallest HV substations in the world are completely insulated with SF6. When people started to realize SF6 was a greenhouse gas extraordinaire around 1995, some producers backed out of the business of selling SF6, resulting in a run-up in price by a factor of ten in a few years.
RE : Shocker: Solar panel manufacturing creates potent GHG’s
Ummm … isn’t that OK since they are offset by being in the green business? Ya know, like Al with his house and his jet and his Carbon Credit business?
The processes that use these chemicals produce more than just solar cells. I would guess that LCD displays and HDTVs far exceeds the production of solar cells.
Assuming we can double the solar cell capacity in less than 7 years (which would see a doubling of the gases at 11% growth), there will be a net savings in the warming potential. Assuming that solar cells account for no more than half of the total emissions, this could be a significant savings.
Solar cells offer the potential of reduced greenhouse emissions, but the issue of storing the energy produced for use when the sun is not out and the pollution involved in manufacturing that storage capacity is really the bigger issue.
Can anyone explain to me how NF3 can be 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2? Oh yah, now I get it. Since the effect of CO2 is so infinitesimally small, 17,000 X nothing is still nothing.
I still have the same T.V. I bought 20 year ago, does that make me NF3 neutral?
I guess we are going to have to set-up an NF3 offset trading scheme.
So we will “feel better”
TANSTAAFL
Everything we do involves risk/gain. In our modern society, this is often viewed as cost/benefit.
This post is an example of how we trade one by-product (CO2) for another (NF3). In this case, I imagine that this is a poor trade-off in that NF3 resides in the atmosphere far longer than CO2. In my case, I’ve made a trade-off in replacing high usage incandescent light bulbs with CFLs, knowing as I do that they contain trace mercury.
In any case, the problem I have with so called alternative energy is that the cost is understated due to government (taxpayer) subsidies. Would anyone willingly adopt windmills or solar panels if they had to pay the entire costs themselves? I have my doubts. Only until alternative energy can beat other energy sources on a real cost/benefit basis will they become viable.
Yeah, and if this stuff keeps growing at the Present Rate it’ll be up to One Part per TRILLION in 50 Years.
Wow ,i didn’t know that they emit that much CO2.Something should be done.
OK… That does it then, we must return to the stone age. Except no fires.
I wonder why solar cells were left unmentioned in this news article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081023/sc_afp/usenvironmentclimate;_ylt=Auk3YObq53E2flIQ41HFDJ5pl88F
Looks like if we get rid of Finland we can keep using this stuff.
I was worried until I saw “… creates the equivalent warming of all Finland’s CO2 emissions.” To me it just sounds like “… an area the size of Rhode Island.” I guess this is why the big push for thin-films like CdTe, oh wait, cadmium. I just read a story about revisiting nuclear powered aircraft. I think I’ll stick to good ol’ natural oil – straight from the ground as nature intended.
Solar cells are also left off of this July 2008 article from the Guardian. Oh, answered my own question there didn’t I.
[…] Courtesy of Anthony Watts, we read that solar panel manufacturing could create a far greater danger of increased greenhouse gases than anything anyone had imagined so far. Because of a greenhouse gas emitted in the cleaning of electronics that is a part of manufacturing solar panels: On Lubos Motls The Reference Frame he has as pointed out that a greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. […]
The green movement desire us all to sit around candles, but candles are composed of either palm oil, paraffin, or petroleum wax. Can one not see some objections by the greens to using these materials? So when we return to the natural state, what can we use for light and heat that does not use these products. It is no use gathering up brushwood , or cutting peat for a fire, as Nature has a use for this that does not include warming us!
D. Quist (19:10:40) :
IIRC…
Dihydrogen Oxide (H2O) is a 4.
Why the GWP is so high:
Neither water molecules nor CO2 absorb near the maximum of the infrared radiation emitted from ground or from water at ambient temperatures. They leave open the so-called atmospheric window. Methane and other molecules absorb in the ‘atmospheric window’ thus reducing strongly the radiative heat transport into space, at clear skies. (Water droplets do absorb strongly at all relevant infrared wavelengths).
If such molecules have a long life in the atmosphere, they accumulate very much. CO2 has a lifespan of 50 years, methane of 10 years, N2O probably much shorter, some weeks, I guess, but all fluorines are very stable molecules and stay in the atmosphere for a very long time.
William
Rhode Island area 4,002 km2
Finland area 338,144 km2
around 85 Rhode islands would fit into Finland (if you had that many of them that is)
This is great news! CO2 is off the hook then. All it needs now is for some “scientists” to find that windpower develops some other kind of CHG that’s x 100 more powerful than CO2 & the circle is complete.
Twice a very small number is a very small number! Perhaps the penny is dropping, everything pollutes, whatever we do, so let’s chose & use the lesser of evils & use fossil fuels while they are still here instead of pursuing silly political ideals that seem to ignore the poor & starving, for some peculiar reason!
I’ll be looking for the share price to plummet on photovoltaic cell manufacture.
*laughing* I like it, I do! the manufacturing of ‘green’ electricity generation products causes the emission of, to date, the most powerful greenhouse gas that I have ever heard of.
If that’s not poetic justice, I can’t say what is.
Anthony,
I think, the NF3 emissions are much worse.
As NF3 remains in the atmosphere for approx. 700 years, while a solar cell produces electricity for only approx. 30 years, the net greenhouse emission of solar cells in the long run should be approx. 20 times higher than those of replaced fossil fuel.
Add this to the fact that ethanol creates more CO2 than burning just plain gasoline, and we have solutions at hand … Don’t we? Well, maybe not, do we know how much CO2 it takes to make those giant windmills?