Making the Green Economy Dirty

by a siegel
Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 12:08:50 AM EST

One of the challenges in pursuing a greener economy ever quicker is the risk, the quite real and serious risk, that quicker could mean dirtier.  The Washington Post carried an expose of one of those risks on its front page this Sunday:  Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.    WashPost calls out Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co, a producer of "polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world," for dumping a "bubbling white liquid" (silicon tetrachloride) in the middle of a village.
"The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.


Chinese companies are rushing to produce polysilicon at an ever faster rate, with plants being constructed that will triple the world's capacity.  But this means a lot of waste ....
For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste.

And, unless handled carefully, this waste is quite dangerous.
When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chests contract.

Elsewhere in the world, the silicon tetrachloride is recycled rather than dumped.  Chinese firms are, however, pursuing a far less clean path toward profiting from the booming Green economy.
But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like Luoyang Zhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not brought those systems fully online, industry sources say.

The PRC government seems ready to overlook the pollution, 'for now', seeking to capture the boom and entertaining a fantasy, one would think, that they can relaim the damage later at a lower cost.

Just as with Christmas toys, PRC firms are moving into the 'green economy', starting to capture ever greater market share and helping to lower the costs for renewable energy technologies.

Chinese companies are saving millions of dollars by not installing pollution recovery.

... if environmental protection technology is used, the cost to produce one ton is approximately $84,500. But Chinese companies are making it at $21,000 to $56,000a ton.


Yes, PRC firms are helping make solar panels cheaper by the dozens.

One of the key elements in pursuing a Green economy is accounting for total costs, to account for the "external" costs within the understanding of a system's cost. Would any "environmentalist" buying solar panels to reduce their environmental impact being warmed to hear of poisoning Chinese children to get the panels on their roof?

Each night, villagers said, the factory's chimneys released a loud whoosh of acrid air that stung their eyes and made it hard to breath. "It's poison air. Sometimes it gets so bad you can't sit outside. You have to close all the doors and windows," said Qiao Shi Peng, 28, a truck driver who said he worries about his 1-year-old son's health.

Note:  Cross-posted from Energy Smart.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Adam, I'm surprised you are surprised.

There is no such thing as "green technology". It's just a PR attribute.

Just to pick on a few "green" examples:

  • Improperly managed composting can recycle not just organic matter but also pathogens like vibrio cholerae or tapeworms.
  • CFLs are the first new product in a long time to reintroduce mercury in small discrete packages in the consumer space while conventional fluorescent tubes were somewhat limited to industrial/commercial usage (by virtue of being so crappy) and somewhat less of a problem for disposal control.
  • Use of unprocessed (hence supposedly organic) raw phosphate rock in organic farming can end up dosing you with lead, cadmium and arsenic.
  • High performance thin film solar panels use cadmium telluride and if they land in a landfill as they are likely to do in an uncontrolled, diffuse context like residential PV, it becomes a severe issue.

In all cases, those are manageable issues but it shows that there are no intrinsically "green" or "benign" technologies.

There are only technologies that account for their externalities and those who don't.

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 01:24:07 AM EST
Surprised?  No.  Saddened? Yes.

As you point out, there are ways to manage/control the risks.  One of them, as with other elements, seems to be figuring out paths for controlling/monitoring throughout the supply chain.

Now, much of this is "internal" as the majority of PRC silicon production has been for internal use, within the PRC.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just picked that new one at TOD

This time, run-offs from biodiesel plants: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/11/america/11biofuel.php

Leanne Tippett Mosby, a deputy division director of environmental quality for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, said she was warned a year ago by colleagues in other states that biodiesel producers were dumping glycerin, the main byproduct of biodiesel production, contaminated with methanol, another waste product that is classified as hazardous.

Glycerin, an alcohol that is normally nontoxic, can be sold for secondary uses, but it must be cleaned first, a process that is expensive and complicated. Expanded production of biodiesel has flooded the market with excess glycerin, making it less cost-effective to clean and sell.

Can they at least burn it in an oxygen-blown high temperature furnace?

I hate amateurs. And there a lot of them in the green space.


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no way that SiCL4 should be just dumped around, or any reason that it can't be purified by distillation, or converted back to either SiO2 and HCl or else fried and converted back to elemental crude Silicon and chlorine gas, which is then capable of being used to make more SiCl4. The reboiler residue would be mostly FeCL3, a fertilizer or water treatment chemical, and maybe some AlCl3, a water treatment chemical.

Why the hell are we importing anything from these cheapskates and planet rapers? Oh, I forget, cheapness rules, and all must be sacrificed to the God of Cheapness, pollution control being entirely a voluntary thing. Perhaps when the factory owners gets a decent whiff of HCl or SiCl4 and dies an ugly death by pulmonary edema (drowning in his own lung fluids due to chemical lung burns...maybe there might be a change of attitude. Geez, they won't even throw some limestone on it....Until then, I say triple up on those tariffs on the goodies made by these Made in China racketeers.

Nb41

by nb41 on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 02:35:05 AM EST
There is no way that SiCL4 should be just dumped around, or any reason that it can't be purified by distillation, or converted back to either SiO2 and HCl or else fried and converted back to elemental crude Silicon and chlorine gas, which is then capable of being used to make more SiCl4. The reboiler residue would be mostly FeCl3, a fertilizer or water treatment chemical, and maybe some AlCl3, a water treatment chemical.

Why the hell are we importing anything from these cheapskates and planet rapers? Oh, I forget, cheapness rules, and all must be sacrificed to the God of Cheapness, pollution control being entirely a voluntary thing. Perhaps when the factory owners gets a decent whiff of HCl or SiCl4 and dies an ugly death by pulmonary edema (drowning in his own lung fluids due to chemical lung burns)...maybe there might be a change of attitude. Geez, they won't even throw some limestone on it....Until then, I say triple up on those tariffs on the goodies made by these Made in China racketeers.

Nb41

by nb41 on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 02:36:35 AM EST

  What we do is frightful but this isn't the worst of it. Sure, there is a miserable cost for pouring reactive crap into the environment, but it reacts. This is individually sad but largely a nonevent on any sort of long term timescale.

 Plastics ... now that worries me. Photodegrading until its small, then lingering until geological timeframes have passed and it finally gets geodegraded. Yup, we've made stuff that will keep so well as to require plate tectonics to clean it up. Fifty million years from now when the earth recovers a bit from our abuses some new species of archeologist will be puzzling over polymer artifacts and trying to envision what caused them.

by SacredCowTipper (sct@strandedwind.org) on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 04:54:15 AM EST
I would like to focus attention on that one sentence:
Just as with Christmas toys, PRC firms are moving into the 'green economy', starting to capture ever greater market share and helping to lower the costs for renewable energy technologies.

I'm surprised no one here has ripped into this.

"helping to lower the costs"

Yeah, that's what "free trade" is really all about. Lowering costs. And now we have another example of how those "lower costs" are achieved. "Free trade" today is simply a way for companies to pass off the costs of externalities by avoiding production in nation-states which force management to deal with such externalities, whether those externalities be pollution control, workplace safety, or product safety requirements.

At some point, hopefully in the not too distant future, "free trade" will come to be regarded as a crime against humanity, and its proponents treated accordingly.

by NBBooks on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
Hopefully you understand my point since this follows shortly after the item to clipped:

One of the key elements in pursuing a Green economy is accounting for total costs, to account for the "external" costs within the understanding of a system's cost.

Probably should have written "lower costs" (e.g., with quotation marks) to emphasize that it is lower, in no small parts, due to poor accounting of costs.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 12:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. I just think the point needs to be stressed more. Or maybe I just saw an opportunity to ham it up by being polemical.
by NBBooks on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
starting to capture ever greater market share... ah yes, the good ol' dream of infinite growth, "ever greater", always there...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 01:09:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]