What matters most with the NF3 issue is the amount released per unit of PV manufactured, compared to the lifetime of the PV. Nobody writing the stop-buying-PV-because-of-NF3 articles is printing the important numbers, just the meaningless ones that sound scary. Actually, they're not meaningless- they mean it is important to consider NF3 emissions, they just don't provide any useful information about the environmental impacts of the manufacture of a particular product. The reason for this is clear: they're all paraphrasing an article about measurements of atmospheric levels of NF3, and making assumptions about electronics manufacture with no scientific basis whatsoever. I believe this is the original article:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/oct/HQ_08-268_Greenhouse_gas.html The closest thing to a useful value I found was a short article about a manufacturer who removed NF3 from their process, which says it reduced the GG emissions payback time of their modules by about a year: http://www.ecofriendnews.com/environmental_article9150.html If that's true, the global warming impact of NF3 PV manufacture is on the same order of magnitude as the other contributions like energy consumption, i.e. we're talking about a 2-3 year payback instead of 1-2 years. I would tend to guess that they are overestimating the benefit of their new manufacturing process, meaning that the effect of NF3 is being overestimated in this case. So, 1) this is a problem across the electronics industry (of which PV is a very small part) that means NF3 should be dealt with across the board, 2) it can be removed from the manufacturing process, and 3) its GW contribution is probably small compared to the CO2 emissions of the displaced fossil fuel use. But we need real numbers. -- Rich On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Ryan Hottle<[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not necessarily against PV solar, but there seems to be a significant > issue over the manufacture of PV releasing Nitrogen trifluoride, which is > some 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 albeit having a much > shorter lifetime. I am convinced that rainwater catchment with microhydro, > biomass pyrolyization/gasification, and, in particular areas, wind are > likely to be the best way for Ithaca and surrounding areas to go. > Article regarding NF3 and PV manufacture: > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/top10-2008/index6.html > > > Best, > Ryan _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins Questions about the list? ask [email protected] free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
