Slashdot Mirror
Study Claims Discarded Solar Panels Create More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear Plants (nationalreview.com)
Templer421 shares an article from National Review:
A new study by Environmental Progress warns that toxic waste from used solar panels now poses a global environmental threat. The Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear-power plants. Discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, are piling up around the world, and there's been little done to mitigate their potential danger to the environment. "We talk a lot about the dangers of nuclear waste, but that waste is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of," says Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates for the use of nuclear energy. "But we had no idea there would be so many panels -- an enormous amount -- that could cause this much ecological damage." Solar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or "e-waste," and according to EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson, scavengers in developing countries like India and China often "burn the e-waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled."
A spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association argues that the study is incorrect, and that in fact solar panels are "mainly made up of easy-to-recycle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life."
A spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association argues that the study is incorrect, and that in fact solar panels are "mainly made up of easy-to-recycle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life."
> In what units?
If I read the article propely, it's volume (cubic meter per TWh).
So, it compares nuclear waste that are ultra dangerous and takes thousand years to become riskless, with lead, chromium, cadmium.
This comparizon is obviously entirely useless (and somehow stupid), unless it intend to mislead readers.
Having said that, recycling solar panel will soon be a challenge. Within next 10 years, we will have to replace a huge amount of panels that reached end of life.
If the study has even a hint of being true then it would seem to me that nuclear power advocacy is also advocacy for the environment. I like lobby groups that say "yes" once in a while. Those environmental groups that just go around saying no to nuclear (because the make BOMBS!), no to coal (OMG the SMOG!), no to windmills (think of the BIRDS!), no to burning wood (you can't chop down a TREE! they have feelings too!), or solar power far from the city centers where no one even knows they are there (the TURTLES! the desert turtles won't see the sun!). To many of them don't have solutions, only more screaming about problems.
Saving the environment is fine, so long as that includes people living int it. People are part of the environment and we need to find a balance with it. Part of that is finding energy so our soft pink (and increasingly large) bodies don't turn red in the sun, blue in the cold, get torn to pieces by predators, and get enough food to survive (which is not much of a problem it would seem).
I like seeing people that actually sat down to do some math to see what our impact on the environment is based on how we do things and finding ways to reduce the suck we create. I won't say reduce our impact on the environment because things like proper hunting and fishing means populations have grown. Improved farming and ranching means more food, more trees, and generally a greener world.
I said "hint of truth" at the beginning because even if they are off by two orders of magnitude then solar power still creates three times the waste as nuclear. This certainly sounds like something worthy of further study. This study also said nothing comparing the costs of nuclear to solar (which is approaching parity as time passes) or reliability (nuclear has 90+% availability, solar has about 30%).
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Nothing that is destined to operate much beyond Mars orbit is powered by solar panels.
Well, to be pedantic, Juno is a solar powered orbiter at Jupiter. The average distance to the sun for Mars is 1.5 AU, whereas it is 5.4 AU for Jupiter. But that's pushing the limits of the technology. There's an informative article on the topic from Smithsonian's Air and Space Magazine. You can get a sense of the size of the panels from this video.
This is a normal e-waste issue. The original post comparing it to nuclear waste is just badly reasoned sensationalism. The e-waste problem is easily solved. In fact it is much easier to solve than the energy supply problem that solar PV is attempting to address. The solution is to require recycling costs to be included in the purchase price. The cost of recycling silicon solar PV panels is a tiny fraction of the purchase price. (CdTe panels are a different issue...and maybe a bad idea because of the recycling problem just like nuclear power is a bad idea because of nuclear waste.) If suppliers have to include recycling costs in what they charge, then they will start making even more easily recyclable panels But including recycling costs in the purchase price requires planning 20 or 30 years into the future and writing careful regulations. Most governments around the world seem to be inept at planning and regulating, largely because many voters seem to believe that the future is not their problem. But no matter what governments do, I can assure you that coal and petrochemical pollution will still be a much bigger problem than unrecycled solar panels and even nuclear wastes for at least the next 100 or 200 years. The real problem is that these poorly reasoned articles confuse people and keep them from making the switch to renewable energy that humanity has to make it we intend to keep 7 to 10 billion people living with modern comforts on planet earth over the next 100 years.
The French have demonstrated for 4 decades that your 70's era propaganda is bullshit. They're currently reprocessing fuel and have been for a long time.