4 ms·

Sounds great, except for the fact that every inch of this stuff will be in a landfill after 10 years of use, where it will essentially never break down, and lik

Sounds great, except for the fact that every inch of this stuff will be in a landfill after 10 years of use, where it will essentially never break down, and likely leach whatever exotic compounds it uses into the soil/water, trading one form of pollution for another. It seems like a "disposable society" solution to solar power, and I'm not convinced unless it comes with a clear recycling program.

ukdm 16y ago
They say its organic plastic solar cells being used. Does anyone know how quickly they break down? Maybe that's part of the reason why these panels only last 10 years?
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
  'organic' doesn't mean the same in chemistry as it means in Trader Joe's
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Frinstance all plastics are organics, but they'll last a helluva long time in landfill.
jws 16y ago
It has 40% of a crystal solar cell's service life, but I'll also wager it has far less than a crystal solar cell's mass, being a printing press technology. That should be a net gain for landfilling. Not to worry though. If these are used in any kind of large installations then the scrap value of the expired cells will be part of their profit. At the very least they might be fuel for cement kilns. If they can burn tires (when not in anyone's backyard) then thin sheets of plastic should be easy.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
zeteo 16y ago
Not really. According to this link http://www.konarka.com/index.php/power-plastic/material-characteristics/ http://www.konarka.com/index.php/power-plastic/material-char... the materials used are 100% recyclable.
- dminor 16y ago
  How many 100% recyclable products that we use end up being 100% recycled? I'm all for cheap solar but you can't just wave your arms and say "it can be recycled" without considering the costs of an effective recycling program.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    The important question isn't the percentage recyclability. It's the amount (if any) of chemicals which cannot simply be put in a landfill, and the amount (if any) of scarce minerals used which cannot be recycled economically.
jerf 16y ago
In light of zeteo's comment, could you take a moment to actually research your naysaying before you go all NIMBY on the technology? How many environmentally-sensible technologies must we sacrifice at the hands of people who think they are environmentalists but are actually just unthinking naysayers? (Perhaps you won't mind if we replace them with thorium reactors?)
- Zaak 16y ago
  I agree. Let's replace all unthinking naysayers with thorium reactors.
  - eru 16y ago
    Liquid thorium reactors.
- CognitiveLens 16y ago
  I brought up the recycling program because it's an important part of the life-cycle of the technology and it wasn't really discussed in the article. As I implied in my comment, I'm fully in favor if something can be done about the loads of plastic that this process will produce. As was mentioned, even 100% recyclable doesn't mean anywhere close to 100% will be recycled unless it is prioritized by the producers and consumers of the product. I recently finished "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman, and his discussion about the long-term impacts of our reliance on plastics struck me as a very under-appreciated burden on the environment - a huge amount ends up in the ocean, where it breaks apart but doesn't actually go away - it just becomes bite-size for smaller and smaller organisms, with predictable effects along the food chain. I am wary of a "race to the bottom" in terms of cost/watt because it undervalues other aspects of energy production, where the "good enough" mentality hasn't turned out very well in the past (nuclear and coal in particular). This particular technology seems aimed more at being financially-sensible, and I am concerned that the long-term environmental impacts are not being weighed heavily. It's important to factor in the cost, convenience, and logistics of the whole life-cycle of a technology, not just the cost/watt for a limited time frame.
brianbreslin 16y ago
what if we could recycle these into next gen solar panels? i.e. break them down to however possible, and remelt the plastic into new more modern cells 10 years from now? (I have NO idea if this is chemically/physically doable, just speculating)
noonespecial 16y ago
First, fix McDonalds, then I'll listen to concerns about unrecycled solar panels.

ukdm 16y ago

They say its organic plastic solar cells being used. Does anyone know how quickly they break down? Maybe that's part of the reason why these panels only last 10 years?

oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago
'organic' doesn't mean the same in chemistry as it means in Trader Joe's
- hugh3 16y ago
  Frinstance all plastics are organics, but they'll last a helluva long time in landfill.

jws 16y ago

It has 40% of a crystal solar cell's service life, but I'll also wager it has far less than a crystal solar cell's mass, being a printing press technology. That should be a net gain for landfilling. Not to worry though. If these are used in any kind of large installations then the scrap value of the expired cells will be part of their profit. At the very least they might be fuel for cement kilns. If they can burn tires (when not in anyone's backyard) then thin sheets of plastic should be easy.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

zeteo 16y ago

Not really. According to this link http://www.konarka.com/index.php/power-plastic/material-characteristics/ http://www.konarka.com/index.php/power-plastic/material-char... the materials used are 100% recyclable.

dminor 16y ago
How many 100% recyclable products that we use end up being 100% recycled? I'm all for cheap solar but you can't just wave your arms and say "it can be recycled" without considering the costs of an effective recycling program.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  The important question isn't the percentage recyclability. It's the amount (if any) of chemicals which cannot simply be put in a landfill, and the amount (if any) of scarce minerals used which cannot be recycled economically.

jerf 16y ago

In light of zeteo's comment, could you take a moment to actually research your naysaying before you go all NIMBY on the technology? How many environmentally-sensible technologies must we sacrifice at the hands of people who think they are environmentalists but are actually just unthinking naysayers? (Perhaps you won't mind if we replace them with thorium reactors?)

Zaak 16y ago
I agree. Let's replace all unthinking naysayers with thorium reactors.
- eru 16y ago
  Liquid thorium reactors.
CognitiveLens 16y ago
I brought up the recycling program because it's an important part of the life-cycle of the technology and it wasn't really discussed in the article. As I implied in my comment, I'm fully in favor if something can be done about the loads of plastic that this process will produce. As was mentioned, even 100% recyclable doesn't mean anywhere close to 100% will be recycled unless it is prioritized by the producers and consumers of the product. I recently finished "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman, and his discussion about the long-term impacts of our reliance on plastics struck me as a very under-appreciated burden on the environment - a huge amount ends up in the ocean, where it breaks apart but doesn't actually go away - it just becomes bite-size for smaller and smaller organisms, with predictable effects along the food chain. I am wary of a "race to the bottom" in terms of cost/watt because it undervalues other aspects of energy production, where the "good enough" mentality hasn't turned out very well in the past (nuclear and coal in particular). This particular technology seems aimed more at being financially-sensible, and I am concerned that the long-term environmental impacts are not being weighed heavily. It's important to factor in the cost, convenience, and logistics of the whole life-cycle of a technology, not just the cost/watt for a limited time frame.

brianbreslin 16y ago

what if we could recycle these into next gen solar panels? i.e. break them down to however possible, and remelt the plastic into new more modern cells 10 years from now? (I have NO idea if this is chemically/physically doable, just speculating)

noonespecial 16y ago

First, fix McDonalds, then I'll listen to concerns about unrecycled solar panels.