6 ms·

Solar is growing so fast that it is creating its own waste problem: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-w

Solar is growing so fast that it is creating its own waste problem: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#41619b7e121c https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23... What happens when we add the necessary batteries (to replace the nuclear base) to this problem?

Tharkun 7y ago
Lead acid batteries have a recycling rate of around 100%. LiIon can be recycled with relative ease. This seems like a much easier problem to solve than PV cells or nuclear waste.
Meandering 7y ago
This is one of the issues with solar power that gets overlooked. The physical 'stuff' needed to build a large solar farm is far more than a base nuclear plant. After a quick search: Solar Panels Lifespan - ~25 years - Good Grid Battery Lifespan - 5-10 years - ehh.. If we switched to 100% solar, with a majority of the equipment probably manufactured in China, there would be an orders of magnitude more physical product in the manufacturing and logistics pipeline. ...At least our top notch recycling programs will be able to handle all the waste product properly...
- sprash 7y ago
  > Solar Panels Lifespan - ~25 years - Good I don't know where these numbers come from but the solar panels on my house were installed about 20 years ago and have so far not shown any degradation assuming a 5% margin of error in measurement.
- politician 7y ago
  Nuclear plant lifespan - 75+ years - Best
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    In an environment of rapid technological change, a long lifespan has little value. Would you buy a PC because it was promised to last for 75 years?
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  Simply comparing lifespans is extremely misleading. We need to look at the potential risk associated with waste. Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health risk: negligible. Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. Nuclear waste: highly radioactive for thousands of years. No way to recovery leaks in the environment. Health risk: very high.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    Here is a link: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue... > Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. How long are rare metals (used in some battery/electronics) toxic for? Indefinitely. How long is nuclear waste toxic? 92% for 40 years, 0.2% for thousands of years.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Let me pull a pro nuclear style argument. Future batteries won't need rare earth metals. Actually this isn't a fair comparison. Batteries that don't need rare earth metals already exist today. Thorium reactors or next gen nuclear plants don't exist at all.
      - Ygg2 7y ago
        Kinda missing the point. We already live with way more dangerous material than nuclear. Only difference is that most toxic stuff kills us slowly, so we don't notice. Even if new batteries are made of non toxic and recyclable materials, our phones, our electronic is littered with it. And future materials are probably going to be even more exotic.
        politician 7y ago
        Not only that, but the only reason nuclear waste is dangerous is that it's radioactive. That is, it's a radiating source of energy. In other words, nuclear waste is dangerous because it's full of unused energy. The French use breeder reactors to extract this unused energy for more energy. We are literally choosing not to burn all of the nuclear material we have. It's like taking a train that's got 20 cars full of coal, burning the coal in the first car, and then disposing the "waste coal" in the rest of the cars in a landfill while wringing our hands about the environmental problems that causes. Future Breeder Reactor Plants on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants
makomk 7y ago
That article is really misleading. It starts off talking about the need to recycle cadmium-based panels in order not to leech toxic cadmium into the environment, and then claims that recyling isn't economically viable - but if you click through the links, that claim is based on the economics of recycling Si-based panels that don't contain any cadmium. Indeed, the whole reason Si panels aren't economically viable to recycle is because they don't contain these kinds of exotic (and toxic) materials; recycling of the cadmium-containing panels is very much viable and commonplace.
pfdietz 7y ago
Ah, Shellenberger. Look at what he's saying and realize what his level of credibility should be. You will notice that article is talking about cadmium from PV. Silicon PV, which has come to dominate the market (95+%) does not use cadmium. Nor does silicon PV require lead. And he repeats the lie that PV uses rare earth elements!

Tharkun 7y ago

Lead acid batteries have a recycling rate of around 100%. LiIon can be recycled with relative ease. This seems like a much easier problem to solve than PV cells or nuclear waste.

Meandering 7y ago

This is one of the issues with solar power that gets overlooked. The physical 'stuff' needed to build a large solar farm is far more than a base nuclear plant. After a quick search: Solar Panels Lifespan - ~25 years - Good Grid Battery Lifespan - 5-10 years - ehh.. If we switched to 100% solar, with a majority of the equipment probably manufactured in China, there would be an orders of magnitude more physical product in the manufacturing and logistics pipeline. ...At least our top notch recycling programs will be able to handle all the waste product properly...

sprash 7y ago
> Solar Panels Lifespan - ~25 years - Good I don't know where these numbers come from but the solar panels on my house were installed about 20 years ago and have so far not shown any degradation assuming a 5% margin of error in measurement.
politician 7y ago
Nuclear plant lifespan - 75+ years - Best
- pfdietz 7y ago
  In an environment of rapid technological change, a long lifespan has little value. Would you buy a PC because it was promised to last for 75 years?
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Simply comparing lifespans is extremely misleading. We need to look at the potential risk associated with waste. Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health risk: negligible. Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. Nuclear waste: highly radioactive for thousands of years. No way to recovery leaks in the environment. Health risk: very high.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  Here is a link: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue... > Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. How long are rare metals (used in some battery/electronics) toxic for? Indefinitely. How long is nuclear waste toxic? 92% for 40 years, 0.2% for thousands of years.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Let me pull a pro nuclear style argument. Future batteries won't need rare earth metals. Actually this isn't a fair comparison. Batteries that don't need rare earth metals already exist today. Thorium reactors or next gen nuclear plants don't exist at all.
    - Ygg2 7y ago
      Kinda missing the point. We already live with way more dangerous material than nuclear. Only difference is that most toxic stuff kills us slowly, so we don't notice. Even if new batteries are made of non toxic and recyclable materials, our phones, our electronic is littered with it. And future materials are probably going to be even more exotic.
      - politician 7y ago
        Not only that, but the only reason nuclear waste is dangerous is that it's radioactive. That is, it's a radiating source of energy. In other words, nuclear waste is dangerous because it's full of unused energy. The French use breeder reactors to extract this unused energy for more energy. We are literally choosing not to burn all of the nuclear material we have. It's like taking a train that's got 20 cars full of coal, burning the coal in the first car, and then disposing the "waste coal" in the rest of the cars in a landfill while wringing our hands about the environmental problems that causes. Future Breeder Reactor Plants on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants

makomk 7y ago

That article is really misleading. It starts off talking about the need to recycle cadmium-based panels in order not to leech toxic cadmium into the environment, and then claims that recyling isn't economically viable - but if you click through the links, that claim is based on the economics of recycling Si-based panels that don't contain any cadmium. Indeed, the whole reason Si panels aren't economically viable to recycle is because they don't contain these kinds of exotic (and toxic) materials; recycling of the cadmium-containing panels is very much viable and commonplace.

pfdietz 7y ago

Ah, Shellenberger. Look at what he's saying and realize what his level of credibility should be. You will notice that article is talking about cadmium from PV. Silicon PV, which has come to dominate the market (95+%) does not use cadmium. Nor does silicon PV require lead. And he repeats the lie that PV uses rare earth elements!