4 ms·

> But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractabl

by creato 7y ago

> But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Source? I find it hard to believe this is a problem given they last decades, I'm not aware of any major problematic materials in solar panels, and the primary alternative is burning coal.

rsj_hn 7y ago
There are many alternatives to solar other than burning coal. For example, you can build a nuclear plant or hydro dam, or use more natural gas or biomass. The world is not divided into solar v. coal -- solar is not even a major player in global energy right now. In terms of sources about the disposal issues for solar, there are many discussions about this online, but here is a nice, readable, layman's introduction to the problem: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-waste-chemicals-energy-environment-recycling https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-was... "To understand the challenges of solar waste, it’s helpful to understand how the panels are built. There are different types of solar panels, but most of them contain aluminum, glass, silver, and an elastic material called ethylene-vinyl acetate. The problem is that they can also contain more dangerous and sometimes cancer-causing, materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Functional panels are sealed off with glass and are very safe. But when the glass breaks or the panels are damaged, those substances can leak. This risk is especially high with poorly made solar panels installed in areas that experience extreme weather, like hurricanes and hail. Winds and rain can break the glass, allowing chemicals to leach into the soil and then into the water system" Now imagine a world where solar is a major player. So world energy consumption was 1.575 × 10^17 Wh (2013) and growing at, say, 3% per annum (conservative). (wikipedia). Let's imagine that in 2033, when world energy consumption is 2.8 * 10^17 WH, solar accounts for 1/3 of that. Now today's panels are about 1.65 m^2 and can generate about 300W (https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/ https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electr...), so let's say due to improvements in science, that becomes 600W. And let's say they do that 12 hours per day nonstop year round, to produce 2.63*10^6 WH per annum. That means they can account for 1/3 of world energy needs if we have 38 Billion of these futuristic solar cells (the ones with double the current energy output and that produce peak output 12 hours each day 365 days per year). That's about 20% of the area of Arizona. And let's say that due to external damage and internal failure, the cells need to be replaced once every 40 years, so that means we need to recycle about 1 billion of these cells each year, each weighing about 25kg, so that is 25 Billion kilograms of waste that would need to be recycled each year, contaminated with some nasty chemicals. And that number too will grow by 3% each year as global energy use increases. And this situation is only going to get worse because as we do more research and create more efficient cells, that's not going to happen by switching to more organic compounds. It means more exotic compounds. And we still need to find something else for the other 2/3 of global energy use.
- creato 7y ago
  > There are many alternatives to solar other than burning coal. For example, you can build a nuclear plant or hydro dam, or use more natural gas or biomass. The world is not divided into solar v. coal -- solar is not even a major player in global energy right now. Really? You're pointing out solar panels have a waste disposal problem and then name nuclear as an alternative? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of nuclear too, and just about every other alternative you mentioned. I just think it's absurd to be worrying about solar panel waste in the larger context here. Hydro dams flood a lot of land, natural gas releases a lot of CO2. > To understand the challenges of solar waste, it’s helpful to understand how the panels are built. There are different types of solar panels, but most of them contain aluminum, glass, silver, and an elastic material called ethylene-vinyl acetate. The problem is that they can also contain more dangerous and sometimes cancer-causing, materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Functional panels are sealed off with glass and are very safe. But when the glass breaks or the panels are damaged, those substances can leak. Doesn't sound like anything not already found in a coal fly ash pond [1]. You can probably simply dump deprecated solar panels in a pile with a dirt berm next to the solar plant and come out way ahead of a coal power plant. I'm not saying this isn't a problem that should be dealt with. I just do not believe this is a problem that would be even 1% as bad as the problem we have right now. I think that if your line of reasoning results in even a slight delay of the deprecation of a coal power plant at the expense of solar development, we've come out way behind in terms of environmental impact. If you are going to claim this is a problem, I think we should see evidence for that compared to alternatives that actually exist or can realistically be built. How much lead, cadmium, chromium end up in the environment from power generation today? And how much would do so if we disposed of solar panels in even the worst possible manner? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Examples
  - rsj_hn 7y ago
    Nuclear generates waste, but it's several orders of magnitude less, so it's much easier to manage. For coal, absolutely, there is fly ash, but if your plan is to just dump the current global production of aluminum into ponds every year, you are going to have a problem. These materials need to be recycled, not dumped. E.g. for a normal 2 inch thick cell. You have a volume of 600 million cubic meters that needs to be disposed of annually, and it's growing each year by 3%. The problem here is that people don't realize the scale of the issue -- and I was quite generous in my estimates.

by creato 7y ago

rsj_hn 7y ago

There are many alternatives to solar other than burning coal. For example, you can build a nuclear plant or hydro dam, or use more natural gas or biomass. The world is not divided into solar v. coal -- solar is not even a major player in global energy right now. In terms of sources about the disposal issues for solar, there are many discussions about this online, but here is a nice, readable, layman's introduction to the problem: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-waste-chemicals-energy-environment-recycling https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-was... "To understand the challenges of solar waste, it’s helpful to understand how the panels are built. There are different types of solar panels, but most of them contain aluminum, glass, silver, and an elastic material called ethylene-vinyl acetate. The problem is that they can also contain more dangerous and sometimes cancer-causing, materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Functional panels are sealed off with glass and are very safe. But when the glass breaks or the panels are damaged, those substances can leak. This risk is especially high with poorly made solar panels installed in areas that experience extreme weather, like hurricanes and hail. Winds and rain can break the glass, allowing chemicals to leach into the soil and then into the water system" Now imagine a world where solar is a major player. So world energy consumption was 1.575 × 10^17 Wh (2013) and growing at, say, 3% per annum (conservative). (wikipedia). Let's imagine that in 2033, when world energy consumption is 2.8 * 10^17 WH, solar accounts for 1/3 of that. Now today's panels are about 1.65 m^2 and can generate about 300W (https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/ https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electr...), so let's say due to improvements in science, that becomes 600W. And let's say they do that 12 hours per day nonstop year round, to produce 2.63*10^6 WH per annum. That means they can account for 1/3 of world energy needs if we have 38 Billion of these futuristic solar cells (the ones with double the current energy output and that produce peak output 12 hours each day 365 days per year). That's about 20% of the area of Arizona. And let's say that due to external damage and internal failure, the cells need to be replaced once every 40 years, so that means we need to recycle about 1 billion of these cells each year, each weighing about 25kg, so that is 25 Billion kilograms of waste that would need to be recycled each year, contaminated with some nasty chemicals. And that number too will grow by 3% each year as global energy use increases. And this situation is only going to get worse because as we do more research and create more efficient cells, that's not going to happen by switching to more organic compounds. It means more exotic compounds. And we still need to find something else for the other 2/3 of global energy use.

creato 7y ago
> There are many alternatives to solar other than burning coal. For example, you can build a nuclear plant or hydro dam, or use more natural gas or biomass. The world is not divided into solar v. coal -- solar is not even a major player in global energy right now. Really? You're pointing out solar panels have a waste disposal problem and then name nuclear as an alternative? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of nuclear too, and just about every other alternative you mentioned. I just think it's absurd to be worrying about solar panel waste in the larger context here. Hydro dams flood a lot of land, natural gas releases a lot of CO2. > To understand the challenges of solar waste, it’s helpful to understand how the panels are built. There are different types of solar panels, but most of them contain aluminum, glass, silver, and an elastic material called ethylene-vinyl acetate. The problem is that they can also contain more dangerous and sometimes cancer-causing, materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Functional panels are sealed off with glass and are very safe. But when the glass breaks or the panels are damaged, those substances can leak. Doesn't sound like anything not already found in a coal fly ash pond [1]. You can probably simply dump deprecated solar panels in a pile with a dirt berm next to the solar plant and come out way ahead of a coal power plant. I'm not saying this isn't a problem that should be dealt with. I just do not believe this is a problem that would be even 1% as bad as the problem we have right now. I think that if your line of reasoning results in even a slight delay of the deprecation of a coal power plant at the expense of solar development, we've come out way behind in terms of environmental impact. If you are going to claim this is a problem, I think we should see evidence for that compared to alternatives that actually exist or can realistically be built. How much lead, cadmium, chromium end up in the environment from power generation today? And how much would do so if we disposed of solar panels in even the worst possible manner? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Examples
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  Nuclear generates waste, but it's several orders of magnitude less, so it's much easier to manage. For coal, absolutely, there is fly ash, but if your plan is to just dump the current global production of aluminum into ponds every year, you are going to have a problem. These materials need to be recycled, not dumped. E.g. for a normal 2 inch thick cell. You have a volume of 600 million cubic meters that needs to be disposed of annually, and it's growing each year by 3%. The problem here is that people don't realize the scale of the issue -- and I was quite generous in my estimates.