4 ms·

Cheap for the economy, not so cheap for the environment. These kind of articles rarely calculate the price to dispose old solar panels. Our country recently f

Cheap for the economy, not so cheap for the environment. These kind of articles rarely calculate the price to dispose old solar panels. Our country recently found that current methods for disposing solar panels pose a grave danger to the environment and imposed strict regulations for it. As a result the price for disposal quadrupled. Because consumers of the solar panel, which are mostly individuals, can't afford those prices, the government is preparing for a law that charges manufactures up front for the price of disposal. It is assumed that solar will be more expensive than natural gas after the changes.

pfdietz 6y ago
"Grave danger" from what?
- maallooc 6y ago
  That just dumping old solar panels into the landfill will cause Cu, Pb, As, Cr to spread into the ground effectively contaminating it. The government is trying to ban dumping it and trying to impose a responsibility to manufacturers to properly recycle and decontaminate it, which will cost about 4~5 times more than dumping.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Oh no, copper! Chromium! Next you're going to tell me of the fiendish plot to incorporate these into pots and pans to poison us all. There is no reason to include As in PV. There are anti-renewable propaganda screeds that pretend otherwise ("look! GaAs PV cells are a thing, therefore all PV uses As!") That leaves lead. Lead has been used for connections, but it is being phased out, not least because of EU environmental regulations. The PV cells themselves do not need lead. I suspect you are just repeating anti-renewable lies here.
    - maallooc 6y ago
      Actually it does matter if it's not properly processed. Government research found those metals were contaminating landfills, and imposed restrictions. If you are interested in the facts, here are one. I believe in research done by my pro-PV government and scientists, not environmental shills and anti-science PV aficionados like you and this article. http://knrec.or.kr/file/2018%EC%8B%A0%EC%9E%AC%EC%83%9D%EC%97%90%EB%84%88%EC%A7%80%EB%B0%B1%EC%84%9C.pdf http://knrec.or.kr/file/2018%EC%8B%A0%EC%9E%AC%EC%83%9D%EC%9...
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        That does not display for me. Useless. Let me repeat: we have copper and stainless (chromium) steel pots and pans (or, in the case of stainless steel, surgical implants!) The idea that PV is dangerous because of those metals is absurd on its face. Chromium toxicity is from highly oxidized (hexavalent) chromium that will not be produced from Cr in ordinary structural materials. My priors for interpreting statements like yours is to treat them as garbage. This is because renewables have been subject to an endless stream of BS criticism for decades. The expectation upon seeing more such clearly dubious criticism, such as yours that flies in the face of elementary chemistry, is that it's just more of the same.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        maallooc 6y ago
        Wow, typical shill ignoring facts. How can I win an argument when you have this amazing logical basis? >1 to 10 is dangerous >3 and 4 is not dangerous, so you are completely wrong, and I can't see your facts so it's useless and wrong, go solar! Yeah, I'll trust my government and scientists and professors who actually have degrees in the field more than you, thank you very much. Oh yeah, in your opinion they are coal industry shills so they are just "wrong", aren't they? lol Downvote all you want, I don't give a f. But you can't change the truth.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > I suspect you are just repeating anti-renewable lies here. You speak with a tone of authority - do you have deep expertise and knowledge in this field? Yes or no? Please don't dodge the question. This is the best article I could find with about 10 minutes of googling. I have excerpted a small portion, but there is more relevant information immediately following this portion. This does not sound like a solved problem to me, at all. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338195279_An_overview_of_solar_photovoltaic_panels'_end-of-life_material_recycling https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338195279_An_overvi... 3. Global photovoltaic market and waste generation The market share of solar panels by technology group is shown in Fig. 4. Currently, the volume of comprehensive connected PV panels is rising sharply. Rapid growth is anticipated in the coming years with the typical useful life of a solar panel of 25 years [1,12]. However, it is expected that the total quantity of PV panels EOL will reach 9.57 million tonnes by 2050 [4]. In 2014, the market was dominated by silicon-based c-Si panels, which accounted for a 92% share of the market with those based on CdTe technology at 5%, copper indium gallium (di) selenide (CIGS) at 2%, with 1% accounted for by those manufactured from other materials (dye-sensitized, CPV, organic hybrids) [4,14,15]. The market share of c-Si PV panels is projected to decrease from 92% to 44.8% between 2014 and 2030 [13,14]. The third-generation PV panels are predicted to reach 44.1%, from a base of 1% in 2014, over the same period [4,13–15]. Solar PV panels will probably lose efficiency over time, whereby the operational life is 20–30 years at least [7,13,16]. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimated that at the end of 2016, there were around 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste globally [12]. The solar panels contain lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and many other harmful chemicals that could not be removed if the entire panel is cracked [17–19]. In November 2016, the Environment Minister of Japan advised that Japan’s production of solar panel waste per year is expected to rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tonnes by 2040 and the country has no plans to dispose of them safely and effectively [17,20]. A recent statement found that the Toshiba Environmental Solutions will take approximately 19 years for reprocessing all solar massive waste of Japan produced by 2020 [21]. The yearly waste will be 70–80 times higher by 2034 than the year before 2020 [21]. China with a larger number of solar plants, currently operates around two times as many solar panels as USA and has no proposals for the dumping of the whole old panels. Despite the presence of environmental awareness, California, another world leader in solar panels, also has no waste disposal plan. At the end of their useful lives, only Europe requires the manufactures of solar panels to collect and dump solar waste. Although solar panels were disposed of on regular sites, it is not advisable because the modules can degrade, and harmful chemicals can leach into the ground causing drinking water contamination [22]. The lifetime of PV modules has been estimated for 25 years. Therefore, it can be assumed that the installed PV power (MW) becomes waste after that period. To identify the time shifting, the years of installation and the years of waste generation may be denoted as x and y, respectively where y ¼ xþ25 [1].
skybrian 6y ago
I'm wondering why landfills are insufficient? Are the linings not good enough?
- maallooc 6y ago
  Not processing old solar panel was deemed dangerous by the government and we are building a government facility to recycle and properly decontaminate them. The price to run the facility will be collected from the manufacturers. Same for Wind too. 81 tons of waste needs to be processed after 20 years of service of a 5MW wind turbine but operators and manufacturers does not take the price of disposal into account.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    Sure but I'm asking about the technology. It seems odd that old solar panels couldn't somehow be safely buried without leaching.

pfdietz 6y ago

"Grave danger" from what?

maallooc 6y ago
That just dumping old solar panels into the landfill will cause Cu, Pb, As, Cr to spread into the ground effectively contaminating it. The government is trying to ban dumping it and trying to impose a responsibility to manufacturers to properly recycle and decontaminate it, which will cost about 4~5 times more than dumping.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Oh no, copper! Chromium! Next you're going to tell me of the fiendish plot to incorporate these into pots and pans to poison us all. There is no reason to include As in PV. There are anti-renewable propaganda screeds that pretend otherwise ("look! GaAs PV cells are a thing, therefore all PV uses As!") That leaves lead. Lead has been used for connections, but it is being phased out, not least because of EU environmental regulations. The PV cells themselves do not need lead. I suspect you are just repeating anti-renewable lies here.
  - maallooc 6y ago
    Actually it does matter if it's not properly processed. Government research found those metals were contaminating landfills, and imposed restrictions. If you are interested in the facts, here are one. I believe in research done by my pro-PV government and scientists, not environmental shills and anti-science PV aficionados like you and this article. http://knrec.or.kr/file/2018%EC%8B%A0%EC%9E%AC%EC%83%9D%EC%97%90%EB%84%88%EC%A7%80%EB%B0%B1%EC%84%9C.pdf http://knrec.or.kr/file/2018%EC%8B%A0%EC%9E%AC%EC%83%9D%EC%9...
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      That does not display for me. Useless. Let me repeat: we have copper and stainless (chromium) steel pots and pans (or, in the case of stainless steel, surgical implants!) The idea that PV is dangerous because of those metals is absurd on its face. Chromium toxicity is from highly oxidized (hexavalent) chromium that will not be produced from Cr in ordinary structural materials. My priors for interpreting statements like yours is to treat them as garbage. This is because renewables have been subject to an endless stream of BS criticism for decades. The expectation upon seeing more such clearly dubious criticism, such as yours that flies in the face of elementary chemistry, is that it's just more of the same.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - maallooc 6y ago
        Wow, typical shill ignoring facts. How can I win an argument when you have this amazing logical basis? >1 to 10 is dangerous >3 and 4 is not dangerous, so you are completely wrong, and I can't see your facts so it's useless and wrong, go solar! Yeah, I'll trust my government and scientists and professors who actually have degrees in the field more than you, thank you very much. Oh yeah, in your opinion they are coal industry shills so they are just "wrong", aren't they? lol Downvote all you want, I don't give a f. But you can't change the truth.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > I suspect you are just repeating anti-renewable lies here. You speak with a tone of authority - do you have deep expertise and knowledge in this field? Yes or no? Please don't dodge the question. This is the best article I could find with about 10 minutes of googling. I have excerpted a small portion, but there is more relevant information immediately following this portion. This does not sound like a solved problem to me, at all. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338195279_An_overview_of_solar_photovoltaic_panels'_end-of-life_material_recycling https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338195279_An_overvi... 3. Global photovoltaic market and waste generation The market share of solar panels by technology group is shown in Fig. 4. Currently, the volume of comprehensive connected PV panels is rising sharply. Rapid growth is anticipated in the coming years with the typical useful life of a solar panel of 25 years [1,12]. However, it is expected that the total quantity of PV panels EOL will reach 9.57 million tonnes by 2050 [4]. In 2014, the market was dominated by silicon-based c-Si panels, which accounted for a 92% share of the market with those based on CdTe technology at 5%, copper indium gallium (di) selenide (CIGS) at 2%, with 1% accounted for by those manufactured from other materials (dye-sensitized, CPV, organic hybrids) [4,14,15]. The market share of c-Si PV panels is projected to decrease from 92% to 44.8% between 2014 and 2030 [13,14]. The third-generation PV panels are predicted to reach 44.1%, from a base of 1% in 2014, over the same period [4,13–15]. Solar PV panels will probably lose efficiency over time, whereby the operational life is 20–30 years at least [7,13,16]. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimated that at the end of 2016, there were around 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste globally [12]. The solar panels contain lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and many other harmful chemicals that could not be removed if the entire panel is cracked [17–19]. In November 2016, the Environment Minister of Japan advised that Japan’s production of solar panel waste per year is expected to rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tonnes by 2040 and the country has no plans to dispose of them safely and effectively [17,20]. A recent statement found that the Toshiba Environmental Solutions will take approximately 19 years for reprocessing all solar massive waste of Japan produced by 2020 [21]. The yearly waste will be 70–80 times higher by 2034 than the year before 2020 [21]. China with a larger number of solar plants, currently operates around two times as many solar panels as USA and has no proposals for the dumping of the whole old panels. Despite the presence of environmental awareness, California, another world leader in solar panels, also has no waste disposal plan. At the end of their useful lives, only Europe requires the manufactures of solar panels to collect and dump solar waste. Although solar panels were disposed of on regular sites, it is not advisable because the modules can degrade, and harmful chemicals can leach into the ground causing drinking water contamination [22]. The lifetime of PV modules has been estimated for 25 years. Therefore, it can be assumed that the installed PV power (MW) becomes waste after that period. To identify the time shifting, the years of installation and the years of waste generation may be denoted as x and y, respectively where y ¼ xþ25 [1].

skybrian 6y ago

I'm wondering why landfills are insufficient? Are the linings not good enough?

maallooc 6y ago
Not processing old solar panel was deemed dangerous by the government and we are building a government facility to recycle and properly decontaminate them. The price to run the facility will be collected from the manufacturers. Same for Wind too. 81 tons of waste needs to be processed after 20 years of service of a 5MW wind turbine but operators and manufacturers does not take the price of disposal into account.
- skybrian 6y ago
  Sure but I'm asking about the technology. It seems odd that old solar panels couldn't somehow be safely buried without leaching.