6 ms·

California went big on rooftop solar. Now that’s a problem for landfills

16 points by Jerry2 4y ago

Saris 4y ago
I'm surprised CA didn't do a recycling program along with all their tax rebates for solar.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Why would you be surprised they focused on the shiny and lucrative and not on the essential and valuable?
- seibelj 4y ago
  It’s almost like the decision makers in government have no idea what they are doing
ec109685 4y ago
What percentage of landfill capacity is expected to be filled with solar panels?
- ngamboa 4y ago
kelnos 4y ago
> Beginning in 2006 [...]. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their typical 25-to-30-year life cycle. I know this feels like pedantic nitpickery, but 2022 - 2006 = 16 years. That's 53%-64% of the 25-30 year lifecycle. Characterizing that as "nearing the end" feels like manufacturing urgency that doesn't yet exist. Having said that, we appear to have 9-14 years to get our elected representatives into gear to write some legislation that requires recycling for all this, before the bulk of the early subsidized installs start heading to landfills. That's not forever (especially where government is concerned), but that's definitely quite a bit of runway.
- NovaVeles 4y ago
  The pessimist in me thinks it will never happen. That said, I'm in Australia and our recent government change is starting to make major changes in the space of renewables. It gives me a since of optimism about government I haven't seen in a long while. Just maybe we can still get into the right direction even if it isn't a perfect conclusion.
- TheChaplain 4y ago
  25-30 years is a pipe dream. Panels manufactured around 2006 are quite inefficient compared with those today, and our need for electricity isn't really going down either.
8bitsrule 4y ago
The article suggests that the problem is not about California - but the times we live in (health, housing, etc.) “The industry is supposed to be green,” Vanderhoof said. “But in reality, it’s all about the money.”
twblalock 4y ago
It’s also a problem for housing affordability. Even ADUs require solar now. Making it more expensive to build housing in California at a time like this is a bad move, and I doubt the benefits of solar outweigh it.
- sheeeep86 4y ago
  I disagree, not installing solar and heatpumps will increase the energy consumption of the house, potentially for the entire lifetime of the building. Installing them makes it cheaper to live in the building, increases the home value and pays off in years, so really it should be a no brainer. Some countries offer special financing for the costs of energy efficient building, this would be a better option at addressing your concern than removing the requirement.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    People may not have the up-front money, though. Think about it this way: we take on mortgages and car loans and other sorts of debt because we can't afford the full cost of something up front, and accept the tradeoff that, over time, we'll be spending more money than if we had that up-front money. Same thing applies here. Requiring solar on new homes will just make homes cost more, and will put home ownership out of reach in cases where people were already stretching. Either that, or it'll just increase the problem of people being in too much debt. If the government wants solar on all new homes, they should be paying for it. I believe in renewables, and in distributed power generation, but forcing people to spend another $20k or whatever to buy a new home is a heavy lift.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      I think the average cost is about $25k.
    - robocat 4y ago
      Supply/demand argument fallacy: because the price of a home is not driven by the costs of construction. Homes are nothing like normal goods. Property prices are driven by the amount people can afford to pay on their mortgage, with the free variables being land price and house size. Housing booms and crashes are only slightly linked to the cost of building a home.
orev 4y ago
Similar sentiments have been showing up in many venues lately. I suspect this is an oil company campaign aimed at damaging renewables. We saw a similar campaign about how “bad” wind turbine blades are for birds, and also that disposing the blades was such a “big” problem. Every energy source has consequences. We need to pick the ones that are less bad. Having a pile of waste in landfills seems infinitely better than roasting the whole planet to the point of it being unlivable by humans.
- willnonya 4y ago
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Until the nuclear waste disposal problem has been solved (actually solved, not "we know how to do it but haven't yet"), I don't think you can call nuclear "clean". Beyond that, there are still valid safety and security concerns that people like you seem to enjoy hand-waving away. I agree that there's a lot of irrational fear around nuclear, but claiming that nuclear is 100% safe is also irrational. I would much rather have nuclear instead of fossil fuel burning, but renewables are even better. The article even admits that solar panels can be recycled, just that most end up in landfills.
    - taxyz 4y ago
      Almost everything written is here is so wrong its hard to begin picking this apart. Nuclear is largely/completely safe in the developed/not-shitty-communist-Russia world. There have been 3 civilian/peace-time nuclear disasters: Chernobyl (USSR), Three Mile Island (USA), Fukushima (Japan). The death toll for Three Mile Island is 0, and for Fukushima its currently 1 (due to radiation) and even that death is being disputed in Japanese courts so it may be 0 as well. This is over decades in which large parts of the world are still running reactors developed in the 1960's and 1970's. More workers have died installing residential solar last year in the US than the total deaths from constructing/running/and dealing with nuclear meltdowns in the history of nuclear power in the US combined; and the number of deaths per 100,000 rooftops workers is rising by double digit percentages as rooftop solar becomes more popular. Current generation reactors produce significantly less waste and modern material science has come a long way in terms of long term storage. Which speaking of hand-waving, you seem to be hand waving away what to do about the toxic waste that results from both the manufacture and disposal of solar panels. The claim that they can be recycled but aren't is the same argument you are saying nuclear advocates make ("we know how to do it but haven't yet"). Lastly, I am not even sure how you go about justifying that renewables are far better when you consider the lifespan and power output from nuclear. This is the problem that renewable zealots cause in terms of solving long term energy needs. Renewables fall short in terms of being able to produce and transmit energy on demand, the manufacture, shipping, and disposal of a lot of renewables ends up with a higher carbon footprint per W of energy produced over their lifetime, and we are passing the cost of operating utilities directly to the consumer. Anyone who claims renewables are "ever better" than nuclear is not concerned above the environment, they just want to display their religious convictions about "green energy" - if you want to signal to your friends how dedicated you are forget the solar panels and just make sure to wear an AOC pin everywhere you go.
willnonya 4y ago
A glimpse of the future.
- timbit42 4y ago
  Landfills full of solar panels is better than the air full of CO2.
RJSquirel 4y ago
Thx for posting the 12ft.io link to the content,
m463 4y ago
uncertain what 12ft.io is - it redirects to latimes: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california... That said, I have friends with old panels, and they are happily generating electricity and reducing PG&E bills. So although there might be a problem with older panels, I expect there are also problems with old power plant generators, aged oil tankeer and gas station equipment ending up in landfills too.
- timbit42 4y ago
  12ft.io is intended to bypass media website paywalls.
kornhole 4y ago
Why don't we construct panels that can be repurposed as building panels to build homes after they don't produce electricity?
dang 4y ago
Url changed from https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fstory%2F2022-07-14%2Fcalifornia-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbusi..., which points to this.
- timbit42 4y ago
  12ft.io is used to bypass the paywall for people who don't have a subscription.
  - pvg 4y ago
    Use the original URL like the guidelines ask. You can post convenience links in thread, like many people do.
    - timbit42 4y ago
      I didn't post it.
hbogert 4y ago
25y life expectancy is a lie. I've seen it with my own panels which were installed by the former owner. Nobody checks if these things are still working correctly. In my case after just 4y every panel was subpar And 2 of 12 were simply so bad that the bypasses kicked in. In turn that caused the input voltage to be too low when it was hot and the internal resistance went up, which results in a shutdown inverter. Really, how often does this happen without people realizing? I've checked with a neighbour, he never looked at it, guess what, same deal!?

16 points by Jerry2 4y ago

Saris 4y ago

I'm surprised CA didn't do a recycling program along with all their tax rebates for solar.

readthenotes1 4y ago
Why would you be surprised they focused on the shiny and lucrative and not on the essential and valuable?
seibelj 4y ago
It’s almost like the decision makers in government have no idea what they are doing

ec109685 4y ago

What percentage of landfill capacity is expected to be filled with solar panels?

ngamboa 4y ago

kelnos 4y ago

> Beginning in 2006 [...]. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their typical 25-to-30-year life cycle. I know this feels like pedantic nitpickery, but 2022 - 2006 = 16 years. That's 53%-64% of the 25-30 year lifecycle. Characterizing that as "nearing the end" feels like manufacturing urgency that doesn't yet exist. Having said that, we appear to have 9-14 years to get our elected representatives into gear to write some legislation that requires recycling for all this, before the bulk of the early subsidized installs start heading to landfills. That's not forever (especially where government is concerned), but that's definitely quite a bit of runway.

NovaVeles 4y ago
The pessimist in me thinks it will never happen. That said, I'm in Australia and our recent government change is starting to make major changes in the space of renewables. It gives me a since of optimism about government I haven't seen in a long while. Just maybe we can still get into the right direction even if it isn't a perfect conclusion.
TheChaplain 4y ago
25-30 years is a pipe dream. Panels manufactured around 2006 are quite inefficient compared with those today, and our need for electricity isn't really going down either.

8bitsrule 4y ago

The article suggests that the problem is not about California - but the times we live in (health, housing, etc.) “The industry is supposed to be green,” Vanderhoof said. “But in reality, it’s all about the money.”

twblalock 4y ago

It’s also a problem for housing affordability. Even ADUs require solar now. Making it more expensive to build housing in California at a time like this is a bad move, and I doubt the benefits of solar outweigh it.

sheeeep86 4y ago
I disagree, not installing solar and heatpumps will increase the energy consumption of the house, potentially for the entire lifetime of the building. Installing them makes it cheaper to live in the building, increases the home value and pays off in years, so really it should be a no brainer. Some countries offer special financing for the costs of energy efficient building, this would be a better option at addressing your concern than removing the requirement.
- kelnos 4y ago
  People may not have the up-front money, though. Think about it this way: we take on mortgages and car loans and other sorts of debt because we can't afford the full cost of something up front, and accept the tradeoff that, over time, we'll be spending more money than if we had that up-front money. Same thing applies here. Requiring solar on new homes will just make homes cost more, and will put home ownership out of reach in cases where people were already stretching. Either that, or it'll just increase the problem of people being in too much debt. If the government wants solar on all new homes, they should be paying for it. I believe in renewables, and in distributed power generation, but forcing people to spend another $20k or whatever to buy a new home is a heavy lift.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    I think the average cost is about $25k.
  - robocat 4y ago
    Supply/demand argument fallacy: because the price of a home is not driven by the costs of construction. Homes are nothing like normal goods. Property prices are driven by the amount people can afford to pay on their mortgage, with the free variables being land price and house size. Housing booms and crashes are only slightly linked to the cost of building a home.

orev 4y ago

Similar sentiments have been showing up in many venues lately. I suspect this is an oil company campaign aimed at damaging renewables. We saw a similar campaign about how “bad” wind turbine blades are for birds, and also that disposing the blades was such a “big” problem. Every energy source has consequences. We need to pick the ones that are less bad. Having a pile of waste in landfills seems infinitely better than roasting the whole planet to the point of it being unlivable by humans.

willnonya 4y ago
- kelnos 4y ago
  Until the nuclear waste disposal problem has been solved (actually solved, not "we know how to do it but haven't yet"), I don't think you can call nuclear "clean". Beyond that, there are still valid safety and security concerns that people like you seem to enjoy hand-waving away. I agree that there's a lot of irrational fear around nuclear, but claiming that nuclear is 100% safe is also irrational. I would much rather have nuclear instead of fossil fuel burning, but renewables are even better. The article even admits that solar panels can be recycled, just that most end up in landfills.
  - taxyz 4y ago
    Almost everything written is here is so wrong its hard to begin picking this apart. Nuclear is largely/completely safe in the developed/not-shitty-communist-Russia world. There have been 3 civilian/peace-time nuclear disasters: Chernobyl (USSR), Three Mile Island (USA), Fukushima (Japan). The death toll for Three Mile Island is 0, and for Fukushima its currently 1 (due to radiation) and even that death is being disputed in Japanese courts so it may be 0 as well. This is over decades in which large parts of the world are still running reactors developed in the 1960's and 1970's. More workers have died installing residential solar last year in the US than the total deaths from constructing/running/and dealing with nuclear meltdowns in the history of nuclear power in the US combined; and the number of deaths per 100,000 rooftops workers is rising by double digit percentages as rooftop solar becomes more popular. Current generation reactors produce significantly less waste and modern material science has come a long way in terms of long term storage. Which speaking of hand-waving, you seem to be hand waving away what to do about the toxic waste that results from both the manufacture and disposal of solar panels. The claim that they can be recycled but aren't is the same argument you are saying nuclear advocates make ("we know how to do it but haven't yet"). Lastly, I am not even sure how you go about justifying that renewables are far better when you consider the lifespan and power output from nuclear. This is the problem that renewable zealots cause in terms of solving long term energy needs. Renewables fall short in terms of being able to produce and transmit energy on demand, the manufacture, shipping, and disposal of a lot of renewables ends up with a higher carbon footprint per W of energy produced over their lifetime, and we are passing the cost of operating utilities directly to the consumer. Anyone who claims renewables are "ever better" than nuclear is not concerned above the environment, they just want to display their religious convictions about "green energy" - if you want to signal to your friends how dedicated you are forget the solar panels and just make sure to wear an AOC pin everywhere you go.

willnonya 4y ago

A glimpse of the future.

timbit42 4y ago
Landfills full of solar panels is better than the air full of CO2.

RJSquirel 4y ago

Thx for posting the 12ft.io link to the content,

m463 4y ago

uncertain what 12ft.io is - it redirects to latimes: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california... That said, I have friends with old panels, and they are happily generating electricity and reducing PG&E bills. So although there might be a problem with older panels, I expect there are also problems with old power plant generators, aged oil tankeer and gas station equipment ending up in landfills too.

timbit42 4y ago
12ft.io is intended to bypass media website paywalls.

kornhole 4y ago

Why don't we construct panels that can be repurposed as building panels to build homes after they don't produce electricity?

dang 4y ago

Url changed from https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fstory%2F2022-07-14%2Fcalifornia-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbusi..., which points to this.

timbit42 4y ago
12ft.io is used to bypass the paywall for people who don't have a subscription.
- pvg 4y ago
  Use the original URL like the guidelines ask. You can post convenience links in thread, like many people do.
  - timbit42 4y ago
    I didn't post it.

hbogert 4y ago

25y life expectancy is a lie. I've seen it with my own panels which were installed by the former owner. Nobody checks if these things are still working correctly. In my case after just 4y every panel was subpar And 2 of 12 were simply so bad that the bypasses kicked in. In turn that caused the input voltage to be too low when it was hot and the internal resistance went up, which results in a shutdown inverter. Really, how often does this happen without people realizing? I've checked with a neighbour, he never looked at it, guess what, same deal!?