21 ms·

Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

153 points by JSeymourATL 4y ago

roughly 4y ago
Interesting - assuming the panels last twice as long also drops the per-watt price pretty dramatically, which changes the economics on solar panels pretty favorably.
- Freestyler_3 4y ago
  Panels come with 20/25 year warranty that after that period they have declined a maximum of 20% in performance.
- hardolaf 4y ago
  It doesn't change the per-watt price at all and it might even increase the per-watt price as the average efficiency will likely decrease over its lifespan. It does drop the per-joule price though as it will produce more energy due to having a longer lifespan.
jeffbee 4y ago
"Experts once warned millions of tons of waste from solar panels was on the horizon" Eh, no expert ever warned that. It was always an overblown issue, taken up by bored members of the press with deadlines to meet and column-inches to fill with words, shadow-funded by oil interest astroturf campaigns.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Manufactured goods require resources and produce waste, film at 11.
- nautilius 4y ago
  Do you have some resources about recycling of panels? I understand the point of the article is it's no longer the pressing issue it was once considered (by some), but I am curious if it's now just a delayed problem, or if recycling is a solved problem? Thanks!
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/ https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/16/australian-research-finds-cost-effective-way-to-recycle-solar-panels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/16/australi... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032122007821 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640... https://blog.veolianorthamerica.com/how-to-recycle-solar-panels-lithium-batteries-and-electronics https://blog.veolianorthamerica.com/how-to-recycle-solar-pan... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling-idUSKBN1JL28Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling-idUSKBN1J...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Industrial scale recycling is both extant and has been mandatory in many countries for close to a decade http://www.solarwaste.eu/ http://www.solarwaste.eu/
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    I don't, and I don't care. I do know that if you took every single solar panel in California (~40GW worth) and just stacked them up 10 meters high, they would only occupy 250 acres. It's a non-problem.
- mcv 4y ago
  They probably meant: "Oil companies once warned..."
PaulHoule 4y ago
It’s a story similar to nuclear power, where people found it wasn’t that hard to extend the life of nuclear reactors a lot longer than originally planned.
- api 4y ago
  One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    On HN I find it precisely the opposite - if you point out flaws with solar, electric cars, wind, self driving cars, etc. you take a lot of downvotes
    - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
      Sounds exactly the same as what parent is warning about to me
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Only when the “flaws” are in the form of “lol what do you think your electric car is charged with?! (mic drop)”.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      It may also be because those flaws are trite comments with clear answers that just get repeated in a meme-like fashion. I cannot tell you how many people I say that are worried about ranging anxiety, for example, but go on maybe one long trip per year.
    - ajuc 4y ago
      One of the reasons is that a lot of these downsides are overplayed, based on long-obsolete data or false altogether. For some examples: - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) - rare earth minerals are limited which means we can't have everybody drive electric cars (rare earth minerals aren't THAT rare, for example lithium is more common than lead on Earth, the current availability is a function of past investment which is based on past demand - when demand grows quickly the infrastructure lags and you get temporary price hikes, also there are alternatives) - batteries/solar cells can't be recycled (they can, there's just not enough demand right now because we're at the exponential growth phase so the used batteries/solar panels are very small percentage of the currently-in-use batteries/solar panels) - you cannot have 100% renewable power grid because unpredictable production (you can, some countries do - for example Costarica and many countries are very close - for example Portugal and Norway - but it creates different problems than the traditional powerplants - but there are ways to solve this which are getting ever more economically viable - citing data from 10 years ago is about as sensible as citing CPU transitor counts from 1990s when talking about designing a new graphic card)
cjlars 4y ago
>The report projected that the United States would have a cumulative total of 7.5 to 10 million metric tons of solar panel waste in 2050. This compares to 292 million tons of total landfill waste in 2018 alone [1], putting solar panel waste on the order of 0.1% of total waste produced in the US between now and 2050. [1] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
- morsch 4y ago
  Note that this figure is from the 2016 EPA report which the article claims (based on a new paper) may be overblown.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    And to give some further context to the over-inflated 10M tons of solar panel waste stat (over 30 years), our carbon emissions from fossil fuels are about 570M tons per year into the atmosphere. That doesn't count all the equipment used for extraction of fossil fuels, all the massive amounts of toxic waste water that comes with fossil fuel extraction, all the ash from coal, etc. Which is to say, all the concern, even on inflated numbers, was FUD and a distraction from real problems.
    - weaksauce 4y ago
      > was FUD and a distraction from real problems. or actual malice from the bad actors paid for by the fossil fuel companies to spread distrust in the transition to a more sustainable clean energy system.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  I normally appreciate links to studies with numbers in the comments, but as the others have pointed out: This article is referring to that study.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
fbdab103 4y ago
>If solar panels can last 40 to 50 years, which is roughly double what used to be the rule of thumb for their life span Presumably, these panels face ever diminishing efficiencies. What is the threshold where it makes sense to replace a working, but low efficiency panel with a new one? That is, if a field of ancient generation-1 panels is operating at 5% efficiency, is it worth the expense to tear them out and replace them with generation N?
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  Usually, the warranty will guarantee a 90% power output for the first 10 years and a 80% power output for the entire 25 years. In fact, some panels can even remain over 80% efficient past the end of their lives. https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/how_long_do_solar_panels_last/ https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/how_long_do_solar_panels_last/
  - jansan 4y ago
    > some panels can even remain over 80% efficient past the end of their lives. Then it shouln't be the end of their lives, should it?
- 1123581321 4y ago
  That’s a good question. Setting aside climate change and fossil fuel issues, the general answer is something like when the present value of a new installation, minus installation cost, is greater than the present value of the existing installation. Estimation can’t be precise but after 20 or 25 years, the homeowner will have some idea of the remaining efficiency they’re dealing with. They might know the reliability of their inverters, too. The replacement installation should be cheaper since initial permitting and electrical hookup is in place, and the roof mount might be reusable. Tax incentives to modernize old solar installations will factor significantly. Put another way: how high did your electric bill have to be to justify installing panels in the first place?
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    I was thinking of industrial installations, but similar issue with residential. I assume that not many roofs are good after 20-30 years, so by the time the solar panel warranty starts to expire, it is time to get a new roof. Might as well upgrade panels at the same time.
ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
It's mostly silicon, how bad could the waste be?
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Cyanide is just carbon and nitrogen. How could it be possibly toxic?
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Can't just melt it into a blob like you can with glass
  - hwillis 4y ago
    Elements and chemicals are very different things. Silicon is the #2 most common element on earth and if you smash a bunch of solar panels, they turn into sand when they get wet. Or if you just wait. Even pure silicon metal is totally benign, even in large amounts. Certainly safer than iron, which can kill you in relatively small amounts if it's in a bioavailable form. Silicon is already literally everywhere, in every form it will reasonably be transformed into. Even the boron and phosphorus that make up a tiny percent of cells are extremely benign. The biggest issues are the tin fingers and solder, and probably the lead that is often present. But lead is also far from necessary. And unfortunately, the human race is going to be dealing with lead dust for a while already, just from how it used to be in gasoline.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      So the asbestos lobby was right and there's nothing dangerous about snorting it. It's after all just a funny shaped silicate that's totally benign.
  - ABCLAW 4y ago
    1) This is the technical answer: Cyanide binds fairly strongly to one of the molecular machines involved in cellular respiration, inactivating it. The result of that inactivation is that your cell begins to have issues producing ATP, even when it has nutrients available. Without going too far into detail, ATP is essentially the cellular unit of energy that your cells run on. Without being able to make more, your cell will eventually run out of ATP and it will die. Enough cells die? You'll die. 2) The more important point here is that not only is your intuition uninformed, but you appear to be incredulous as well. Ask yourself why you react to unintuitive results in areas you're not familiar with in the way that you do.
howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
Recycling solar panels is tough because glass fines are created, often inseparable from items that adhere to them. Those fines don't currently have secondary demand and they're a health and possibly environmental hazard. The CAPEX for recycling panels is high because size reduction and separation requires expensive (and expensive to maintain) equipment. I expect companies like American Battery Recycling, et. al., to tackle this waste stream on as a natural adjunct to their battery recycling operations/systems. I'm not as optimistic that the waste won't be as bad as once thought because I envision the price of new panels to continue to fall, while efficiency increases. Could be a secondary market emerges for the old panels, but I'm skeptical.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I've seen at least half a dozen cases where off-grid people tried to buy a container load of used solar panels which, for one reason or another, in the end never appeared. I believe the demand for used solar panels is higher than the supply.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Al, Si and trace amounts of silver have no health or environmental hazard, and the silver is the valuable bit. Please stop gas lighting based on obsolete technology that was only briefly popular in one country.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Inhaling solid $anything dust is a health and environment hazard. Si dust probably isn't asbestos bad, but wouldn't want to breathe it in either.
    - recycledmatt 4y ago
      These will go into auto shredders (for the most part) which have dust management plants
    - pfdietz 4y ago
seltzered_ 4y ago
For conversational context, linking this recent article on solar waste touching more on the current state and concerns from the reverse logistics industry: 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...
nostromo 4y ago
Aren’t they mostly silicon and recyclable metals? If so, who cares about the waste? It depends on what’s in the waste that matters, not its raw volume. The materials used in solar panels are both highly recyclable and environmentally benign, a great combination.
- akira2501 4y ago
  It's the Gallium Arsenide, from my understanding. There are processes to recover the Gallium, but it produces a waste that's very high in Arsenic.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The only GaAs involved in solar is an optional amount in the power circuitry. CdTe was briefly a thing for abiut 30% of the market, but peoplewill want the Telerium soon enough. Modern panels are sand and about 50g/kW net of silver. Recycling is mandatory.
    - landemva 4y ago
      I don't think solar cell recycling is mandatory, at least west of Mississippi. Going to need a reclamation fee added on to purchase price to get these disposed of in a different manner than the old tire dumps.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The Te, Ag, and Cu is plenty valuable (especially old high end panels with 50-100g of silver), and developed nations which already have recycling fees that build recycling supply chains and so reduce costs of processing will pay for them. There have already been trials for industrial scale reprocessing of the Si into new panels -- which should give old monocrystalline panels similar value after reprocessing to new due to material reductions offsetting the labour. It looks like there is some motion towards responsibility though https://www.solarrecycle.org/copy-of-vendors https://www.solarrecycle.org/copy-of-vendors And even paid decomissioning if they have some limited life left https://fabtech.net/ https://fabtech.net/ Plus even if you don't tear it apart it's still a piece of hail resistant glass that could have various uses. Frost the top and you have a table. Find use for 20 such items in your lifetime and none will make it to landfill.
kragen 4y ago
i explained this in a comment thread here 3 months ago > your concern is like a kid worrying that if his parents buy him a lollipop they won't be able to afford this month's rent…not completely disconnected from reality but it's way out of proportion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201803 i touched on the points of longevity, total scale, recyclability, toxicity, and land use, and i calculated that the solar panels needed to power the entire world's total energy use would fit into a single reservoir in andhra pradesh i've been talking about this for years too bad fast company reporters don't read hn threads, dan gearino could have avoided embarrassing himself in his february article for inside climate news commenting here is a fucking waste of time, and so is reading fast company or inside climate news
recycledmatt 4y ago
If you’re trying to recycle 100%, this is an expensive and hard to handle stream. If you’re cool pulling the aluminum and Alternative Daily Cover / landfill the rest, it’s not that bad and the infrastructure can handle it / exists.
sircastor 4y ago
The old saying “The great is the enemy of the good” applies. I had a coworker once who seemed to be one-step short of saying that we should all just lay down and die so we would stop affecting the environment. Even as I think about that, I realize that human bodies contain some toxic materials, and “laying down and dying” would still be troublesome. There are no zero-cost solutions. “Chasing the 9s” of no-impact is a fools errand. Do what you can. Correct where you can.
bamboozled 4y ago
On a side note, why aren't governments providing rebates so people start putting solar panels everywhere? Like, by now, considering we're facing major environmental catastrophe without seriously drastic action, wouldn't it just be wise to put panels almost everywhere there is at least sunshine for a decent part of the year. Like what are we doing? ha I'm trying to buy a block of land next door with a decent sized shed on it for this very reason. So we can cover the roof of the shed with panels. I'll be doing this out of my own pocket, and yes I'll get cheaper energy bills, but still, bit of a not to be doing it. ?
- nerdponx 4y ago
  US federal and state governments did and do subsidize solar.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  The federal government currently provides a 30% tax rebate for solar installations. You should also check if your state offers any rebates. You stand to save a lot of money! https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/homeowners-guide-federal-tax-credit-solar-photovoltaics https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/homeowners-guide-federal-t...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > On a side note, why aren't governments providing rebates so people start putting solar panels everywhere? In most places they did. They worked. Now it's time to wind them down either legislate renters' rights to their roof space or start subsidizing other things like low environmental impact batteries or tidal.
- deamanto 4y ago
  [Citation Needed] I vaguely recall they did this in Australia and solar panel installers just increased the price by the government rebate anyway so it didn't actually make it cheaper.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
    >solar panel installers Not only is a citation needed, but also common sense. Surely the theory of capitalism suggests even if one installer didn't collude, the other would be forced to conceed or lose marketshare.
AstralStorm 4y ago
The waste was always a distraction, to the real problem of batteries. There's a lot to be done to get enough battery manufacturing and recycling. (In particular, sodium-sulfur has to catch on.)

153 points by JSeymourATL 4y ago

Interesting - assuming the panels last twice as long also drops the per-watt price pretty dramatically, which changes the economics on solar panels pretty favorably.

Freestyler_3 4y ago
Panels come with 20/25 year warranty that after that period they have declined a maximum of 20% in performance.
hardolaf 4y ago
It doesn't change the per-watt price at all and it might even increase the per-watt price as the average efficiency will likely decrease over its lifespan. It does drop the per-joule price though as it will produce more energy due to having a longer lifespan.

jeffbee 4y ago

"Experts once warned millions of tons of waste from solar panels was on the horizon" Eh, no expert ever warned that. It was always an overblown issue, taken up by bored members of the press with deadlines to meet and column-inches to fill with words, shadow-funded by oil interest astroturf campaigns.

standardUser 4y ago
Manufactured goods require resources and produce waste, film at 11.
nautilius 4y ago
Do you have some resources about recycling of panels? I understand the point of the article is it's no longer the pressing issue it was once considered (by some), but I am curious if it's now just a delayed problem, or if recycling is a solved problem? Thanks!
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/ https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/16/australian-research-finds-cost-effective-way-to-recycle-solar-panels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/16/australi... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032122007821 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640... https://blog.veolianorthamerica.com/how-to-recycle-solar-panels-lithium-batteries-and-electronics https://blog.veolianorthamerica.com/how-to-recycle-solar-pan... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling-idUSKBN1JL28Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling-idUSKBN1J...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Industrial scale recycling is both extant and has been mandatory in many countries for close to a decade http://www.solarwaste.eu/ http://www.solarwaste.eu/
- jeffbee 4y ago
  I don't, and I don't care. I do know that if you took every single solar panel in California (~40GW worth) and just stacked them up 10 meters high, they would only occupy 250 acres. It's a non-problem.
mcv 4y ago
They probably meant: "Oil companies once warned..."

PaulHoule 4y ago

It’s a story similar to nuclear power, where people found it wasn’t that hard to extend the life of nuclear reactors a lot longer than originally planned.

api 4y ago
One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  On HN I find it precisely the opposite - if you point out flaws with solar, electric cars, wind, self driving cars, etc. you take a lot of downvotes
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Sounds exactly the same as what parent is warning about to me
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Only when the “flaws” are in the form of “lol what do you think your electric car is charged with?! (mic drop)”.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    It may also be because those flaws are trite comments with clear answers that just get repeated in a meme-like fashion. I cannot tell you how many people I say that are worried about ranging anxiety, for example, but go on maybe one long trip per year.
  - ajuc 4y ago
    One of the reasons is that a lot of these downsides are overplayed, based on long-obsolete data or false altogether. For some examples: - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) - rare earth minerals are limited which means we can't have everybody drive electric cars (rare earth minerals aren't THAT rare, for example lithium is more common than lead on Earth, the current availability is a function of past investment which is based on past demand - when demand grows quickly the infrastructure lags and you get temporary price hikes, also there are alternatives) - batteries/solar cells can't be recycled (they can, there's just not enough demand right now because we're at the exponential growth phase so the used batteries/solar panels are very small percentage of the currently-in-use batteries/solar panels) - you cannot have 100% renewable power grid because unpredictable production (you can, some countries do - for example Costarica and many countries are very close - for example Portugal and Norway - but it creates different problems than the traditional powerplants - but there are ways to solve this which are getting ever more economically viable - citing data from 10 years ago is about as sensible as citing CPU transitor counts from 1990s when talking about designing a new graphic card)

cjlars 4y ago

>The report projected that the United States would have a cumulative total of 7.5 to 10 million metric tons of solar panel waste in 2050. This compares to 292 million tons of total landfill waste in 2018 alone [1], putting solar panel waste on the order of 0.1% of total waste produced in the US between now and 2050. [1] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...

morsch 4y ago
Note that this figure is from the 2016 EPA report which the article claims (based on a new paper) may be overblown.
- epistasis 4y ago
  And to give some further context to the over-inflated 10M tons of solar panel waste stat (over 30 years), our carbon emissions from fossil fuels are about 570M tons per year into the atmosphere. That doesn't count all the equipment used for extraction of fossil fuels, all the massive amounts of toxic waste water that comes with fossil fuel extraction, all the ash from coal, etc. Which is to say, all the concern, even on inflated numbers, was FUD and a distraction from real problems.
  - weaksauce 4y ago
    > was FUD and a distraction from real problems. or actual malice from the bad actors paid for by the fossil fuel companies to spread distrust in the transition to a more sustainable clean energy system.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
I normally appreciate links to studies with numbers in the comments, but as the others have pointed out: This article is referring to that study.
therealdrag0 4y ago

fbdab103 4y ago

>If solar panels can last 40 to 50 years, which is roughly double what used to be the rule of thumb for their life span Presumably, these panels face ever diminishing efficiencies. What is the threshold where it makes sense to replace a working, but low efficiency panel with a new one? That is, if a field of ancient generation-1 panels is operating at 5% efficiency, is it worth the expense to tear them out and replace them with generation N?

heavenlyblue 4y ago
Usually, the warranty will guarantee a 90% power output for the first 10 years and a 80% power output for the entire 25 years. In fact, some panels can even remain over 80% efficient past the end of their lives. https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/how_long_do_solar_panels_last/ https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/how_long_do_solar_panels_last/
- jansan 4y ago
  > some panels can even remain over 80% efficient past the end of their lives. Then it shouln't be the end of their lives, should it?
1123581321 4y ago
That’s a good question. Setting aside climate change and fossil fuel issues, the general answer is something like when the present value of a new installation, minus installation cost, is greater than the present value of the existing installation. Estimation can’t be precise but after 20 or 25 years, the homeowner will have some idea of the remaining efficiency they’re dealing with. They might know the reliability of their inverters, too. The replacement installation should be cheaper since initial permitting and electrical hookup is in place, and the roof mount might be reusable. Tax incentives to modernize old solar installations will factor significantly. Put another way: how high did your electric bill have to be to justify installing panels in the first place?
- fbdab103 4y ago
  I was thinking of industrial installations, but similar issue with residential. I assume that not many roofs are good after 20-30 years, so by the time the solar panel warranty starts to expire, it is time to get a new roof. Might as well upgrade panels at the same time.

ThrowawayTestr 4y ago

It's mostly silicon, how bad could the waste be?

thrown_22 4y ago
Cyanide is just carbon and nitrogen. How could it be possibly toxic?
- ilyt 4y ago
  Can't just melt it into a blob like you can with glass
- hwillis 4y ago
  Elements and chemicals are very different things. Silicon is the #2 most common element on earth and if you smash a bunch of solar panels, they turn into sand when they get wet. Or if you just wait. Even pure silicon metal is totally benign, even in large amounts. Certainly safer than iron, which can kill you in relatively small amounts if it's in a bioavailable form. Silicon is already literally everywhere, in every form it will reasonably be transformed into. Even the boron and phosphorus that make up a tiny percent of cells are extremely benign. The biggest issues are the tin fingers and solder, and probably the lead that is often present. But lead is also far from necessary. And unfortunately, the human race is going to be dealing with lead dust for a while already, just from how it used to be in gasoline.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    So the asbestos lobby was right and there's nothing dangerous about snorting it. It's after all just a funny shaped silicate that's totally benign.
- ABCLAW 4y ago
  1) This is the technical answer: Cyanide binds fairly strongly to one of the molecular machines involved in cellular respiration, inactivating it. The result of that inactivation is that your cell begins to have issues producing ATP, even when it has nutrients available. Without going too far into detail, ATP is essentially the cellular unit of energy that your cells run on. Without being able to make more, your cell will eventually run out of ATP and it will die. Enough cells die? You'll die. 2) The more important point here is that not only is your intuition uninformed, but you appear to be incredulous as well. Ask yourself why you react to unintuitive results in areas you're not familiar with in the way that you do.

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago

Recycling solar panels is tough because glass fines are created, often inseparable from items that adhere to them. Those fines don't currently have secondary demand and they're a health and possibly environmental hazard. The CAPEX for recycling panels is high because size reduction and separation requires expensive (and expensive to maintain) equipment. I expect companies like American Battery Recycling, et. al., to tackle this waste stream on as a natural adjunct to their battery recycling operations/systems. I'm not as optimistic that the waste won't be as bad as once thought because I envision the price of new panels to continue to fall, while efficiency increases. Could be a secondary market emerges for the old panels, but I'm skeptical.

VBprogrammer 4y ago
I've seen at least half a dozen cases where off-grid people tried to buy a container load of used solar panels which, for one reason or another, in the end never appeared. I believe the demand for used solar panels is higher than the supply.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Al, Si and trace amounts of silver have no health or environmental hazard, and the silver is the valuable bit. Please stop gas lighting based on obsolete technology that was only briefly popular in one country.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Inhaling solid $anything dust is a health and environment hazard. Si dust probably isn't asbestos bad, but wouldn't want to breathe it in either.
  - recycledmatt 4y ago
    These will go into auto shredders (for the most part) which have dust management plants
  - pfdietz 4y ago

seltzered_ 4y ago

For conversational context, linking this recent article on solar waste touching more on the current state and concerns from the reverse logistics industry: 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...

nostromo 4y ago

Aren’t they mostly silicon and recyclable metals? If so, who cares about the waste? It depends on what’s in the waste that matters, not its raw volume. The materials used in solar panels are both highly recyclable and environmentally benign, a great combination.

akira2501 4y ago
It's the Gallium Arsenide, from my understanding. There are processes to recover the Gallium, but it produces a waste that's very high in Arsenic.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The only GaAs involved in solar is an optional amount in the power circuitry. CdTe was briefly a thing for abiut 30% of the market, but peoplewill want the Telerium soon enough. Modern panels are sand and about 50g/kW net of silver. Recycling is mandatory.
  - landemva 4y ago
    I don't think solar cell recycling is mandatory, at least west of Mississippi. Going to need a reclamation fee added on to purchase price to get these disposed of in a different manner than the old tire dumps.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The Te, Ag, and Cu is plenty valuable (especially old high end panels with 50-100g of silver), and developed nations which already have recycling fees that build recycling supply chains and so reduce costs of processing will pay for them. There have already been trials for industrial scale reprocessing of the Si into new panels -- which should give old monocrystalline panels similar value after reprocessing to new due to material reductions offsetting the labour. It looks like there is some motion towards responsibility though https://www.solarrecycle.org/copy-of-vendors https://www.solarrecycle.org/copy-of-vendors And even paid decomissioning if they have some limited life left https://fabtech.net/ https://fabtech.net/ Plus even if you don't tear it apart it's still a piece of hail resistant glass that could have various uses. Frost the top and you have a table. Find use for 20 such items in your lifetime and none will make it to landfill.

kragen 4y ago

i explained this in a comment thread here 3 months ago > your concern is like a kid worrying that if his parents buy him a lollipop they won't be able to afford this month's rent…not completely disconnected from reality but it's way out of proportion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201803 i touched on the points of longevity, total scale, recyclability, toxicity, and land use, and i calculated that the solar panels needed to power the entire world's total energy use would fit into a single reservoir in andhra pradesh i've been talking about this for years too bad fast company reporters don't read hn threads, dan gearino could have avoided embarrassing himself in his february article for inside climate news commenting here is a fucking waste of time, and so is reading fast company or inside climate news

recycledmatt 4y ago

If you’re trying to recycle 100%, this is an expensive and hard to handle stream. If you’re cool pulling the aluminum and Alternative Daily Cover / landfill the rest, it’s not that bad and the infrastructure can handle it / exists.

sircastor 4y ago

The old saying “The great is the enemy of the good” applies. I had a coworker once who seemed to be one-step short of saying that we should all just lay down and die so we would stop affecting the environment. Even as I think about that, I realize that human bodies contain some toxic materials, and “laying down and dying” would still be troublesome. There are no zero-cost solutions. “Chasing the 9s” of no-impact is a fools errand. Do what you can. Correct where you can.

bamboozled 4y ago

On a side note, why aren't governments providing rebates so people start putting solar panels everywhere? Like, by now, considering we're facing major environmental catastrophe without seriously drastic action, wouldn't it just be wise to put panels almost everywhere there is at least sunshine for a decent part of the year. Like what are we doing? ha I'm trying to buy a block of land next door with a decent sized shed on it for this very reason. So we can cover the roof of the shed with panels. I'll be doing this out of my own pocket, and yes I'll get cheaper energy bills, but still, bit of a not to be doing it. ?

nerdponx 4y ago
US federal and state governments did and do subsidize solar.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
The federal government currently provides a 30% tax rebate for solar installations. You should also check if your state offers any rebates. You stand to save a lot of money! https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/homeowners-guide-federal-tax-credit-solar-photovoltaics https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/homeowners-guide-federal-t...
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> On a side note, why aren't governments providing rebates so people start putting solar panels everywhere? In most places they did. They worked. Now it's time to wind them down either legislate renters' rights to their roof space or start subsidizing other things like low environmental impact batteries or tidal.
deamanto 4y ago
[Citation Needed] I vaguely recall they did this in Australia and solar panel installers just increased the price by the government rebate anyway so it didn't actually make it cheaper.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
  >solar panel installers Not only is a citation needed, but also common sense. Surely the theory of capitalism suggests even if one installer didn't collude, the other would be forced to conceed or lose marketshare.

AstralStorm 4y ago

The waste was always a distraction, to the real problem of batteries. There's a lot to be done to get enough battery manufacturing and recycling. (In particular, sodium-sulfur has to catch on.)