4 ms·

Is that really cheaper though taking into account that the cheap ones (and perhaps the expensive ones too) have a lifetime of about 50 years and cannot be recyc

Is that really cheaper though taking into account that the cheap ones (and perhaps the expensive ones too) have a lifetime of about 50 years and cannot be recycled at all? That doesn't sound sustainable at all to me.

XorNot 3y ago
Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.
- krupan 3y ago
  Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents
  - defrost 3y ago
    Cheap in equatorial areas suitable for massive solar farms with expected daytime tempretures of 40-50 C, yes. Free, not exactly, but certainly affordable. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forrest-buys-up-three-cattle-stations-for-5gw-renewable-energy-hub/ https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forr... For scale reference those solar farms | cattle stations are to provide power to mining operations that ship almost a billion tonnes of iron ore per annum (and remove a factor of overburden) consuming major amounts of fossil fuel in the process. Work is also underway to upgrade trains that roll that billion tonnes to the coast down a 600m height differential to recoup energy. See: Infinity train. You appear to be carrying some beef about "solar power proponents" being unrealistic hippy socialists rather than multi billion dollar industrialists.
  - dgacmu 3y ago
    The amount of material in solar panels is tiny compared to our other landfill-destined refuse streams, and it needs to be compared to the analogous waste streams from other forms of energy generation. Nuclear creates long term storage needs. Coal creates tailings. Fracking pollutes groundwater. The US installed about 32 GW of solar in 2023. (1) A modern 395W bifacial solar module (2) weighs 25.7kg; about 65g per watt. That's about two million metric tons of solar panels to handle every year. In contrast, the US produces about 73 million metric tons of plastic waste per year. We landfill a total of about 131 million metric tons per year (3) -- and that's ignoring that things like coal tailings aren't accounted for in landfilling amounts. We produce and burn about 534 million metric tons of coal per year. The numbers are large but the relative cost of solar panels 50 years hence is likely extremely tolerable compared to the alternatives. (1) https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-exceed-30-gw-first-time-history https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-... (2) https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel-silver-up-to-470w-with-bifacial-gain-his-s395gi/ https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel... (3) 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-...
- discordance 3y ago
  Calling solar panels sintered sand is an over simplification. Aside from the amount of energy and water it takes to produce them, a lot of older panels have some pretty toxic materials that can leech out... lead, cadmium etc. We will need to process these appropriately at their end of life and not just landfill them.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  The material came from the ground, and the landfill puts them back in the ground. Sounds pretty circular and sustainable to me.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    That's my point: we really don't need to recycle solar panels. We could land fill them for the next 500 years and they'll be the least of our problems, even accounting for heavy metals. The quip about "cheap" was that recyclability has nothing to do with it (it would likely add cost, not remove any).
dgacmu 3y ago
They can be recycled; currently at a cost of about $18/panel, which isn't great (landfilling is cheaper), but there's reason to think that cost can drop some as they improve the process. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solarcycle-to-build-first-of-its-kind-solar-recycling-facility-in-georgia/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solarcycle-to-bui... The nice thing about them is that they're pretty simple compared to a lot of modern electronics. More hope about recycling them than piles of old computers.

XorNot 3y ago

Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.

krupan 3y ago
Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents
- defrost 3y ago
  Cheap in equatorial areas suitable for massive solar farms with expected daytime tempretures of 40-50 C, yes. Free, not exactly, but certainly affordable. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forrest-buys-up-three-cattle-stations-for-5gw-renewable-energy-hub/ https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forr... For scale reference those solar farms | cattle stations are to provide power to mining operations that ship almost a billion tonnes of iron ore per annum (and remove a factor of overburden) consuming major amounts of fossil fuel in the process. Work is also underway to upgrade trains that roll that billion tonnes to the coast down a 600m height differential to recoup energy. See: Infinity train. You appear to be carrying some beef about "solar power proponents" being unrealistic hippy socialists rather than multi billion dollar industrialists.
- dgacmu 3y ago
  The amount of material in solar panels is tiny compared to our other landfill-destined refuse streams, and it needs to be compared to the analogous waste streams from other forms of energy generation. Nuclear creates long term storage needs. Coal creates tailings. Fracking pollutes groundwater. The US installed about 32 GW of solar in 2023. (1) A modern 395W bifacial solar module (2) weighs 25.7kg; about 65g per watt. That's about two million metric tons of solar panels to handle every year. In contrast, the US produces about 73 million metric tons of plastic waste per year. We landfill a total of about 131 million metric tons per year (3) -- and that's ignoring that things like coal tailings aren't accounted for in landfilling amounts. We produce and burn about 534 million metric tons of coal per year. The numbers are large but the relative cost of solar panels 50 years hence is likely extremely tolerable compared to the alternatives. (1) https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-exceed-30-gw-first-time-history https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-... (2) https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel-silver-up-to-470w-with-bifacial-gain-his-s395gi/ https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel... (3) 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-...
discordance 3y ago
Calling solar panels sintered sand is an over simplification. Aside from the amount of energy and water it takes to produce them, a lot of older panels have some pretty toxic materials that can leech out... lead, cadmium etc. We will need to process these appropriately at their end of life and not just landfill them.
BurningFrog 3y ago
The material came from the ground, and the landfill puts them back in the ground. Sounds pretty circular and sustainable to me.
- XorNot 3y ago
  That's my point: we really don't need to recycle solar panels. We could land fill them for the next 500 years and they'll be the least of our problems, even accounting for heavy metals. The quip about "cheap" was that recyclability has nothing to do with it (it would likely add cost, not remove any).

dgacmu 3y ago

They can be recycled; currently at a cost of about $18/panel, which isn't great (landfilling is cheaper), but there's reason to think that cost can drop some as they improve the process. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solarcycle-to-build-first-of-its-kind-solar-recycling-facility-in-georgia/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solarcycle-to-bui... The nice thing about them is that they're pretty simple compared to a lot of modern electronics. More hope about recycling them than piles of old computers.