Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
fastcompany.com
Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
1–10 of 290 posts
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#2"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.
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#3It’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.
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#4It’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.
One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#5>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-...
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#6>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?
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#7It’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.
One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.
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
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#8>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 replac…
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.
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#9"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.
Manufactured goods require resources and produce waste, film at 11.
Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.
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
Sounds exactly the same as what parent is warning about to me