Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

Post by Scoundreller » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

KyeRussell wrote: post #73

colordrops wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also last at least 25 years. There's no way that the waste from the panels is worse than 25 years of CO2 emissions.

Popular solar markets like Australia are filled with junky panels because we ended up in a race to the bottom price-wise. I can say with certainty that the panels bought by the average consumer aren’t lasting 25 years. In Western Australia we have the cheapest solar in the world. Just don’t ask how long your system will last for.

Post by Scoundreller » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #47

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #19

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…

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.

Post by mqus » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 9:47 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #67

VBprogrammer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems with electric cars there is always another compaint. First came the long tail pipe argument, I think even the most ardent of naysayers have realised that that one is bullshit. Then the batteries were going to be scattered about the countryside. Except most of them are still in cars, the demand for batteries from crashed damaged cars is high and the life even in early models appears to exceed expectations. Th…

Here in the UK (and I believe most of Europe), they’re planning to ban sales of new ICE cars in I believe 2030. As such, 100% uptake (or close enough, perhaps there will some exceptions for specialised use cases) is almost guaranteed.

Post by weaksauce » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #75

morsch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this figure is from the 2016 EPA report which the article claims (based on a new paper) may be overblown.

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…

Post by 8note » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 9:56 PM UTC

aftbit wrote: post #57

haberman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of the savings come from not wasting power while braking That doesn't check out for me. ICE engines are inefficient because much of the energy from the fuel is converted into heat rather than kinetic energy. Every ICE engine has a radiator whose sole purpose is to vent off waste heat from the engine. ICE engines don't even need a distinct heating element to keep the cabin warm, the waste heat from the engine i…

Look up the Carnot cycle and its efficiency. This is theorized to be the best possible efficiency for a heat engine. All heat engines work by rejecting a large fraction of their input heat to an output heat sink. I've heard efficiencies in the 30-50% range for big coal and nuclear plants, much lower for smaller plants.