Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 290 posts

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#171

Post by hardolaf »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #162
hardolaf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This number is based on existing mines (active and inactive) only. There's a lot more fissile material available than just the 40 Gg of usable fissile material. And that's assuming we only use U-235 and Pu-239. We also have viable LWR designs for Th-232 and are in the process of creating the first 5 Th-232 SMR test reactors at grid-scale right now.

> This number is based on existing mines (active and inactive) only. There's a lot more fissile material available than just the 40 Gg of usable fissile material. And that's assuming we only use U-235 and Pu-239. That's all known and inferred accessible reserves. Not current mines. There are about 8-10 million tonnes of natural Uranium which has 0.5% extractable U235 (a bit more if you're willing to pay 10x as much f…

> Why not keep doing the thing that's provably working.

So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants and a single nuclear plant produces thousands of hectares worth of solar panels with a tiny fraction of the resource usage. We have viable and in-use grid-scale U-235, Pu-239, and Th-232 reactors. We also have viable and in-use military operated U-233 breeder reactors in multiple nations that are in active production. Converting from a military design to a grid-scale design isn't really that hard as you loosen a ton of the space and thermal management requirements making manufacturing, operation, and maintenance cheaper.

> So a technology that hasn't made it to the test bench

The technology is fully proven in test reactors. The first 5 grid-scale reactors being built in the USA are part of a US Department of Energy program looking to create shovel-ready Th-232 SMR designs. There isn't a shortage of any of the isotopes we'd need for nuclear. Even if we used only U-235 and Pu-239 reactors using existing reserves to replace all current and projected global energy needs, we'd have 79 years to find more fuel or build something else. Meanwhile, with solar and wind, we still haven't figure out how to cheaply and safely store the energy to smooth the power supply curve. We could buy ourselves over 79 years to figure this out by building nuclear with only existing grid-scale technologies starting today.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#172

Post by TaylorAlexander »

bamboozled wrote: post #159

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 she…

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-t...

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#173

Post by Qwertious »

reilly3000 wrote: post #84
googlryas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, at this point in our hyperpartisan world, I expect monsterous FUD about pretty much anything. There was just a small scale war in my city about a proposal to slightly modify the way our library is funded. If that gets people riled up, then one can only imagine what multi trillion dollar industries can stir up.

Public Relations won. Advertising won. Weaponized Infighting is winning. Say the first thing that comes to mind when you think “Coca Cola.” Say it out loud, don’t edit. If you said something about nostalgia or polar bears you would be like most humans around the globe for the past 50+ years. I submit that as my evidence that PR and Advertising are remarkably potent. If you really said something to the effect of “depr…

>Say the first thing that comes to mind when you think “Coca Cola.” Say it out loud, don’t edit.

Shit company. Or maybe "red metallic can", which is the first thing I pictured when I read "coca cola". TBH I didn't think of anything in particular when I read "coca cola", I didn't have a particular reaction.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#174

Post by nl »

Scoundreller wrote: post #91
KyeRussell wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the failure mode? Degradation is one thing, but are the interconnects between the embedded cells failing so they're outputting 0V? Or over-integration and the micro-inverter fails? Or?

I'm in South Australia and I don't know anyone with significant panel failures. It's not uncommon for the inverter to fail at some point.

I realize we aren't up to 25 years yet, but I know a bunch of people with solart systems over 10 years old now and they are mostly fine.

I do know some people who replaced perfectly good panels because they could get higher efficiency panels than they could 10 years ago at a cost where it made sense.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#175

Post by Qwertious »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #62
ajuc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 driv…

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…

The problem with electric cars is that they're still cars. Cars are inherently way less efficient than trains, or even buses. In practice, trains take less than 1/7th the power that cars do to transport passengers - and that's before we get into the land-subsidies (parking, giant roads) that cars need in order to be financially competitive.

But even when cars are necessary, they tend to be massively overengineered - does every car need to be 1) a five-seater, 2) 500KM range (300mile range), and 3) capable of driving at 110KM/hr (70miles/hr)?

Every one of those requirements basically doubles the cost and halves the efficiency.

>First came the long tail pipe argument, I think even the most ardent of naysayers have realised that that one is bullshit.

I wish. Obviously it is bullshit, but it's a goddamn zombie argument that just won't die.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#176

Post by qiqitori »

hardolaf wrote: post #137
hwillis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar modules contain lead for soldering Not all of them, and lead is also non-essential. Most solder in other contexts is already lead-free. It's also pretty minor compared to the other sources of lead in our lives already. > some contain cadmium telluride (CdTe) only "thin film" cells, which are virtually obsolete- they're the flexible kind that you get in "cell charging" backpacks and stuff. Price decreases in s…

Lead solder is still preferred by many governments as its use is far safer for workers compared to lead-free solders. It's a constant fight between the manufacturing nations trying to protect their workers whereas the EU wants ROHS to make end-of-life recycling easier.

Why is lead-free solder less safe for workers?

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#177

Post by stephen_g »

cjlars wrote: post #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-...

In Australia we generate 12 million metric tons of coal fly ash per year. It's our largest single waste stream, literally almost 1/5 of all waste generated in the country [1]. I'm sure in the US at least that amount is generated from coal. So 10 million tonnes of cumulative waste from solar panels is not huge in comparison (and this is before even considering the CO₂, NOx, SOx, etc. emissions from that coal)...

1. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-10/coal-ash-has-become-o...

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#178

Post by landemva »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #41
akira2501 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#179

Post by landemva »

reilly3000 wrote: post #84
googlryas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, at this point in our hyperpartisan world, I expect monsterous FUD about pretty much anything. There was just a small scale war in my city about a proposal to slightly modify the way our library is funded. If that gets people riled up, then one can only imagine what multi trillion dollar industries can stir up.

Public Relations won. Advertising won. Weaponized Infighting is winning. Say the first thing that comes to mind when you think “Coca Cola.” Say it out loud, don’t edit. If you said something about nostalgia or polar bears you would be like most humans around the globe for the past 50+ years. I submit that as my evidence that PR and Advertising are remarkably potent. If you really said something to the effect of “depr…

> the first thing that comes to mind when you think “Coca Cola.”

High fructose corn syrup.

I believe I am a better person since removing the TV a couple decades ago. I do not miss the advertising nor news-washing.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#180

Post by pfdietz »

hardolaf wrote: post #171
Schroedingersat wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This number is based on existing mines (active and inactive) only. There's a lot more fissile material available than just the 40 Gg of usable fissile material. And that's assuming we only use U-235 and Pu-239. That's all known and inferred accessible reserves. Not current mines. There are about 8-10 million tonnes of natural Uranium which has 0.5% extractable U235 (a bit more if you're willing to pay 10x as much f…

> Why not keep doing the thing that's provably working. So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants and a single nuclear plant produces thousands of hectares worth of solar panels with a tiny fraction of the resource usage. We have viable and in-use grid-scale U-235, Pu-239, and Th-232 reactors. We also have viable and in-use military operated U-233 breeder reactors in multiple natio…

Natural gas plants take as little as 28-30 months.

https://www.powermag.com/controlling-schedule-quality-and-co...

Post reply on HN