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

191–200 of 290 posts

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

#191

Post by landemva »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #188
landemva wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hawaii, near southern point, has a road with one side abandoned windmills. At least mines in USA have a reclamation plan and bond to pay for it. https://advertiser-tribune.com/news/191061/trip-to-hawaii-re...

Oh look. It's a lie. Article dated 2019 about something that had been decomissined for 7 years (and were not even abandoned to begin with but in the process of being replaced and then investigated for reopening). https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/03/31/turbines-come-dow... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-bxSO82qI

I drove there down a southern road in 2010 past a long row of rusting windmills. I have not been back since then, so I don't know the current condition. I saw many near the southern-most point.

What are your thoughts on a site reclamation bond before construction?

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

#192

Post by deamanto »

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…

[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.

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

#193

Post by __pache__ »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #158
__pache__ wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what does that even mean? how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? ugh... this is so disingenuous. a nuclear install might support millions of people but the same solar would be insanely huge AND require multiple backups/batteries.. it is so clear solar/wind is worse than nuclear. it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea lev…

Weren't you just asserting expertise on the contents of a solar cell and energy content of generation? How do you not know the relevant terms or name for the dominant variety? Did you even know there were different types before you made up numbers? Energy payback time. Passive Emitter Rear Contact photovoltaics They're made of sand and a tiny bit of silver. The amount of silver used total is going down per year in sp…

> Weren't you just asserting expertise

Was I wrong about something ?

> Energy payback time.

Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear ..........

> You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x

??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro

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

#194

Post by devilsbabe »

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

sugary drink

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

#195

Post by __pache__ »

TheSmiddy wrote: post #149
__pache__ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm super confused, how is this better for the Earth? Aren't you using a gigantic amount of CO2 to make these panels that work intermittently, with giant batteries to help make them realiable? Why not just use 1 reliable power system, instead of having 1 unreliable backed up by 1 reliable?

The most reliable grids in the world are made up of a large number of small generators rather than a single source which when taken down takes down the entire grid. If you were to start a new city disconnected from the rest of society then a combination of wind, solar, hydro, and batteries is the cheapest and most reliable system to power that city.

> The most reliable grids in the world are made up of a large number of small generators rather than a single source which when taken down takes down the entire grid.

who said to do otherwise ???

> If you were to start a new city disconnected from the rest of society then a combination of wind, solar, hydro, and batteries is the cheapest and most reliable system to power that city.

No it'd be hydro/nuclear.

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

#196

Post by devilsbabe »

Qwertious wrote: post #175
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…

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 -…

I've never heard of this. What's the long tail pipe argument?

edit: I see. I definitely have heard this, just not called as such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe

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

#197

Post by __pache__ »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #184
hardolaf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants Water moderated reactors provably cannot work. Breeders do not exist. You don't get to start gaslighting about build times until you prove it's possible to make the fuel rods. Here's a few hints on how to tell if something works: What was the largest ever deployment of nuclear generation in a single year? For how many years in a row have…

Does this invalidate everything you're saying, or what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

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

#198

Post by __pache__ »

pfdietz wrote: post #167
samatman wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing scheduled maintenance in a 90+% uptime system with intermittent, unpredictable, correlated, continuous fluctuations in power, with capacity factors in the 10-30$ range of nameplate capacity. I have a great solution for nuke plant downtime, this is going to blow your mind, wait for it: for every 14 plants worth of power, built, drumroll please.... 15 plants! Then maintain them on a schedule.

Solar/wind/batteries/hydrogen > nuclear The way you back up your $10/W nuclear plant is with $0.50/W simple cycle turbines, which can burn hydrogen. Or maybe $1/W combined cycle, if you want to do seasonal storage.

hydrogen power plants ?

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

#199

Post by hardolaf »

qiqitori wrote: post #176
hardolaf wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The fluxes used with lead-free solder release about 2.5x as much particulate matter into the air and has been linked in multiple studies to a variety of lung issues. Current recommendations in the USA when working with lead-free solder is to do so in a downward pressure clean room of class 100,000 or better, in a fume hood, or while wearing an appropriate respirator while near the contaminated air. The flux used for leaded solder is a heavy particle that doesn't rise up as much when heated and can be handled safely with only fume extractors.

There's several other issues with lead-free solder that leaded solder does not have such as crystalline growths amongst a variety of other latent defects that can form well after cleaning and examination is completed.

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

#200

Post by aperson_hello »

__pache__ wrote: post #145
aperson_hello wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making and installing solar panels doesn't cost anywhere that much CO2. Best numbers I see suggest payback in ~3 years assuming they're produced with coal power (and the numbers are better if they're produced with cleaner power, though electricity is fungible, so I'm not sure if that really makes sense to do). As a quick gut check, look at unsubsidized solar install costs - they're significantly lower than the cost o…

> Making and installing solar panels doesn't cost anywhere that much CO2. ...source? Solar is unreliable, you _need_ another system, so you have to install 2 systems now. It _will_ be cheaper/less co2/etc.etc. to just install and use 1 system. The real solution to reducing overall CO2 is clearly Nuclear. Do you disagree with this?

Nuclear should be part of the solution. Solar is just too cheap not to do be part of it too. Since there are on demand sources (natural gas peakers, batteries, etc.) and because solar isn't replacing clean sources at this point in time, solar (and wind) can and should be part of the energy mix!

Here's one source. Plenty more if you Google it https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Post reply on HN