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

211–220 of 290 posts

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

#211

Post by Schroedingersat »

__pache__ wrote: post #197
Schroedingersat wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Have any of those actually bred more than they used and extracted it without catching fire or spewing radioactivity everywhere?

If not it's just MOX, a slightly radioactive sodium fire, or a graphite pile with extra steps.

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

#212

Post by Schroedingersat »

landemva wrote: post #178
Schroedingersat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Te, Ag, and Cu is plenty valuable (especially old high end panels with 50-100g of silver), and developed nations which already have recycling fees that build recycling supply chains and so reduce costs of processing will pay for them. There have already been trials for industrial scale reprocessing of the Si into new panels -- which should give old monocrystalline panels similar value after reprocessing to new due to material reductions offsetting the labour.

It looks like there is some motion towards responsibility though https://www.solarrecycle.org/copy-of-vendors

And even paid decomissioning if they have some limited life left https://fabtech.net/

Plus even if you don't tear it apart it's still a piece of hail resistant glass that could have various uses. Frost the top and you have a table. Find use for 20 such items in your lifetime and none will make it to landfill.

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

#213

Post by Schroedingersat »

landemva wrote: post #191
Schroedingersat wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As long as it's indexed off actual decomissioning costs somehow and not just a wind-tax (and similarly doesn't massively underfund like the nuclear decommisioning levy) I think it's an excellent idea. We shouldn't let utilities get away with shit just because it's not fossil fuels.

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

#214

Post by mcv »

jeffbee wrote: post #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.

They probably meant: "Oil companies once warned..."

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

#215

Post by pvaldes »

askvictor wrote: post #207
stephen_g wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ht…

Don't forget that it's also more radioactive than nuclear waste: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

And banana plantations (or granite mountains, or the sun) are more radioactive than both because you have a lot of bananas with weak radioactivity each one, but the sum of all bananas in fruit shops is not how we measure radioactivity danger.

Coal is accumulated and relatively low, nuclear is concentrated and can reach several orders of magnitude more. Really, is not so useful to compare both cases except for whataboutism.

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

#216

Post by vidarh »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #160
vidarh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all what they said. The point is France have a bunch of reactors approaching the same level of wear, and by building a few more and staggering the maintenance,they'd spread the maintenance out and avoid this problem for the future.

That would be a very nice story if it fit the data at all https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/who-we-are/activities/op... Show me on the histogram the tight cluster of reactor start dates representing the outages. The 100% consistent lying about everything from nuclear proponents makes trusting statements like 'we will definitely do things safely if the rules are relaxed' pretty hard to swallow.

You have it backwards. The evidence for a cluster is the cluster now in need of maintenance, and it's the clustering by maintenance cycles and how they occurred which matters, not start date.

Start date is by no means the only thing affecting later clustering of maintenance need. That's also easily achieved by for example deferring maintenance too long, or structuring of past maintenance cycles.

Understanding how to avoid maintenance cycles syncing up is critical for any risk management of large systems.

This is entirely separate from whether or not one supports nuclear, and an issue relevant for any type of generation. Or indeed managing any kind of system that includes any physical plants or machinery at all.

How that affects whether you see a given type of plant as viable is an entirely separate issue.

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

#217

Post by TheSmiddy »

__pache__ wrote: post #195
TheSmiddy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...

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

#218

Post by nicoburns »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #77
nicoburns wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm in the UK too. I think the 2030 date is unrealistic. I'm pro-electric cars but we're still a long way away from it being the only option. At the very least we need widespread on street charging for the half of people who don't have the option to charge at home. Rapid charging is ok but not suitable for exclusive use.

> At the very least we need widespread on street charging for the half of people who don't have the option to charge at home.

Where I live there is already a pilot scheme in operation that implements this. It does need to be rolled out more widely, but I think the technology is relatively simple, so it might well be doable. 8 years to roll it out doesn't sound ridiculous (although we probably ought to get a move on). Also, remember that 2030 is only the date for halting new car sales. Most cars will still be ICE for at least 5 years after that.

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

#219

Post by Schroedingersat »

vidarh wrote: post #216
Schroedingersat wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a very nice story if it fit the data at all https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/who-we-are/activities/op... Show me on the histogram the tight cluster of reactor start dates representing the outages. The 100% consistent lying about everything from nuclear proponents makes trusting statements like 'we will definitely do things safely if the rules are relaxed' pretty hard to swallow.

You have it backwards. The evidence for a cluster is the cluster now in need of maintenance, and it's the clustering by maintenance cycles and how they occurred which matters, not start date. Start date is by no means the only thing affecting later clustering of maintenance need. That's also easily achieved by for example deferring maintenance too long, or structuring of past maintenance cycles. Understanding how to…

...Which is nothing to do with the grandparent comment which blamed it on not building more reactors and claiming it was because they were the same age.

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

#220

Post by shapefrog »

newyankee wrote: post #164
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.

I think a recent study showed 6 out of 11 panels or something maintained 80% of its original capacity after 30 years. As long as technological disruption does not deem replacement as a no brainer economically, I am sure quite a few panels may produce energy for 30 to 40 years.

Assuming that my panels are say 50%/40%/30% as efficient in 20 years time, why not keep them plugged in anyway?

Its not like they are an old car or something where the decrease in efficiency uses more energy / pumps out more emmisions.

The only resource they are using is roof space.

Post reply on HN