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

261–270 of 290 posts

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

#261

Post by Schroedingersat »

__pache__ wrote: post #256
Schroedingersat wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about scifi. I'm talking about the next 8 years. You're also completely failing to distinguish between fertile and fissile. So realistically, at the same scale of ore extraction as coal mining. How much power is available?

billions of years of energy ? https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html#:~:tex... .

Failing to understand the distinction between power and energy doesn't make you seem very credible. And neither does saying failing to understand what a breeder is.

You need fissile material to start a reactor of any kind.

Working breeders with a real closed fuel cycle don't exist but if we pretend they do it's about 5 tonnes per GW. You can't start breeding until they're built and the breeding ratio of proposed designs takes on the order of a decade to fuel another reactor.

How many billions of tonnes of ore do you need to extract the uranium from per year to meet net zero installed power roadmaps? How do you get to 2TW by 2030 to come close to the scale of the renewable roadmap?

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

#262

Post by Schroedingersat »

__pache__ wrote: post #255
pfdietz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reverse is the case. In what way do you think this is stupid? It enables very cheap renewable energy to exploit its huge levelized cost advantage over nuclear yet still be able to cover the rare dark/calm periods the nuclear stans like to angst about. The key observation is that a simple cycle turbine power plant is about $0.50/W, some 20 times cheaper than a nuclear power plant. The fuel is of course much more e…

What is a breeder reactor?

Something that doesn't exist and would still need tonnes of fissile material to come online if it did and can't breed new material to bring other reactors online by 2030.

How do you bring 2TW of new nuclear generation online by 2030 to even play catch up with renewables when you need to extract from tens of millions of tonnes of ore and use hundreds of millions of litres of sulfuric acid for one reactor?

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

#263

Post by Schroedingersat »

nl wrote: post #259
Schroedingersat wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're both willfully ignorant about the technology you're pushing and unwilling to have it spoon fed to you? Wow.

I think this quote from @__pache__ says a lot: > it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea level rise is well within normal bounds. Someone making those claims isn't really arguing in good faith.

Of course not. But it's fun watching them have a tantrum when they run out of lies and I've learnt a lot of cool new things from looking up the lies.

It also helps distribute reality in contrast to the usual talking points. Most people don't know that nuclear is very limited in scale and actually and quite poor from a land use and energy perspective if it were to be expanded, or that the overwhelming majority of radiation comes from sourcing fuel.

I've seen a few bystanders go 'oh shit, you only get 100-500mW per kg of mining?' Or 'wait, none of the breeders have actually done the thing?'

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

#264

Post by Schroedingersat »

vidarh wrote: post #225
Schroedingersat wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

I addressed your claim, not theirs.

No you didn't. My claim was that the clustering of maintenance being due to similar age would imply the offline reactors would be the same age.

You agreed with me. The clustering of maintenance is from failing to correctly manage the inherent unreliability and high costs of maintenance.

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

#265

Post by nl »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #263
nl wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this quote from @__pache__ says a lot: > it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea level rise is well within normal bounds. Someone making those claims isn't really arguing in good faith.

Of course not. But it's fun watching them have a tantrum when they run out of lies and I've learnt a lot of cool new things from looking up the lies. It also helps distribute reality in contrast to the usual talking points. Most people don't know that nuclear is very limited in scale and actually and quite poor from a land use and energy perspective if it were to be expanded, or that the overwhelming majority of radi…

I think the nuclear stans (your term, which I like) usually don't know a lot about what they are promoting.

Anything a nuclear plant can do a long distance transmission line can do better, with already proven technology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity...

I like this quote:

For example, a recent report by researchers from the Earth System Research Laboratory published in Nature Climate Change found that a UHVDC transmission line in the US could cut emissions by as much as 80% by harnessing Wyoming’s abundant wind power potential and transporting the electricity to California.

https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/chinas-mega-transm...

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

#266

Post by nl »

trashtester wrote: post #236
Schroedingersat wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have 1 xray taken in a hospital, that's as much radiation exposure as living next to a nuclear plant for 100 years. Now do living near Serpent river, or Church Hill, or Kadapa, or Ranger or Mailuu-Suu or the cumulative worldwide effect if we got 15% of our power from a reprpcessing facility like La Hague. Make sure to include the effects of heavy metal poisoning, not just radiation. Also would you like to re…

> Make sure to include the effects of heavy metal poisoning, not just radiation. I'm a bit lazy. Maybe you have some numbers available for this? My guess is that deaths caused by this (associated with nuclear power), if at all measurable, would be orders of magnitude lower than deaths from the extraction and pollution associated with fossil fuels (Per GWh). > Here's a riddle. What fraction of world energy can 40,000t…

> My guess is that deaths caused by this (associated with nuclear power), if at all measurable, would be orders of magnitude lower than deaths from the extraction and pollution associated with fossil fuels (Per GWh).

The competition isn't fossil fuels. Everyone wants to get rid of them.

The competition is renewables.

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

#267

Post by nl »

__pache__ wrote: post #148
Schroedingersat wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EBPT for PERC panels is 3-12 months. Far lower than nuclear and slightly lower than wind.

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…

> what does that even mean?

EBPT = Energy payback time.

> how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things?

It scales wonderfully. Increased demand means the costs go down.

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

#268

Post by Schroedingersat »

nl wrote: post #267
__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…

> what does that even mean? EBPT = Energy payback time. > how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? It scales wonderfully. Increased demand means the costs go down.

At 1000x the demand that would be triple the total cumulative output of every nuclear reactor ever in newly installed production every year. Which is probably about 20x as many solar panels as could reasonably be created in a year with current production ready technology.

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

#269

Post by Schroedingersat »

nl wrote: post #265
Schroedingersat wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. But it's fun watching them have a tantrum when they run out of lies and I've learnt a lot of cool new things from looking up the lies. It also helps distribute reality in contrast to the usual talking points. Most people don't know that nuclear is very limited in scale and actually and quite poor from a land use and energy perspective if it were to be expanded, or that the overwhelming majority of radi…

I think the nuclear stans (your term, which I like) usually don't know a lot about what they are promoting. Anything a nuclear plant can do a long distance transmission line can do better, with already proven technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... I like this quote: For example, a recent report by researchers from the Earth System Research Laboratory published in Nature Climate Cha…

There are probably places where a NPP is the best and cheapest choice to reduce emissions and worth the downsides, but not many and forcing them into places with excellent renewable resources is idiotic.

Unless and until the budget and plans for around 5TW net of renewables is allocated, then starting any new nuclear is just a way of delaying the death of fossil fuels.

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

#270

Post by Doxin »

hoseja wrote: post #204
clomond wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because CdTe is actually a stable molecule that isn’t water soluble, turns out the problem of panels from a toxic leeching perspective is largely from the small amounts of lead used at soldering points which is a common point with most silicon PV panels. No reason tin can’t be used instead/lead free panels can’t be made except for the saving of a few pennies by skimping on the solder - no regulations to ensur…

Have they actually made a decent lead-free solder yet?

Yes. You just need to set your iron a fair bit hotter and learn to live with matte solder joints.
Post reply on HN