Solar panels

RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
57,868
Reaction score
19,961
Points
2,260
Location
North Carolina
www.wired.com

Solar Panels Are Starting to Die, Leaving Behind Toxic Trash

Photovoltaic panels are a boon for clean energy but are tricky to recycle. As the oldest ones expire, get ready for a solar e-waste glut.
www.wired.com www.wired.com

As can be seen they are not so clean for the environment.Remind me how we can not have nuclear power cause it isn't clean but we can litter these across the landscape?
 
They work great on my motorhome. I don’t need to run my diesel generator as often, thus saving fuel and the environment.

Hopefully the technology will catch up and figure out a way to recycle the aging out panels.

In many sunny locales around the country, if homeowners could affordably install solar on their roofs we could dramatically cut down on fossil fuels while saving money.
 
You need haz-mat lead batteries and you need about 25 five foot panels and constant maintenance. When the batteries go bad and you dump them and the panels go bad and you dump them you defeated the entire greenie agenda.
 
Interesting article ... quick nitpick: tin/lead solder has been off the market for decades now ... it's all tin/antimony today ...

The article also pointed out that in Europe, manufactured products have to be recyclable ... something we here in America should take into consideration with our buying dollars ...

Just smelt the damn things ... the silver collects at the bottom, silicon floats on top ... plastics burn off and are vented through a scrubber ... the article mentioned lead as one of the toxic materials, I'm sure there's others ... if we manufacture these panels without these toxic components, we lose a bit of efficiency but we'll never notice that at night ...

Batteries suck ... but are eminently recyclable ... all this is included in your calculation ... if all this costs more than what you get out of them, don't bother ... for others it's the other way, all costs considered solar panels are money-makers ... spin your electric meter the other way and you'll get a check from the power company in most (but not all) areas ...

Do what's right for you ... don't worry about what's right for others ...
 
Solar panels require tons of toxic chemicals per square foot.

A chemical plant blew up not so long ago.

Solar panels require tons of fossil fuels, we increase the use of fossil fuels to make solar panels.
 
NO WORRIES, ALL THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ASSURED ME THAT SOLAR ENERGY IS CLEAN AND NONPOLLUTING: Solar Panels Are Starting to Die. What Will We Do With The Megatons Of Toxic Trash?

Solar panels are expected to generate 866 times more waste in the next 30 years than nuclear power has generated in the last 50. And unlike nuclear waste, which is safely stored on site, nobody knows what will happen to these solar panels at the end of their useful lifetime because solar panels are not easily recycled.

“Standard electronics recycling methods don’t cut it for solar panels. Recovering the most valuable materials from one, including silver and silicon, requires specific recycling solutions.

“If we don’t mandate recycling, many of the modules will go to landfill,” said Arizona State University solar researcher Meng Tao, who recently authored a review paper on recycling silicon solar panels, which comprise 95 percent of the solar market.

“Solar panels are composed of photovoltaic (PV) cells that convert sunlight to electricity. When these panels enter landfills, valuable resources go to waste. And because solar panels contain toxic materials like lead that can leach out as they break down, landfilling also creates new environmental hazards.”

So, folks replacing these suddenly have a huge disposal fee that wasn't in their original cost analysis completed at the time of purchase.

Wind and solar require enormous amounts of metal, and that much of this metal is mined in Third-World countries that have few protections for workers or the environment. Then, after the solar panel is no longer useful to Americans, they are shipped to developing countries for reuse or disposal. The potential contamination then becomes their problem, not ours.

If this is the “circular economy” that environmentalists talk about, then the circle is simply exploiting the environment in poor countries to get the metals needed to make solar panels, and foisting the panels back on the developing world after we don’t want them anymore.

And these people have the gall to lecture others about “environmental justice.”
 
Zorro! said:
NO WORRIES, ALL THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ASSURED ME THAT SOLAR ENERGY IS CLEAN AND NONPOLLUTING: Solar Panels Are Starting to Die. What Will We Do With The Megatons Of Toxic Trash?

Solar panels are expected to generate 866 times more waste in the next 30 years than nuclear power has generated in the last 50. And unlike nuclear waste, which is safely stored on site, nobody knows what will happen to these solar panels at the end of their useful lifetime because solar panels are not easily recycled.

“Standard electronics recycling methods don’t cut it for solar panels. Recovering the most valuable materials from one, including silver and silicon, requires specific recycling solutions.

“If we don’t mandate recycling, many of the modules will go to landfill,” said Arizona State University solar researcher Meng Tao, who recently authored a review paper on recycling silicon solar panels, which comprise 95 percent of the solar market.

“Solar panels are composed of photovoltaic (PV) cells that convert sunlight to electricity. When these panels enter landfills, valuable resources go to waste. And because solar panels contain toxic materials like lead that can leach out as they break down, landfilling also creates new environmental hazards.”

So, folks replacing these suddenly have a huge disposal fee that wasn't in their original cost analysis completed at the time of purchase.

Wind and solar require enormous amounts of metal, and that much of this metal is mined in Third-World countries that have few protections for workers or the environment. Then, after the solar panel is no longer useful to Americans, they are shipped to developing countries for reuse or disposal. The potential contamination then becomes their problem, not ours.

If this is the “circular economy” that environmentalists talk about, then the circle is simply exploiting the environment in poor countries to get the metals needed to make solar panels, and foisting the panels back on the developing world after we don’t want them anymore.

And these people have the gall to lecture others about “environmental justice.”
Click to expand...

Does anyone have a list of the various things that make up a solar panel ... all the stuff I've been Googling is from the industry ... so I'm skeptical of what they say in the matter ... but I am at a loss to verify these claims of toxic substances ... at least above and beyond what's in our computers, telephones and wristwatches ...

Top layer is glass, just regular glass ... these materials are already ubiquitous in the environment ... cars, homes, businesses ... fiberglass insulation is glass, some roofing shingles have glass ... extremely useful stuff and we find it everywhere ... buzz out a couple dozen screws and this glass pulls right off the frame and recycled ...

The frame is aluminum ... a truly dirty and expense metal to refine ... the good news is that our frame was made out of recycled aluminum ... two dozen screws to lift out the PV panel and off to be recast ...

The PV panel itself is made of silicon and doped with boron and phosphorus ... all three are common in our environment and none are known to have any negative impact on anything ... as safe to put in the landfill as the stuff we pulled out to make the landfill ... and it's cheaper to refine new than recycle ... silica sand is everywhere in abundance ...

Plastic is another kittle of fish ... and solar panels contribute a trivial amount to an existing problem ...

That leaves the electronics which carry all the same problems as the computers, telephones and wristwatches we use in large quantities ... not sure it's proper to complain about that over the internet ... [giggle] ... seems hypocritical ...

There hasn't been lead used in solder in decades ...

And unlike nuclear waste, which is safely stored on site

Could you expand upon this ... we've spent years and dollars on a safe disposal site because storage on-site is so dangerous ... Fukushima comes to mind ... on-site nuclear waste storage was a very bad idea there ... and just address the claim ... we could build nuclear power plants that produce very little waste, perhaps none at all ... and I think we should have started 20 years ago, but that's a different discussion ...
 
ReinyDays said:
Zorro! said:
NO WORRIES, ALL THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ASSURED ME THAT SOLAR ENERGY IS CLEAN AND NONPOLLUTING: Solar Panels Are Starting to Die. What Will We Do With The Megatons Of Toxic Trash?

Solar panels are expected to generate 866 times more waste in the next 30 years than nuclear power has generated in the last 50. And unlike nuclear waste, which is safely stored on site, nobody knows what will happen to these solar panels at the end of their useful lifetime because solar panels are not easily recycled.

“Standard electronics recycling methods don’t cut it for solar panels. Recovering the most valuable materials from one, including silver and silicon, requires specific recycling solutions.

“If we don’t mandate recycling, many of the modules will go to landfill,” said Arizona State University solar researcher Meng Tao, who recently authored a review paper on recycling silicon solar panels, which comprise 95 percent of the solar market.

“Solar panels are composed of photovoltaic (PV) cells that convert sunlight to electricity. When these panels enter landfills, valuable resources go to waste. And because solar panels contain toxic materials like lead that can leach out as they break down, landfilling also creates new environmental hazards.”

So, folks replacing these suddenly have a huge disposal fee that wasn't in their original cost analysis completed at the time of purchase.

Wind and solar require enormous amounts of metal, and that much of this metal is mined in Third-World countries that have few protections for workers or the environment. Then, after the solar panel is no longer useful to Americans, they are shipped to developing countries for reuse or disposal. The potential contamination then becomes their problem, not ours.

If this is the “circular economy” that environmentalists talk about, then the circle is simply exploiting the environment in poor countries to get the metals needed to make solar panels, and foisting the panels back on the developing world after we don’t want them anymore.

And these people have the gall to lecture others about “environmental justice.”
Click to expand...

Does anyone have a list of the various things that make up a solar panel ... all the stuff I've been Googling is from the industry ... so I'm skeptical of what they say in the matter ... but I am at a loss to verify these claims of toxic substances ... at least above and beyond what's in our computers, telephones and wristwatches ...

Top layer is glass, just regular glass ... these materials are already ubiquitous in the environment ... cars, homes, businesses ... fiberglass insulation is glass, some roofing shingles have glass ... extremely useful stuff and we find it everywhere ... buzz out a couple dozen screws and this glass pulls right off the frame and recycled ...

The frame is aluminum ... a truly dirty and expense metal to refine ... the good news is that our frame was made out of recycled aluminum ... two dozen screws to lift out the PV panel and off to be recast ...

The PV panel itself is made of silicon and doped with boron and phosphorus ... all three are common in our environment and none are known to have any negative impact on anything ... as safe to put in the landfill as the stuff we pulled out to make the landfill ... and it's cheaper to refine new than recycle ... silica sand is everywhere in abundance ...

Plastic is another kittle of fish ... and solar panels contribute a trivial amount to an existing problem ...

That leaves the electronics which carry all the same problems as the computers, telephones and wristwatches we use in large quantities ... not sure it's proper to complain about that over the internet ... [giggle] ... seems hypocritical ...

There hasn't been lead used in solder in decades ...

And unlike nuclear waste, which is safely stored on site

Could you expand upon this ... we've spent years and dollars on a safe disposal site because storage on-site is so dangerous ... Fukushima comes to mind ... on-site nuclear waste storage was a very bad idea there ... and just address the claim ... we could build nuclear power plants that produce very little waste, perhaps none at all ... and I think we should have started 20 years ago, but that's a different discussion ...
Click to expand...
Yes, but, our current nuclear power is linked to our nuclear weapons production.

The isotopes that fission in ordinary reactors are U-235. U-235 has three less neutrons than U-238 and it fissions, whereas U-238 does not fission. Uranium in the ground is more than 99 percent U-238 and less than 1 percent U-235. But ordinary reactors need about 5 percent U-235 in their fuel to make the fission go. So “enrichment” is done to produce reactor fuel. Enrichment increases the 1 percent U-235 in mined uranium to 5 percent U-235 reactor fuel.

Continue the same process and once the percentage of U-235 is 80 percent or so the material will fission so quickly that it is an atomic bomb.

The other fissile material that can be used for atomic bombs is plutonium. Plutonium doesn’t exist naturally. Plutonium is produced in nuclear reactors. When the reactor fuel no longer fissions well after several years, the spent fuel is removed and fresh fuel is put into the reactor. Each commercial nuclear reactor producing electricity has produced enough plutonium for about 45 atomic bombs every year. This plutonium is in the spent fuel of the reactor and can be removed from it. Removing the plutonium from the spent fuel is called “reprocessing.” Reprocessing must be done by robots because the spent fuel is deadly radioactive for humans.

There are other types of nuclear reactors that do not result in weapons grade materials, and unfortunately, the ones that do have completely crowded them out.
 
Zorro! said:
Yes, but, our current nuclear power is linked to our nuclear weapons production.

The isotopes that fission in ordinary reactors are U-235. U-235 has three less neutrons than U-238 and it fissions, whereas U-238 does not fission. Uranium in the ground is more than 99 percent U-238 and less than 1 percent U-235. But ordinary reactors need about 5 percent U-235 in their fuel to make the fission go. So “enrichment” is done to produce reactor fuel. Enrichment increases the 1 percent U-235 in mined uranium to 5 percent U-235 reactor fuel.

Continue the same process and once the percentage of U-235 is 80 percent or so the material will fission so quickly that it is an atomic bomb.

The other fissile material that can be used for atomic bombs is plutonium. Plutonium doesn’t exist naturally. Plutonium is produced in nuclear reactors. When the reactor fuel no longer fissions well after several years, the spent fuel is removed and fresh fuel is put into the reactor. Each commercial nuclear reactor producing electricity has produced enough plutonium for about 45 atomic bombs every year. This plutonium is in the spent fuel of the reactor and can be removed from it. Removing the plutonium from the spent fuel is called “reprocessing.” Reprocessing must be done by robots because the spent fuel is deadly radioactive for humans.

There are other types of nuclear reactors that do not result in weapons grade materials, and unfortunately, the ones that do have completely crowded them out.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear on why the US is building atomic bombs these past fifty years ... even North Korea is moving towards Hydrogen bombs ... we do use fission to ignite the fusion reaction ... but I wouldn't think we use all that much ...

I think the biggest problem with your line of reasoning is that these spent nuclear fuel rods are too expensive to refine into new fuel rods ... so, way more expensive to refine it to weapons grade ... the "storage" problem with reactors of today is they are of the type that produce all manner of radionuclides, near impossible to separate the good fissionable materials out ... much much cheaper building a small reactor specifically designed to make plutonium that's easily refined for our weapons ...

Any comments about these mythological "toxic" substances in solar panels ... sounds like horsefeathers to me ...
 
ReinyDays said:
Zorro! said:
Yes, but, our current nuclear power is linked to our nuclear weapons production.

The isotopes that fission in ordinary reactors are U-235. U-235 has three less neutrons than U-238 and it fissions, whereas U-238 does not fission. Uranium in the ground is more than 99 percent U-238 and less than 1 percent U-235. But ordinary reactors need about 5 percent U-235 in their fuel to make the fission go. So “enrichment” is done to produce reactor fuel. Enrichment increases the 1 percent U-235 in mined uranium to 5 percent U-235 reactor fuel.

Continue the same process and once the percentage of U-235 is 80 percent or so the material will fission so quickly that it is an atomic bomb.

The other fissile material that can be used for atomic bombs is plutonium. Plutonium doesn’t exist naturally. Plutonium is produced in nuclear reactors. When the reactor fuel no longer fissions well after several years, the spent fuel is removed and fresh fuel is put into the reactor. Each commercial nuclear reactor producing electricity has produced enough plutonium for about 45 atomic bombs every year. This plutonium is in the spent fuel of the reactor and can be removed from it. Removing the plutonium from the spent fuel is called “reprocessing.” Reprocessing must be done by robots because the spent fuel is deadly radioactive for humans.

There are other types of nuclear reactors that do not result in weapons grade materials, and unfortunately, the ones that do have completely crowded them out.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear on why the US is building atomic bombs these past fifty years ... even North Korea is moving towards Hydrogen bombs ... we do use fission to ignite the fusion reaction ... but I wouldn't think we use all that much ...

I think the biggest problem with your line of reasoning is that these spent nuclear fuel rods are too expensive to refine into new fuel rods ... so, way more expensive to refine it to weapons grade ... the "storage" problem with reactors of today is they are of the type that produce all manner of radionuclides, near impossible to separate the good fissionable materials out ... much much cheaper building a small reactor specifically designed to make plutonium that's easily refined for our weapons ...

Any comments about these mythological "toxic" substances in solar panels ... sounds like horsefeathers to me ...
Click to expand...
Your horse has feathers? I dunno, dude, sounds like there's a lot of toxic waste in there. :)
 
Apparently industrial grade solar energy plants, like California's Ivanpah, routinely kill about 6,000 birds per year (2015 according to the Audubon society.
 
RetiredGySgt said:
The problem is that the modules that are used inside the solar panel are dangerous if they are broken or leaking. Water reaching the inside is a threat. This study is one done recently they admit that the panels tested were not leaking but could.

» Potential for leaching of heavy metals and metalloids from crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems

www.jnrd.info www.jnrd.info
Click to expand...
This study says the toxins most like came from the cement ... so, again, what toxins do PV panels have that would contaminate and ruin our landfills? ...
whitehall said:
Apparently industrial grade solar energy plants, like California's Ivanpah, routinely kill about 6,000 birds per year (2015 according to the Audubon society.
Click to expand...
House cats are estimated to kill birds by the ten's of billions every year ...
 
ReinyDays said:
RetiredGySgt said:
The problem is that the modules that are used inside the solar panel are dangerous if they are broken or leaking. Water reaching the inside is a threat. This study is one done recently they admit that the panels tested were not leaking but could.

» Potential for leaching of heavy metals and metalloids from crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems

www.jnrd.info www.jnrd.info
Click to expand...
This study says the toxins most like came from the cement ... so, again, what toxins do PV panels have that would contaminate and ruin our landfills? ...
whitehall said:
Apparently industrial grade solar energy plants, like California's Ivanpah, routinely kill about 6,000 birds per year (2015 according to the Audubon society.
Click to expand...
House cats are estimated to kill birds by the ten's of billions every year ...
Click to expand...
Again the study clearly states that IF the modules inside the panel break have leaks or are broken into and water is introduced you have a problem. They also say in THIS study that did not appear to happen. Ohh and provide a reliable link to house cats killing BILLIONS of birds.
 
RetiredGySgt said:
Again the study clearly states that IF the modules inside the panel break have leaks or are broken into and water is introduced you have a problem. They also say in THIS study that did not appear to happen. Ohh and provide a reliable link to house cats killing BILLIONS of birds.
Click to expand...

Careful:

"The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" -- Nature -- Jan 29th, 2013

... is the original article ...

"Correction: Corrigendum: The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" -- Nature -- Dec 12th, 2013

... is a correction pertinent to the matter at hand ... to wit:

"For example, in the fifth sentence of the Abstract, the number of birds killed by free-ranging domestic cats required revision from 1.4–3.7 billion to 1.3–4.0 billion and the number of mammals killed by free-ranging domestic cats required revision from 6.9–20.7 billion to 6.3–22.3 billion."

So not "ten's of billions" as I claimed ... but within your question of "billions" ... my own clowder took out a hundred or two of bluejays every year ... and I'm quite familiar with the internal structure of the skull of many many species of small rodents ...
 
ReinyDays said:
RetiredGySgt said:
Again the study clearly states that IF the modules inside the panel break have leaks or are broken into and water is introduced you have a problem. They also say in THIS study that did not appear to happen. Ohh and provide a reliable link to house cats killing BILLIONS of birds.
Click to expand...

Careful:

"The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" -- Nature -- Jan 29th, 2013

... is the original article ...

"Correction: Corrigendum: The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" -- Nature -- Dec 12th, 2013

... is a correction pertinent to the matter at hand ... to wit:

"For example, in the fifth sentence of the Abstract, the number of birds killed by free-ranging domestic cats required revision from 1.4–3.7 billion to 1.3–4.0 billion and the number of mammals killed by free-ranging domestic cats required revision from 6.9–20.7 billion to 6.3–22.3 billion."

So not "ten's of billions" as I claimed ... but within your question of "billions" ... my own clowder took out a hundred or two of bluejays every year ... and I'm quite familiar with the internal structure of the skull of many many species of small rodents ...
Click to expand...
So the migratory bird initiatives aren’t really needed?
 
ReinyDays said:
Careful:...
... the number of birds killed by free-ranging domestic cats .....
Click to expand...
Pets? Cats? You argue that because cats kill birds it is okay to industrialize an area and kill all the birds?

You argue that cats kill birds in the city so it is okay to kill birds where domestic cats never killed birds, in the wild rural areas.

We can destroy what is left of nature, what is wild, far from a city, because we built a city?

I guess you must destroy the world to save it. Thank you for the heads up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The coming ice age and...

< Previous Thread

The next time some idiot tells you, "But the real science says....."

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Delldude
Climate Change is all bunk?
2
Replies
30
Views
660
Sunsettommy
Sunsettommy
justoffal
Solar panel fires
Replies
8
Views
849
sparky
sparky
justoffal
My latest conversation with a solar panel salesman
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
1K
sparky
sparky
Seymour Flops
It's Official: Bukele will NOT Release El Salvadoran Citizen Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States
25 26 27
Replies
528
Views
3K
80zephyr
8
toobfreak
Clean Up In Palisades
2
Replies
21
Views
633
Scoutster
Scoutster

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom