If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?

Forbes ^ | May 23, 2018 | Michael Shellenberger

[grundle]

The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:

The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”

“The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”

“Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”

Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?

None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.

With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.

[null and void]

There is no cadmium in silicon solar cells.

[rktman]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Just wait until the disposal shock hits when their life cycle is up. 😱

[bigbob]

Fake news. It’s all recyclable. Being done now.

[the OlLine Rebel]

But what else is used to set up the whole assembly?

[PGR88]

The Soviet Union and China showed it - utopian collectivism and central planning lead to environmental destruction. We’ll learn it too.

[buridan]

“There are four major types of thin-film solar panels: amorphous [silicon], cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper gallium indium diselenide (CIGS), and organic solar panels.” From energysage.com.

So, you seem to be correct, but there are other types of solar cells. Any idea of the proportions?

[null and void]

See post #7.

[jeffc]

The Left thought solar cells were the answer to everything, just like nuclear power and replacing paper sacks with plastic bags in stores (they were right on nuclear power, though...)

Leftism is a mental disease...

[null and void]

No idea. I’ve been processing silicon since the 70s. Not interested in the toxic and only slightly more efficient exotics.

[Bommer]

Wind power kills birds and solar power produces unknown pollution. I’ll stick with coal burning pollution. At least I know what’s in that.

[dhs12345]

I presume that the process is similar to chip fabrication and some unhealthy chemicals are used. Then there energy storage, one option being batteries, which has it's own set of issues. Plus, a bank of batteries lightning off is someone’s basement will make a natural gas explosion look like a match stick 8n comparison to a stick of dynamite.

Solar panels are not entirely healthy for the environment.

[Cobra64]

Solar power fries birds.

[Wonder Warthog]

"So, you seem to be correct, but there are other types of solar cells. Any idea of the proportions?"

The cadmium and lead doesn't come from the solar cells, it comes from the solder used to make the connections. The cells themselves are recovered and recycled into raw material for new cells.

[alloysteel]

Unintended consequences once again rear their ugly heads....

The science of photoelectric power generation is far from fully developed. Perhaps, one day, the whole business of solar power generation will be pushed into hard-vacuum space, in geosynchronous orbit around the earth, and the multi-megawatt power be transmitted down to a receiving station on the earth’s surface. But this is still right up there with developing an anti-gravity transporter that could be used to cut apart mountains and create a sea-level canal along the US/Mexican border.

“Renewable energy” has not yet been fully thought through. Considering the capabilities of the people pushing the concept, it may NEVER get to the critical thinking level that is needed regarding the development and application of sustainable use.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

It often pays to read the article:

“Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in [float] glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”

The mass of the solar cell itself is trivial compared to the mass of the panel and glass.

[null and void]

Solar power fries birds.

Solar concentrators for thermal power do, roof panels are no hotter than a black asphalt shingle roof.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

The panels get destroyed in tornadoes and hurricanes, too, leaving behind a toxic mess...

A tornado in 2015 broke 200,000 solar modules at southern California solar farm Desert Sunlight (above photo). "Any modules that were broken into small bits of glass had to be swept from the ground so lots of rocks and dirt got mixed in that would not work in recycling plants that are designed to take modules. These were the cadmium-based modules that failed [hazardous] waste tests, so were treated at a [hazardous] waste facility. But about 70% of the modules were actually sent to recycling, and the recycled metals are in new panels today."

...when Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico September 2018, the nation’s second largest solar farm, responsible for 40 percent of the island’s solar energy, lost a majority of its panels.

You don't see conventional power plants (steam plants or combined cycle combustion turbine) suffering that damage in major storms. Their structures are designed to take that beating.

[GOPJ]

Aside from the costs involved in ‘clean up’ there’s the energy cost of production, installation, repairs... and yes, disposal.

Liberal elites want us to believe ‘home production’ is cheaper... It’s not. Not even with the tax advantages - advantages that are little more than a big fat thumb on the scales of energy reality.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Wow, the article gets even better. It is extremely expensive and labor-intensive to recycle solar panels to avoid toxic discharges. The solar companies do not have to post bonds the way coal companies do to reclaim the land they strip mine. Therefore, when the solar companies go bankrupt, the public taxpayer will be left holding the bag to pay for the toxic cleanup.

In July 2017, Washington became the first U.S. state to require manufacturers selling solar panels to have a plan to recycle. But the legislature did not require manufacturers to pay a fee for disposal. “Washington-based solar panel manufacturer Itek Energy assisted with the bill’s writing,” noted Solar Power World.

The problem with putting the responsibility for recycling or long-term storage of solar panels on manufacturers, says the insurance actuary Milliman, is that it increases the risk of more financial failures like the kinds that afflicted the solar industry over the last decade. Any mechanism that finances the cost of recycling PV modules with current revenues is not sustainable. This method raises the possibility of bankruptcy down the road by shifting today’s greater burden of ‘caused’ costs into the future. When growth levels off then PV producers would face rapidly increasing recycling costs as a percentage of revenues. Since 2016, Sungevity, Beamreach, Verengo Solar, SunEdison, Yingli Green Energy, Solar World, and Suniva have gone bankrupt.

The result of such bankruptcies is that the cost of managing or recycling PV waste will be born by the public. “In the event of company bankruptcies, PV module producers would no longer contribute to the recycling cost of their products,” notes Milliman, “leaving governments to decide how to deal with cleanup.”

How ironic that coal mining generates sufficient revenue to pay significant reclamation bond fees for future cleanup of the mines. But solar does not generate enough revenue to do that and it is patently obvious that this toxic cleanup cost will be shifted to the taxpayer over the next 20 to 50 years. So "dirty coal" will be far more economical, does not requite a 100% backup plant, and is less toxic.