The ugly truth about solar farms

[Tubetec]

https://iowasolar.com/dangerous-chemicals-in-solar-panels/

'Experimental thin-film solar substrates are still considered by many to be dangerous. “Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over several months, for example, by rainwater, making it possible for different bodies of water to be contaminated.”
These chemicals don’t appear in modern aluminum-frame solar panels.'

https://ecosolardigest.com/what-chemicals-are-in-solar-panels/

So it seems to me careful lifecycle management is crucial , if these panels are simply left to rot in a field because the company has folded , yes there are problematic chemicals that can leak out .

This particular solar installation is built on a hillside , the river is fairly clean river unless we get heavy rain for a few days ,but once a few million tonnes of top soil becomes mobile because it has no roots to keep it together it washes away forever .

I cant help but think many of these so called green energy installations has been given a green light without proper environmental impact assesments , on the basis of the so called clean energy it produces .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Derrybrien_landslide

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, cultural differences perhaps?

Ignorance of how things work in the USA.

Over here, if you have a project, you hire a project manager to develop your plans. It's up to the PM to propose third parties to get the job done. That means the PM has to weigh some details, like "locally manufactured" or "imported". Is the extra price for local products and the extra pressure on local govt it brings worth the budget?

Whatever. We weren't discussing Europe.

Still, nobody came up with an answer to the question "which dangerous components are in solar cells". So I'll have to class it under "FUD".

Microplastics from degrading films and mounting parts left in the sun for decades were mentioned. And Cadmium, which suddenly gets a RoHS "pass" despite it being used in much larger quantities (total for manufactured product) than in say, photocells and the like which have been essentially banned from the west except for poor quality grey market stuff.

And solar manufacturing is full of nasty chemicals just like semiconductor and flat panel display manufacturing. HF, for example.

Oh, and BTW, the first organic (another ill-defined US word) reported 20% efficiency in tests. Yes, yes, efficiency is also an undefined word in this case.

Organic means using carbon-containing materials. As in organic chemistry. I think solar cell efficiency is generally understood to be the peak possible efficiency. It usually drops off with increasing temperature (solar panels in full sun get hot) and with panel age among other factors.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, it seems Europe has a real problem with renewable energy sources:

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...e-faces-an-unusual-problem-ultra-cheap-energy

Of course, that's a very real threat to capitalism. The essence of our being. Damn Euro-commies.

A consequence of poor planning. Introducing huge unpredictable generation sources to the grid (without the necessary battery tech to buffer it) wasn't smart. When the climate cult dictates solutions that engineers know will lead to trouble this is the kind of thing that happens. Stupidity is a threat to humanity.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I wouldn't say that i missed them

Your responses say otherwise.

I pour used motor oil down storm drains, throw car batteries into local waterways, you know, normal stuff

Your lack of any meaningful response speaks volumes.

 

[cyrano]

A consequence of poor planning. Introducing huge unpredictable generation sources to the grid (without the necessary battery tech to buffer it) wasn't smart. When the climate cult dictates solutions that engineers know will lead to trouble this is the kind of thing that happens. Stupidity is a threat to humanity.

You have an uncanny way to turn every positive into a negative. Is that age getting at you?

Of course, the planning wasn't perfect. Nobody ever did this before, so it's not as if you can hire a specialist in planning for rain... or sunshine.

The positive point is that existing solar and wind infra can supply a very large part of the demand. A secondary positive is that the grid can take it.

And since the sources are being diversified to wave energy and other forms of renewable energy, the reliability will only get better.

Or do you simply don't like cheap renewable energy?

 

[jabe]

Well, it seems Europe has a real problem with renewable energy sources:

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...e-faces-an-unusual-problem-ultra-cheap-energy

Of course, that's a very real threat to capitalism. The essence of our being. Damn Euro-commies.

But wait, I thought petroleum dependence was the only way to produce cheap energy for poor people so they can combat the effects of petroleum dependence?

 

[Matador]

Or do you simply don't like cheap renewable energy?

The fact that renewables are crashing spot energy prices IS the problem. How are we supposed to deliver value to shareholders if we have to compete with a cheap alternative???

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You have an uncanny way to turn every positive into a negative. Is that age getting at you?

What you call negative I consider to be pragmatic. Having spent 30 years in engineering I experienced some pie-in-the-sky scenarios very similar to your example. Boeing is going through a similar thing now that the dumbass pure managers with no real experience in design/engineering/manufacturing have the company set up in their vision. Reality is always there to remind you about your poor choices and mistakes.

Of course, the planning wasn't perfect. Nobody ever did this before, so it's not as if you can hire a specialist in planning for rain... or sunshine.

It isn't about being "perfect." It's about making intelligent trade-offs, thinking ahead, risk mitigation, and all the other well-known best practices in engineering. I'm sure many engineers warned about what is now happening, but were told to shut up and do it or be fired.

The positive point is that existing solar and wind infra can supply a very large part of the demand. A secondary positive is that the grid can take it.

But the "supply" is chaotic and cannot be aligned with the demand. Who cares if you can generate a pile of energy when it isn't needed. Grid management is made more difficult by having too much unpredictable generation. It cascades into other failures like pricing. That was predictable by anyone with a brain not polluted by cult-think.

And since the sources are being diversified to wave energy and other forms of renewable energy, the reliability will only get better.

Yes, I remember reading about the coming future of ocean wave generators...in Popular Science in the early 1970s. Where is it? At least we haven't wasted tens of billions on it like we did with fusion.

Or do you simply don't like cheap renewable energy?

I like pragmatic solutions that are reliable, maintainable, and cheap...in that order. Not destroying huge swaths of the countryside with ugly manmade constructs is a big plus.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The fact that renewables are crashing spot energy prices IS the problem. How are we supposed to deliver value to shareholders if we have to compete with a cheap alternative???

If the chaos leads to state-owned power generation and delivery that would be a great day, comrades!

 

[sahib]

Still, nobody came up with an answer to the question "which dangerous components are in solar cells". So I'll have to class it under "FUD".

• Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide (CIS/CIGS)
• Cadmium Telluride (CdTe)
• Amorphous Silicon (a-Si)
• Cadmium Hallium (di)Selenide
• Hexafluoroethane
• Lead
• Polyvinyl Fluorid

Did I see Cadmium and lead there?

You have an uncanny way to turn every positive into a negative. Is that age getting at you?

You have an uncanny way of avoiding the answers.

Yes, I remember reading about the coming future of ocean wave generators...in Popular Science in the early 1970s. Where is it? At least we haven't wasted tens of billions on it like we did with fusion.

I remember one company here in Scotland going bust with all its promises.

 

[moamps]

Lately I have been quite involved in the design of solar systems, so I can tell you some facts first hand. PV panels are by no means dangerous for the environment during the normal expected operation, which is assumed to be 25-30 years (falling to 80% utilization). Otherwise, they consist of approximately only 10 different materials, mostly glass, then aluminum, then cells and copper cables and plastic, max 5 different materials. It is phenomenal that these materials can be separated very easily, so the PV panel is almost completely recyclable. The hazardous materials indicated here can be safely collected and reused without any problems. The PV plant can be completely decommissioned very simply from some land surface or from some roof. In addition to panels, I mean construction, cables, inverters and switching equipment. Compared to all the others, this type of power plant is the cleanest, with the least impact on nature and inhabitants, including animals. Of course, there are a lot of problems with insisting that the arable area be reduced at the expense of PV plants, but that can be regulated. It is also necessary to better regulate environmental pollution during the actual production of PV panels.

It should be emphasized here that the construction of the PV plant is extremely well documented and any ingredient cannot be lost and end up in unplanned waste. Some countries already take a predetermined percentage of the investment money for future recycling when building a PV plant. I think the world now has an opportunity to really reduce the production of greenhouse gases and the use of oil and other dirty energy sources by using these new technologies. Finally, a picture to think about:

 

[JohnRoberts]

Only about 10% of panels in the US are recycled—it isn’t mandated by federal regulations, and recycling the devices is currently much more expensive than just discarding them. But the materials in solar panels coming offline each year could be worth an estimated $2 billion by 2050. New efforts, including one approach from a French startup called ROSI, are trying to recapture these valuable materials, especially silver and silicon, to make recycling the panels more financially viable.
===
The way a technology affects the environment while it’s in use doesn’t always tell the full story. Manufacturing, transporting, and disposing of any technology generates emissions, and it’s important to take all of that into account, Heath says. Exactly how a panel is manufactured and recycled helps determine how helpful it really is in decreasing emissions.

It’s a calculation we should consider for most of the technology we use every day, Heath adds. The total amount of global e-waste could hit 120 million metric tons annually by 2050, according to a UN report.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/19/1032215/solar-panels-recycling/


JR

 

[living sounds]

Lately I have been quite involved in the design of solar systems, so I can tell you some facts first hand. PV panels are by no means dangerous for the environment during the normal expected operation, which is assumed to be 25-30 years (falling to 80% utilization). Otherwise, they consist of approximately only 10 different materials, mostly glass, then aluminum, then cells and copper cables and plastic, max 5 different materials. It is phenomenal that these materials can be separated very easily, so the PV panel is almost completely recyclable. The hazardous materials indicated here can be safely collected and reused without any problems. The PV plant can be completely decommissioned very simply from some land surface or from some roof. In addition to panels, I mean construction, cables, inverters and switching equipment. Compared to all the others, this type of power plant is the cleanest, with the least impact on nature and inhabitants, including animals. Of course, there are a lot of problems with insisting that the arable area be reduced at the expense of PV plants, but that can be regulated. It is also necessary to better regulate environmental pollution during the actual production of PV panels.

It should be emphasized here that the construction of the PV plant is extremely well documented and any ingredient cannot be lost and end up in unplanned waste. Some countries already take a predetermined percentage of the investment money for future recycling when building a PV plant. I think the world now has an opportunity to really reduce the production of greenhouse gases and the use of oil and other dirty energy sources by using these new technologies. Finally, a picture to think about:

View attachment 131306

Thank you, very interesting!

 

[Matador]

It should be emphasized here that the construction of the PV plant is extremely well documented and any ingredient cannot be lost and end up in unplanned waste.

It is interesting that the waste to construct the panels always counts against the solar plant, however the waste to extract the fuels to keep a fossil fuel plant going never count against the fossil fuel plant (never mind the waste to construct the fossil fuel plant always seems to be zero by comparison).

 

[jabe]

It is interesting that the waste to construct the panels always counts against the solar plant, however the waste to extract the fuels to keep a fossil fuel plant going never count against the fossil fuel plant (never mind the waste to construct the fossil fuel plant always seems to be zero by comparison).

Careful, you won't win over any converts by insulting the millions of people who deliberately argue in bad faith.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It is interesting that the waste to construct the panels always counts against the solar plant, however the waste to extract the fuels to keep a fossil fuel plant going never count against the fossil fuel plant (never mind the waste to construct the fossil fuel plant always seems to be zero by comparison).

Sure they do. The simple fact is that one set of power generation options isn't claimed to be "net-zero," "zero carbon," "low impact," or "emission-free" when it isn't. I remember when the greens wanted to protect the desert tortoise from human activity and save forests. Now they're happy to give that up for solar, wind, etc.

 

[cyrano]

Sure they do. The simple fact is that one set of power generation options isn't claimed to be "net-zero," "zero carbon," "low impact," or "emission-free" when it isn't. I remember when the greens wanted to protect the desert tortoise from human activity and save forests. Now they're happy to give that up for solar, wind, etc.

All of these terms are bad slogans. You're right about that.

The people who saved the desert tortoise probably aren't the same people who are happy to give up the desert for solar panels. Things evolve...