Note: The title of the post was changed at 5:12 PM CDT, June 29, 2017. The original title was “Toxic Waste From Solar Panels: 300 Times That of Nuclear Power.” Please see addendum for an explanation.
Guest post by David Middleton
Are We Headed for a Solar Waste Crisis?
June 28, 2017 by Mark Nelson
Last November, Japan’s Environment Ministry issued a stark warning: the amount of solar panel waste Japan produces every year will rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040, and the nation has no plan for safely disposing of it.
Neither does California, a world leader in deploying solar panels. Only Europe requires solar panel makers to collect and dispose of solar waste at the end of their lives.
All of which begs the question: just how big of a problem is solar waste?
Environmental Progress investigated the problem to see how the problem compared to the much more high-profile issue of nuclear waste.
We found:
- Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
- If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
- In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
The study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants and the solar panels themselves, which contain similar heavy metals and toxins as other electronics, such as computers and smartphones.
[…]
By Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson
Jemin Desai is an EP Fellow and a student at UC Berkeley. Mark Nelson is EP Senior Researcher.
Piling on a bit here… Nuclear waste can easily be safely disposed of:
SANDIA REPORT
SAND2009-4401
Unlimited Release
Printed July 2009
Deep Borehole Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste
Patrick V. Brady, Bill W. Arnold, Geoff A. Freeze, Peter N. Swift, Stephen J. Bauer, Joseph L. Kanney, Robert P. Rechard, Joshua S. Stein
Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
[…]
Preliminary evaluation of deep borehole disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel indicates the potential for excellent long-term safety performance at costs competitive with mined repositories. Significant fluid flow through basementrock is prevented, in part, by low permeabilities, poorly connected transport pathways, and overburden self-sealing. Deep fluids also resist vertical movement because they are density stratified. Thermal hydrologic calculations estimate the thermal pulse from emplaced waste to be small (less than 20° C at 10 meters from the borehole, for less than a few hundred years), and to result in maximum total vertical fluid movement of ~100 m. Reducing conditions will sharply limit solubilities of most dose-critical radionuclides at depth, and high ionic strengths of deep fluids will prevent colloidal transport.
[…]
DOE estimates that 109,300 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel – primarily commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF), but also DOE spent nuclear fuel (DSNF), and high-level waste glass (HLWG) – will need to be disposed of in the US (the projected US HLW and SNF inventory is summarized in Appendix A).,Deep borehole disposal, characterization and excavation costs should scale linearly with waste inventory: small inventories require fewer boreholes; large inventories require more boreholes. Not needing a specially engineered waste package would also lower overall borehole disposal costs. Both aspects might make borehole disposal attractive for smaller national nuclear power efforts (having an inventory of 10,000 MTHM or less). In the US, the 70,000 MTHM of waste currently proposed for Yucca Mountain could be accommodated in about 600 deep boreholes (assuming each deep borehole had a 2 km long waste disposal zone that contained approximately 400 vertically stacked fuel assemblies). The remainder of the projected inventory of 109,300 MTHM could be fit into an additional 350 or so boreholes.
Because crystalline basement rocks are relatively common at 2-5 km depth (See Figure 2; also see O’Brien et al. 1979; Heiken et al. 1996), the US waste disposal burden might be shared by shipping waste to regional borehole disposal facilities. If located near existing waste inventories and production, shipping would be minimized. A disposal length of ~2km, and holes spaced 0.2km apart suggests the total projected US inventory could be disposed in several borehole fields totaling ~30 square kilometers.
Petroleum drilling costs have decreased to the point where boreholes are now routinely drilled to multi-kilometer depths. Research boreholes in Russia and Germany have been drilled to 8-12 km. The drilling costs for 950 deep boreholes to dispose of the entire 109,300 MTHM inventory, assuming a cost of $20 million per borehole (see Section 3.1), would be ~ $19 billion. Very rough estimates of other costs are $10 billion for associated site characterization, performance assessment analysis, and license application, $20 billion for disposal operations, monitoring, and decommissioning, $12 billion for ancillary program activities, and $10 billion for transportation, resulting in a total life-cycle cost for a hypothetical deep borehole disposal program of $71 billion (in 2007 dollars). Although there are significant uncertainties in the cost estimates for deep borehole disposal presented here, the estimated total life-cycle cost may be significantly lower than the estimated total cost of Yucca Mountain. Note in particular the lower construction/operation and transportation outlays that borehole disposal would allow.
This document outlines a technical and performance assessment analysis of deep borehole disposal of US HLW and SNF.
[…]
This is worth repeating:
The drilling costs for 950 deep boreholes to dispose of the entire 109,300 MTHM inventory, assuming a cost of $20 million per borehole (see Section 3.1), would be ~ $19 billion. Very rough estimates of other costs are $10 billion for associated site characterization, performance assessment analysis, and license application, $20 billion for disposal operations, monitoring, and decommissioning, $12 billion for ancillary program activities, and $10 billion for transportation, resulting in a total life-cycle cost for a hypothetical deep borehole disposal program of $71 billion (in 2007 dollars).
$71 billion (in 2007 dollars) to safely and permanently dispose of the entire inventory of 109,300 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.
That would be $84 billion in 2017 USD.
According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017, from 1965-2016, US nuclear generating stations produced 26,386 TWh of electricity (26.4 trillion kWh).
$84 billion divided by 26.4 trillion kWh is $0.0032/kWh… 1/3 of one penny per kWh to dispose of the entire inventory of high-level nuclear waste.
If solar panels and the rest of the toxic waste associated with solar installations could be compacted in such a manner that they could be disposed of in deep boreholes, the cost would be greater than $1.00/kWh (300 * $0.0032 = $0.96 plus the cost of compacting the panels, etc.).
So… Why would anyone in their right mind prefer solar over nuclear power?
As if that wasn’t bad enough for solar…
While I personally don’t ascribe much value to the reduction of carbon emissions, the advocates of solar power probably do… Yet most of them oppose nuclear power and/or natural gas.
- Solar = 1/4 the availability of nuclear.
- Solar = $500,000/MW less valuable than nuclear in emssions reduction.
- Solar = 300 times the toxic waste per MWh compared to nuclear.
Addendum: June 29, 2017 5:00 PM CDT
The Energy Collective article doesn’t clearly distinguish “waste” from “toxic waste.” So, wherever the phrase “toxic waste” appears in this post, it probably should have been written as “toxic and/or other waste products.”
California greens in government deny solar waste at behest of favored industries. Who would have imagined
With proper recycling, the volume of the longest lived nuclear waste drops dramatically. The long lived elements in nuclear waste are actually fuel with the right tech. But that supposedly enables diversion of nuclear material to terrorist use. I presume recycling of solar panels would also greatly reduce the volume of toxic waste, but the cost is a problem, both in money and energy.
actinide waste can be consumed in a reactor. Most of the fission products decay in 300 years or so. However there are some fission products present in reactors with half lives of 100,000 years to 24 million years. They are TC99, Sn126, Se79, Zr93, Cs 135, PD107, I129. So you cannot fully recycle nuclear waste some will simply be reactive for too long and should be disposed of in some way. Solar panels can be fully recycled. In fact any consumer product can be recycled Plastics can be fully vaporized and burned. once the flammables are burned off cleanly the rest can be processed as ore. So in theory solar can be 100% recycled once it has failed. Same for all of the electronic that handle the power produced. You cannot say that for nuclear.
Yes, there are fission byproducts that have no commercial use at this time.
However the other 99.9999% of the waste can either be recycled or will decay to background in a few decades.
Investigating the deficiencies of competing technologies is essential.
Papering over those of one’s favoured choices is fatal.
As Gertrude noted – “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Comparing volumes of waste generated is entirely legitimate and something which is worth noting.
To suggest that the problem of long term nuclear ‘waste’ storage has been solved with anything like the confidence level demanded of such a potential hazard is disingenuous at very very best.
The quoted 2009 Sandia “we can do this” report has it’s place, but needs to put in perspective by looking at documents such as.the hundreds of publicly available US Nuclear Technical Review Board reports, releases, fact sheets, announcements … .
A useful overview of the current position is given by
U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD:
Technical Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Deep Borehole Disposal Research and Development Program. January 2016.
A read through of the 3 page press release is strongly recommended – it makes it very clear that “the Science is far from settled”
Press release http://www.nwtrb.gov/press/prl202.pdf
Full Report: http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/DBD_final.pdf
From the report’s “Conclusions & Recommendations: ” … it is clear that substantial time and effort will be required to fully evaluate the concept of deep borehole disposal. In the Board’s view, the Deep Borehole Field Test should carefully consider the key parameters and information that would be needed to fully evaluate the feasibility of deep borehole disposal of radioactive waste. This would provide a basis for additional planning, including definition of specific technological and scientific goals, and obtaining a broader range of data, such as those from surface-based characterization methods and those needed to support regulatory interactions, and greatly improve the technical basis and rationale for the DOE Deep Borehole Research and Development Program. Specific Board recommendations are as follows: ….”
USNWTR Refs:
Press releases http://www.nwtrb.gov/press/press.html (with links to reports etc)
Reports, 50+ http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/reports.html
Fact sheets http://www.nwtrb.gov/facts/factsheets.html
Home page http://www.nwtrb.gov/index.html
Russell
Dave Middleton, let me shake your hand. You must be a most remarkable person. I read the fifty insulting, information-free offerings by S Johnson, that are essentially the course work for today’s corrupted humanities curricula in our universities. The thrusts and snark I have seen so much of from these unfortunate young folks who don’t know that what they got was not an education, that I instantly know what they studied, where they studied (I use the word studied because I don’t know what to call what they’ve done), how old they are, who they are and who they voted for.
Nevertheless, you responded with grace, a flood of data and logic that was a fine education for all of your readers. Doing this kindness, is like reading Shakespearean soliloquies to Tweedledee and Tweedledum with the likes S Johnson and the millions of clones like him.
Man, how do we begin to unravel the mess when this unhappy and destructive chapter in human affairs finally collapses under the weight of a global epidemic of mindlessness, and Machiavellian evil?
Let me second that atta boy.
I have doubts about deep boreholes.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/doyle/arthur_conan/screamed/
Why would you bury nuclear waste in a deep borehole? Someone will find a use for it one day.
H/T Robert A. Heinlein.
As for why I prefer solar over nuclear, the answer is that I can phone someone up, get solar panels installed on my house, and start reducing my electricity bills in a matter of days.
But no-one round here seems to install nuclear power plants.
As the guy who’s helping to pay for your preferences. You are welcome.
>Why would you bury nuclear waste in a deep borehole? Someone will find a use for it one day.
Indeed. Used fuel assemblies from commercial reactors are 95% unused fuel.
Unfortunately, it is currently illegal to reprocess spent fuel in the US. That Carter-era decision should be rescinded.
This is such a poorly written load of headline grabbing rubbish, it’s hard to fathom.
If it was just pointing out the issues of waste from Old pv panels, it would have ground.
But no, moronic author puts it against nuclear with so many awful comparisons. Putting nuclear waste underground has often been seen as bad, simply because they have no foolproof way of ensuring it doesn’t effect vital things like the water table, even if buried far below. Those science papers, if anyone read them, are only theory with scarcely anything behind them.
I’d love for nuclear to be viable, since it’s a low carbon option. However, at the moment, there isn’t a single reactor in service which gives energy at the average strike price with decommissioning and storage of waste taken into account. (all the others haven’t factored this in)
So apart from everything else, it’s too bloody expensive!
If it’s 10K feet below the water table, there is no conceivable way for it to impact the water supply.
Your paranoid fantasies are duly noted and ridiculed.
E-waste generally can be treated like ore and smelted or otherwise processed. E-waste is a much better source of gold and silver than is ore. link
Folks paid money to get all the materials that go into solar panels. Almost all of it can be recovered. The only thing standing in the way is economics. ie. Is it more profitable to process and sell the results, or is no profit possible and it’s cheaper to just dump. Urban recycling programs are struggling with this problem.
They already get recycled, almost everywhere.
Oooooo they all say, how does he know this?
Well folks, its your Lucky Day and am gonna tell ya.
Its no big secret, almost any modern day peasant could tell you.
It is because peasants, being Guardians of Dirt as they are want to be and *always* on the look-out for something/anything cheap, will be regularly offered stuff called Sludge.
Properly called Sewage Sludge and the folks who create this stuff craic it up to be ‘Ambrosia For The Soil’ and are so convinced of its manifold goodnesses, they actually give it away free. (You see now why peasants get interested. Free Stuff, what could possibly go wrong?)
Sadly it all does go rather pear-shaped because along come ‘scientists’ We all know the sort, Well Meaning types from Ivory Towers with big dciks and even bigger test tubes. Thats biiiiiiiiiiiiiig.
These scientists poop on the party by informing the peasants that Sludge, as derived from People Poo at ‘treatment works’ is full of Toxic Heavy Metals (sounds good apart from the toxic bit) and will lay waste their lovely and well-tended dirt.
Lose lose all round innit. Just like Climate Change, we should be used to it by now yooda thunk.
The inquisitive peasant (thats most of them) will not give up on the possibility of Free Stuff and will demand to know how this toxic stuff got into the People Poo and hence the Free Stuff Sludge.
Sadly and just like Climate Science, (s)he will be met by a tsunami of arm waving, buck passing, smoke & obfuscation and after a while will simply be forced into a broken heart and have to walk away from the Free Stuff.
Completely none-the-wiser. Exactly like Climate Science.
The Enlightened will realise/know that in fact Sunshine Panels, along with mobile phones, computers, TVs are loaded with Heavy Metal(s) so-
The Conclusion must be= People Eat Sunshine Panels
and computers/phones/Tvs
So, whats the problem with all this waste – folks are eating it. Already. And have been for ages.
So no problemo.
And damn good luck to them I say. I’m sure there’s more actual real nutrition in just one old Dell laptop than there is in yer average sized forest of broccoli.
And so you see, there is hope for humankind – we’re not all completely dumb
😀
You are a little out of date… UK sewage plants turn much of their output into biogas via anaerobic digesters, using it to power sewage treatment and also to inject to the gas grid….
but the remaining sludge is in the UK a valuable and non-toxic fertiliser (strict regulation ensures that)
https://corporate.thameswater.co.uk/About-us/Protecting-our-enviroment/Managing-our-impact/Managing-sewage-sludge
OT, but the climate extremists are circling back to the “we have 3 years left to save the world” fake news. This time the southern US is going to suffer worse…..coincidental with deplorables who dared to vote for Trump.
Two scientific topics guaranteed to give rise to diverse opinions by less qualified onlookers are toxicity and nuclear. We have both here.
The reality is that hordes of professionals have done intensive studies of both over the years. As for myself, I was deeply involved in the science of uranium radioactivity and lead poisoning for a couple of decades after about 1970, with trips to places like Oak Ridge and Key Lake to learn more from the experts. If you do not know where these places are, you might not be too qualified to opine here. Indeed, if you have not done the science in some detail, you might choose not to comment as rashly as some above.
The upshot is that there is very little to fear from either nuclear or toxicity, including from solar panels. Reason? Very many of us have already been exposed to anomalous level of lead, cadmium, uranium, uranium chain radioactivity at level some here seem to think are dangerous. There is essentially no hard evidence that anyone has been harmed, apart from 2 atom bombs on cities and 3 reactor mishaps that led to releases, although they were tiny for Fukushima. By tiny, I mean scarcely able to be distinguished from high background levels that we face every day and are enhanced, for example, when flying in aircraft. Or from medical X-rays, CT scans etc. This is old health physics that has been known for decades. The decay rate is essentially constant over time.
What is non constant is the fear of things people do not understand. With many toxins, the ‘official’ levels of harm are well above the actual level;s of harm, This is because regulatory people apply safety factors and use faulty models like linear no dose to set health regulations. The party using the regulations commonly adds a further safety factor, because if they reduced the harm level there would be plenty of legal ambulance chasers to take big money from them.
So there is a common misconception that lead is a dangerous environmental toxin. When you read a significant subset of the voluminous studies, you will see that the evidence is quite slender, even absent. Most lead poisoning cases, probably all, have resulted from very large doses, like kids eating putty painted with lead paint. I am unaware of any deaths arising from levels that could be produced, for example, by the use of leaded gasoline. The whole field of inorganic and radiogenic toxicity has been captured by fearful zealots unable to show any bodies.
In a brief not like this, one has to generalise and sure, you can pick in detail at some of the points I have made here with brevity. But the overall message is correct. To be win, you have to show the bodies.
Sleep well Geoff.
Now bankrupt Evergreen Solar was massachusetts top haz waste producer ( and got millions in green stimulus funds)….
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2009/07/toxic_waste_casts_cloud_massachusetts_solar_co
so what about this:
“On Thursday, Trump said his administration will attempt to expand the nuclear energy sector by launching a “complete review” of current policy to identify ways to revive the industry.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/watch-president-trump-gives-a-speech-on-us-energy-dominance.html
I think it’s fracking awesome!
This article is leaving out an important fact. Solar panels can be recycled. Some estimates show a 90+% recovery rate. Other estimates show that recycling solar panels will become a $10+ billion industry by 2050. Showing that it is not only possible to recycle solar panels but that it will be profitable and therefore likely market driven.
I am unsure if the same can be said of nuclear waste, but considering we are always looking for safe places to put it for long term storage, I am going to guess it is not cost effective to recycle.
Mikel, Nuclear waster can indeed be recycled. Several methods can be used but the politicians will not allow the process to be built. President Carter discontinued an enrichment process located in Barnwell, SC because he feared that a terrorist could hijack one of the trucks transporting the spent fuel and get enough to create a primitive nuclear device. There is a discussion on this issue in another thread.
If you want to see the aftereffects of recycling nuclear wastes, there is a good example of it in Hanford Washington. They ran reactors there strictly to breed plutonium. The processed the spent fuel rods to extract the plutonium for making bombs. They are still trying to clean up the mess today.
The fact that nuclear could be recycled (but isn’t) does not change the fact that solar panels can be (and are). The point is that this article is leaving that out of the equation. If solar panels are recycled then they entire point of this article is void. There is no potential waste crisis for solar panels.
Maybe the article should be about why we are not recycling nuclear waste and how doing so would make nuclear energy a more sustainable power source.
Solar rooftop kills more Americans every year than the worst nuclear disaster in history
Death toll:
Chernobyl = 43
Solar rooftop = ave. 100 per year (fatal falls from solar installation & maintenance)
http://cdn.simplifiedsafety.com.s3.amazonaws.com/images/900/Top-10-Rooftop-Safety-Hazards.jpg
“More people died at Chappaquiddick than died at Three Mile Island.”
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/incident-on-chappaquiddick-island
Not only by accident, but also by fires. In Germany, there are insurers who do not, or only at higher conditions, conclude a building fire insurance if there is a solar system on the roof for electricity feeding. This can go so far that the fire brigade led burn a house roof of a burning house with a solar system in order to prevent drifting for the firemen. It was not for nothing that last year, an obligation to install fire detectors for homeowners in Germany was introduced: Styrofoam insulation and burning rectifiers on the roof – an uncomfortable combination.
This is also the reason why I decided to use a solar thermal system to heat the water to use in the house. My wife had great concerns about a solar power generation system after she heard about the fire hazard. She is a burnt child because she has experienced several house fires in her youth.
Who can speak German:
https://www.welt.de/finanzen/immobilien/article8856358/Feuerwehr-laesst-Haeuser-mit-Solardach-abbrennen.html
Amazing what you can do with a little scaremongering. I bet if the news media picked this up and started broadcasting it, then social media would pick it up, and bloggers started weighing in, in several months our society would start fearing solar energy. The fast pace of sending information is a 2 edged sword.
Oh don’t be scared, solar energy (a.k.a. sunlight) kills over 9,000 Americans every year via skin cancer from UV radiation. Solar energy killed more people worldwide than the Hiroshima atomic bomb
I love solar energy
Account for useful electricity delivered and I’m sure solar looks even worse.
Dr. S, the article attached to your graphic does not seem to say anything about solar. Check and see what I am missing.
http://simplifiedsafety.com/blog/top-10-rooftop-safety-hazards/
All 10 apply to solar installation and roof works
None support 100 fatal falls a year due to solar. Maybe you have another source?
The article assumes nuclear plants are never going to be decommissioned. That’s baloney, the costs of decommissioning are enormous.
And solar vs nuclear is a logical fallacy: False Choice.
Calvin, Before a nuclear power plant was issued a permit to operate money had to be set aside for decommissioning of that plant. It is built into the rate base so those costs are already included in the cost of electricity for those plants.
“It is built into the rate base ”
…
Except that they haven’t been able to decommission ANY plant yet. They have no place to bury the wastes. So the calculated cost of decommissioning that the rate payers supposedly paid isn’t enough to cover inflation.
..
They forgot to add in the costs of armed guards at places like these: http://www.connyankee.com/assets/images/43_vccs02.jpg
Most of the so called waste from nuclear power can be recycled and used again in power plants.
Most of the stuff that can’t be recycled will have it’s radioactivity levels decay away to near background in a few decades or less.
Properly, technical development is only a matter of past nuclear power plants when this development process is terminated by force. It is a blessing that Rick Perry has spoken out clearly in the development of nuclear technology at the White House Press Conference. Long-term storage of nuclear waste will in any case be a thing of the past in a few years. In Germany, they search and search for a deposit with endless time both for the camp and the search. This search can one spare soon. The dismantling of old plants costs a lot of money. That’s right. However, the dismantling of wind turbines and solar power plants, which numbers in the case of 100 per cent “clean energy” millions, also costs a lot of money in just a few decades. There is nothing to be had in the world for nothing.
There are companies who specialize in recycling old solar panels–taking them apart, separating elements and testing them to manufacturers for reuse. Think of PC recyclers…. how much of the issue raised in this article is fixed with this information?
Little to none. Most of the waste is from the mining and manufacturing.
About the only part of the solar panel that can be recycled is the glass covering it, and the metal in the frame.
Seems to be a conspiracy of oil Mafia against clean and cheapest energy source. What toxic waste? If plastic is toxic then, 90% of our house hold items are plastic. TV, Airconditioner, chairs, tables, PVC windows frames, sanitary pipes, all electrical installation covers, most clothes, dolls, children toys, boards, computers, mobiles, telephones, water coolers, dust bins, and so on.. all are plastics. Has some one thought of disposal of these items weighing trillions of tons. Solar has brought a revolution for the poors. The only hope for them should not be destroyed by promoting such unscientific articles. What is 300 time toxic???
Another troll who has no idea what he is talking about.
Have you ever checked what the materials that are used to make solar panels?
PS: The only reason why solar is cheap, is because government subsidizes 90% of the cost.
Look up solar industry grapples with hazardous waste.
“Bahramand Khan June 30, 2017 at 8:29 am
If plastic is toxic then, 90% of our house hold items are plastic. …, Airconditioner, … PVC windows frames, sanitary pipes, all electrical installation covers,… dust bins, and so on.. all are plastics.”
In the last 50 years of my life I have not disposed of these items. They are still installed, including the electrical installation covers I installed in my parents home in 1982. Still there, still doing it’s job!
This article also neglects to consider the life of a solar product (that uses no fuel) vs the life of a reactor fuel rod that doesn’t last nearly as long.
And it ignores that fact that “easily disposed of” nuclear waste has never been dealt with by the US Congress or Dept of Energy. Limbo doesn’t count as a permanent solution.
The nuclear rod won’t last as long, but over it’s life span it will produce 10’s of thousands times more energy.
The only reason why no disposal solution exists is because no nothings such as yourself keep suing to prevent any solution from being implemented.
BTW, it takes more energy to build a solar panel and frame, than the solar panel can ever produce in it’s lifespan. And that doesn’t include the energy needed for maintenance.
You need a source for the assertion that solar makes negative energy… that’s a pretty bold statement. What lifetime are you giving the panel? Please give a link or reputable source. (Someone made the same argument about wind power the other day… but that was wildly inaccurate…)
Note that solar panels are already being built with recycling in mind. Remember many of the people in the industry have background in sustainable businesses.
https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/PRS_Agenda/2_Krueger_IEEE-Presentation-Final.pdf
MarkW says: “it takes more energy to build a solar panel and frame, than the solar panel can ever produce in it’s lifespan.”
..
MarkW does not know what he is talking about.
..
http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/solar-panels/energy-payback-time-for-solar-systems/
Also note the source article was poorly researched by the authors, as evidenced by the responses on the energycollective web page.
I know nobody reads the source and comments, but you should…
An excellent reason to convert to solar is the number of jobs it would create. Already Solar provides almost 400,000 jobs in the US. About twice what Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas combined provide. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#852c9b628000 And it produces only 0.6% of all electric power. So if we converted to 100% solar we could employ 67 million people. Or how do you define the inefficiency of an industry.
An excellent reason to convert to solar is the number of jobs it would create. Already Solar provides almost 400,000 jobs in the US. About twice what Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas combined provide. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#852c9b628000 And it produces only 0.6% of all electric power. So if we converted to 100% solar we could employ 67 million people. Or how do you define the inefficiency of an industry.