Study: Solar Panels Create More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear Power Plants

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
In what is described as “one of the dirty little secrets behind the push for renewable energy,” researchers have found that discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. Unlike nuclear waste, which is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of, the ridding of solar panels is far less diligent and lacks clear policy.

Solar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste,” and according to EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson, scavengers in developing countries like India and China often “burn the e-waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.”
 
Time for modular units with clear EOL recycling plans built in
 
Having worked for a company that manufactured Solar Panels, I can confirm that the process isn't nearly as green as many would think. From the energy needed for growing the silicon wafer to the chemical treatment involving some really nasty chemicals.
 
Yup, its all nasty stuff involved making them and recycling them. It is however quite possible to do it in a manner that is safe and the panels themselves usually last at least 2 decades and are encapsulated for installation and handling.

I feel real bad for anyone working in the Chinese or Indian plants though. I somehow doubt they're doing the manufacture and recycling in a safe manner and instead cut corners to make a few extra dimes or quarters' worth of profits per panel.
 
It's a well known fact that nuclear power plants were well regarded with waste production considered.

How ever this still vastly less toxic than a coal plant.
 
Trimlock said:
It's a well known fact that nuclear power plants were well regarded with waste production considered.
Click to expand...
Eeeehhhh not really.

The US nuclear waste currently isn't really being stored properly at all. It just keeps building up in cooling ponds that AFAIK were reaching over capacity years ago. The Yucca mountain facility really should've gotten built.
 
I don't doubt it at all. The way I see it though, the damage done and toxic waste produced by a nuclear plant going bad (ie: Fukushima) is many times worse than even long term effects of solar panel manufacturing.

However, we should still push for cleaner solutions - is it possible to recycle solar panels? How about creating panels that don't require chemicals that are harmful?
 
Jehuty said:
However, we should still push for cleaner solutions - is it possible to recycle solar panels? How about creating panels that don't require chemicals that are harmful?
Click to expand...
The panels degrade over time so the stuff they're talking about in the article is what is required right now to recycle them. To do it in a "cleaner" way just means doing the whole process in a manner that doesn't outgass toxic substances or drump toxic waste in the water supply. That all costs money though.

All the panels that have enough efficiency to be worth a damn require some sort of toxic materials unfortunately. Especially the cheaper ones.

You're not getting away from toxic compounds but handling them properly is doable.
 
Logical flaw that exposes this as right wing oil/gas/coal industry propaganda ..... Who would ever throw out Solar panels, they have a 25-50 year lifespan, as recyclable, and make free electricity until dead.
 
Well, duh. Nuclear reactors produce very little waste. Problem is that said waste is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years and realistic options for dealing with the waste problem (breeder reactors) raise the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Sure, scavengers in poor places like India could potentially get cancer if they're burning solar panels (same with all the other e-waste we send there), but at least nobody will be assembling nuclear bombs from them.
 
Yeah, i mean it's the fucking solar panels that are the problem. Humanity is running on massive scale industries that are literally consuming contaminating and destroying the planet, but no no no wait one minute ITS THE FUCKING SOLAR PANELS, YES YES THAT IS IT.
This shit is so fucking absurd makes my brain want to punch itself.
 
Yeah nuclear waste is soooooooo safe they are putting it in energy drinks you know. We don't even bother to reprocess , cause it costs too much, and we have no balls anymore to do shit or tax where the money is.
 
And I stopped at "a nonprofit that advocates for the use of nuclear energy". Also 300 times as much toxic waste in what way? Nuclear waste has to be stored underground for hundreds of years, while solar panels can be melted back down to their individual elements.

Pretty clear this is propaganda to stop people from putting solar panels on their roofs. Lately the power companies are getting scared if they're going to lose people who pay their utility bills. If too many people switch over to solar, it maybe not worth operating some power plants. I think in some parts of the world they still charge you an electric bill, because they require you to feed that power back into the grid.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Yeah nuclear waste is soooooooo safe they are putting it in energy drinks you know. We don't even bother to reprocess , cause it costs too much, and we have no balls anymore to do shit or tax where the money is.
Click to expand...
Nuka Cola, now with Strontium-90.

Quantum.0.jpg
 
National Review links, here, really? They're a front for the Koch brothers. Just look at the other bullshit articles they host and use some common sense before linking it as "news".

If you follow the story back to its root, you find that it was produced by a blatant nuclear power advocacy group: http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

I do think nuclear power is among the best power sources available, assuming you run the reactor safely, which the vast majority are, and I have no problem with advocacy of it, but this article is nothing more than a hit piece on solar from an extremely biased source. You'd do well not to link such shoddiness as "news".

How biased is this source? In its headline comparison "300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power" it considers one kilogram of solar panel as being toxic waste equivalent to one kilogram of spent reactor fuel.

Gimme a fuckin' break. That's an outrageous comparison if there ever was one. If you just let that slide by and assume its a valid comparison, you have no business evaluating what's news or what isn't. If I were running the [H] I'd issue Megalith a warning to be more careful before posting garbage stories with no research as to its validity, from now on.
 
mesyn191 said:
Eeeehhhh not really.

The US nuclear waste currently isn't really being stored properly at all. It just keeps building up in cooling ponds that AFAIK were reaching over capacity years ago. The Yucca mountain facility really should've gotten built.
Click to expand...

i would say not true in the least but that depends on what you want to call storing used fuel safely. right now, the US is the same as many other countries. once the used fuel has gotten cool enough for dry storage it is placed in a steel cask that is about a couple feet of solid steel and a steel cap is welded on the top. these casks are able to take a freight train slamming into them without much more than a minor dent, explosions, you name it. those casks are then stored under guard just as they would in another location.

so ask yourself this: what's the difference? yes Yucca should have been built there are advantages. research being just one. but to say that used fuel is not being stored properly? i'd say not. it's not like this stuff is not monitored. furthermore, as the casks rot out you might be surprised at how easily they can be repackaged. that was a project i worked on long ago, waste from research reactors had to be better sealed up. i'm not too worried about used fuel being stolen. not only is it kept under guard by military trained security (at least they are where i work) but as soon as you open that cask you're probably dead. and moving one of those things? they have a specially designed vehicle to do this, they're insanely heavy. you're not going to move one with a helicopter.

the issue is maintenance and space. nothing more. it's not hard to expand a used fuel storage facility....

as far as solar panels, it's been known for a LONG time now that the toxic waste from creating these and recycling them is through the roof. the industry just doesn't want to talk about it, that's all. the so-called 'green' alternatives are actually creating more pollution than they're avoiding. energy cannot be stored on the grid and the renewables do not supply a constant or even predictable load. solar somewhat predictable. if they suddenly stop producing power (which can and does happen) then you have a defect. if that is not made up very quickly, you will have blackouts with the possibility of a cascading blackout which can take out the entire grid. remember 2003?

to solve that you need natural gas turbines idling at all times to pick up that load. this is why if you take the time to look into anti nuclear/pro solar and wind lobbyist groups you'll find that they are usually receiving a substantial amount of funding from gas companies.

plus all that used nuclear fuel can be reused....only about 2% give or take is used in current reactor designs...and there's reprocessing as well....
 
Well duh. Nuclear plants don't create much toxic waste, they create radioactive waste, that is much harder to handle, but they don't create much of that either.

This is a pointless comparison. About every chemical process creates by-products.

The oil lobby sure is trying hard to demonize solar by trying to equate it to nuclear power in terms of potential harm.
 
So fucking recycle them then instead? Is it REALLY that hard? We recycle all kinds of electronics...
 
I was in the nuclear industry for 5 years, found one spill no one knew about, in the department I worked in. I know how the company responded, the fake readings they gave to the State (I heard them talking), the threats the other workers received if they did not go back to their benches even though at that time I was still finding isotopes on the metal doors of the storage cabs in that room.

Then I go for 2 weeks to Diablo Canyon Power Plant where I notice how they often did not have gas flowing through the detectors of the walk-thru portals

So no, it is not an innocent safe industry. Actually, quite the opposite really. Just ask Karen ...
 
Megalith said:
Unlike nuclear waste, which is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of, the ridding of solar panels is far less diligent and lacks clear policy.
Click to expand...

Was this copypasta directly from the NRCs website? If not, what other crackpot source did this come from?

"Carefully monitored" means stored in some derelict yard with dilapidated fencing and CCTV cameras that are 30 years old being monitored by a half asleep wimpy p. jones from a broken down shack. "disposed of" means paying off the mob to shove hundreds of barrels of the stuff on old derelict ships and sink them off the coast of Italy, Somalia or other 3rd world countries because it's cheaper than properly storing it (which is the only way of "disposing" of it.)

Look up the triangle of death in Italy and the 'Ndràngheta.

I think it's hilarious that heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury are portrayed as worse than nuclear waste. The former heavy metals won't kill you or irreparably damage your DNA from being near them, plus they can be recycled over and over again. Nuclear waste? naah, can't touch that shit for 250,000 years. It just takes up space and money.

mesyn191 said:
Eeeehhhh not really.

The US nuclear waste currently isn't really being stored properly at all. It just keeps building up in cooling ponds that AFAIK were reaching over capacity years ago. The Yucca mountain facility really should've gotten built.
Click to expand...

Nope, the nuclear waste can stay right where it was generated at. A single spent fuel cask costs about 1 million dollars to build, and another million dollars to load full of spent fuel. It's estimated that moving all of the spent fuel in the US alone would cost upwards of 7 billion dollars. But that's just the fuel and not consumable reactor materials which are also highly radioactive. I'm sure not going to foot any part of that bill. Nuclear energy is eventually going to be priced out of the market, it would already be priced out of the market if it wasn't heavily subsidized by the government.
 
EODetroit said:
National Review links, here, really? They're a front for the Koch brothers. Just look at the other bullshit articles they host and use some common sense before linking it as "news".

If you follow the story back to its root, you find that it was produced by a blatant nuclear power advocacy group: http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

I do think nuclear power is among the best power sources available, assuming you run the reactor safely, which the vast majority are, and I have no problem with advocacy of it, but this article is nothing more than a hit piece on solar from an extremely biased source. You'd do well not to link such shoddiness as "news".

How biased is this source? In its headline comparison "300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power" it considers one kilogram of solar panel as being toxic waste equivalent to one kilogram of spent reactor fuel.

Gimme a fuckin' break. That's an outrageous comparison if there ever was one. If you just let that slide by and assume its a valid comparison, you have no business evaluating what's news or what isn't. If I were running the [H] I'd issue Megalith a warning to be more careful before posting garbage stories with no research as to its validity, from now on.
Click to expand...

Slate isn't much better, but the broader point stands. This "story" is garbage and pure FUD. You'd never see an ISP shilling piece hit the front page about how Net Neutrality is "unfair" and "harms poor people" (sadly actual arguments they've used). So why this blatant propaganda from a pro-nuclear-power org is shown is beyond me.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
Nope, the nuclear waste can stay right where it was generated at. A single spent fuel cask costs about 1 million dollars to build, and another million dollars to load full of spent fuel. It's estimated that moving all of the spent fuel in the US alone would cost upwards of 7 billion dollars. But that's just the fuel and not consumable reactor materials which are also highly radioactive. I'm sure not going to foot any part of that bill.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a good thing that there's a $30 billion fund already paid by the nuclear power industry lying around waiting to be used, once the US government finally gets Yucca or another site operational.

Nuclear energy is eventually going to be priced out of the market, it would already be priced out of the market if it wasn't heavily subsidized by the government.
Click to expand...
Where it'll be replaced by natural gas and would be a shame, given that nuclear is a major source of low CO2 emission electricity in the world and provides it reliably.
 
Last edited:
_l_ said:
I was in the nuclear industry for 5 years, found one spill no one knew about, in the department I worked in. I know how the company responded, the fake readings they gave to the State (I heard them talking), the threats the other workers received if they did not go back to their benches even though at that time I was still finding isotopes on the metal doors of the storage cabs in that room.

Then I go for 2 weeks to Diablo Canyon Power Plant where I notice how they often did not have gas flowing through the detectors of the walk-thru portals

So no, it is not an innocent safe industry. Actually, quite the opposite really. Just ask Karen ...
Click to expand...


If there is any truth to what you say, I think the regulation is in need of a huge overhaul.

I work fill time in a nuclear plant, just not an American one. I'm curious about the monitors not getting gas flow you describe. What ones are they? How did you determine that gas flow is cut off? The ones we have the gas is only for calibration purposes.

I've been contaminated many times but hey you deal with it and move on.

And yes we have our skeletons in the closet like any other industry. Can't give specifics, but sounds like they're smaller than the ones you saw
 
GiGaBiTe said:
Was this copypasta directly from the NRCs website? If not, what other crackpot source did this come from?

"Carefully monitored" means stored in some derelict yard with dilapidated fencing and CCTV cameras that are 30 years old being monitored by a half asleep wimpy p. jones from a broken down shack. "disposed of" means paying off the mob to shove hundreds of barrels of the stuff on old derelict ships and sink them off the coast of Italy, Somalia or other 3rd world countries because it's cheaper than properly storing it (which is the only way of "disposing" of it.)

Look up the triangle of death in Italy and the 'Ndràngheta.

I think it's hilarious that heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury are portrayed as worse than nuclear waste. The former heavy metals won't kill you or irreparably damage your DNA from being near them, plus they can be recycled over and over again. Nuclear waste? naah, can't touch that shit for 250,000 years. It just takes up space and money.



Nope, the nuclear waste can stay right where it was generated at. A single spent fuel cask costs about 1 million dollars to build, and another million dollars to load full of spent fuel. It's estimated that moving all of the spent fuel in the US alone would cost upwards of 7 billion dollars. But that's just the fuel and not consumable reactor materials which are also highly radioactive. I'm sure not going to foot any part of that bill. Nuclear energy is eventually going to be priced out of the market, it would already be priced out of the market if it wasn't heavily subsidized by the government.
Click to expand...

OR we could reprocess it and use it as fuel.. OR burn it up in molten salt liquid fuel reactors... tons of ways to deal with it that are safe and cheaper then dumping it in a cave

also you know who has the lowest CO2 emissions in the world? FRANCE you know why? LOTS OF NUCLEAR and they reprocess there fuel
 
Out of sight is out of mind.

The fact is, wafering and cell-etching tech is only getting cheaper, more accessible to shady business, and ultimately more dirty, but it's certainly an easier industry to champion, startup, invest, produce, work, install, sell, compete, regulate, predict, and maintain than nuclear power. I mean, so long as people aren't consumed with the whimsical "go green" philosophy and completely ignore the dangers of a rapid paradigm shift without regulation... I guess we already did that, but surely people will gradually vote with their dollars and buy smart and clean options?
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Logical flaw that exposes this as right wing oil/gas/coal industry propaganda ..... Who would ever throw out Solar panels, they have a 25-50 year lifespan, as recyclable, and make free electricity until dead.
Click to expand...

They make free electricity? Where do you find such free panels? I'd sure be interested in getting some of those legally.
 
NUke dinosaur PR hit piece really.
Solar panels are indeed poisonous shitty solution but hot particles lodged in your lung or in your food because they dilute and release tritium etc as per standards is not safe either.

This argument is equivalent of 'oh a 9mm is safer to be shot with an a .50 cal deagle'.

So yeah, don't ever believe the nuke pushers. They own large parts of media and use 'education' to teach you it's equivalent to 'an xray/flight/etc' and ignore internal radiation e.g. hot particle in your lungs or food. Nice.
 
Megalith said:
In what is described as “one of the dirty little secrets behind the push for renewable energy,” researchers have found that discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. Unlike nuclear waste, which is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of, the ridding of solar panels is far less diligent and lacks clear policy.

Solar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste,” and according to EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson, scavengers in developing countries like India and China often “burn the e-waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.”
Click to expand...

Purely a "pro" something else group that the 'researchers" are writing for. Solar is such a relatively new technology that their "end of life" has'nt yet happened. At least not in the amounts that would show up in the third world countries trying to find the plastic to burn. Solar cells are 99% glass. Hello! Where is the plastic that is being burned. Ok maybe not 99%. But I would bet that its at least 90%. So the article is considering a solar cell made of up 90% glass in the same catagory as an old console game that is made up of 75% plastic. This alone is enough information to reveal that the research is tilted. Not without a preferred outcome. This isnt research its a constructed tome trying to dirty up clean energy. Yes! In 10 or 15 years when solar cells, or maybe 50 years when solar cells stop making electricity, some kind of clean way to recycle will have to be brought online. But how can something be 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear when solar cells arent yet needing to be recycled. Its like saying that the tv sets at bestbuy are causing toxic waste because we know that everyone of them will eventually be shipped to some third world country to be burned up for the valuable materials. So when are the researchers going to say - hey america. Its not up to third world countries to figure out ways to cleanly recycle potentially toxic e-waste. As one of the richest countries on earth, you should export better ways to recycle safely. So you can stop blaming the only techniques that we have for releasing 300 times more toxic e-waste than nuclear.

This is not a toxic waste issue. Its a "some" folks are using bad techniques like burning plastic that is causing the problem. E-waste "is" a problem. America sweeping all of their e-waste under the third world countires rug, is the issue since they dont have modern techniques to recycle safely.

This is a picture of a common solar cell:
MODSTRUC.GIF


EVA and tedlar are the "plastic content". The blue are the cells and the green is the glass content. They are thin sheets, films, to bond everything together. If I knew exactly what the dimensions were I would call them glue. Not a major component of the cell.

EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson come off like they are missing the point, or are being paid to state that way.
 
Last edited:
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Logical flaw that exposes this as right wing oil/gas/coal industry propaganda ..... Who would ever throw out Solar panels, they have a 25-50 year lifespan, as recyclable, and make free electricity until dead.
Click to expand...

The lifespan is longer. They're considered "dead" when the cells only produce 80% of the original capacity at around 20-25 years. And IIRC the drop off levels out after that(for example they're 70% capable at 50-75 years, don't remember the exact numbers)
 
Until completely proven otherwise which will take decades maybe even a century, I'll accept this "e-waste" over nuclear waste and chance at another "Fukushima". Yeah, I laugh at all those people saying nuclear reactors are completely safe. That the new technology prevents any possible meltdown. I never doubt the human capacity to err.
 
I don't remember the last time I heard about solar panel meltdowns and rendering large amounts of square miles unlivable.




(nuclear is still better)
 
And the other dirty secret is... if the green wheenies would let us reprocess our spent fuel, 90% of the high level waste everyone is so scared about would be... get this.... RECYCLED. Fucking cant make this shit up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top