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

[nysmo]

lol I'll sit in a room full of used solar panels over a room full of nuclear waste filled containers any day. Show me a solar panel manufacturing meltdown that becomes a natural disaster or renders an area uninhabitable for the next 5000 years.

 

[Shintai]

Still ultra tiny amounts compared to coal. When we peaked with coal in Denmark we used 7 million tonnes a year as a small energy efficient country. Now try calculate how much chromium, arsenic, thorium, mercury, uranium etc that contains.

The danger with nuclear isn't the waste, its the radioactivity. See Chernobyl, Fukushima etc.

Thorium reactors will help some there. But fossil fuels if you exclude radioactives isn't part pf the future.

 

[Dead Parrot]

One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.

Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.

Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.

 

[Shintai]

One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.

Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.

Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/

Perhaps because nuclear power is the second most expensive power in the US.

 

[naib]

breeder nuclear is the only real option going forward

nop, LFTR is

 

[Wierdo]

Study basically claims 1kg of material for solar generation = 1kg of nuclear waste. Makes sense /s

lol.

 

[Uvaman2]

One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.

Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.

Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.

The battery argument is a dying one too.
First, Nickel Iron battery are not that dirty or nasty, and is tech nearly 100years old, those batteries last pretty much forever.
Disadvantages are, high self discharge, and low density, but both are not an issue with grid tied batteries.
Jesus,
Aquion Energy's salt water batteries (a real thing and real product) did not survive long enough after initial investment (yes, they did deliver a final product)
Jesus, shit, the Chinese own it now.
Good God, even the american 'billionaires' are so freaking short sighted.
I would have sunk more money, way more.. I guess the Chinese will do great, they got it on fire sale @ 9.6million.

 

[Riccochet]

Why do people keep comparing what happens in third world countries to what happens in the U.S.? Of course some third world country isn't going to give two shits about how they handle their toxic/nuclear/whatever waste.

 

[Sovereign]

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.

Another dirty secret is: That's not the real reason nuclear fuel reprocessing was banned.

The initial ban was due to proliferation concerns and the policy remains to this day on that basis. While it's true that environmental groups oppose nuclear power, they weren't the ones who came up with the rule.

Do your research before going for another cheap slam (like this entire "article").

 

[Uvaman2]

Another dirty secret is: That's not the real reason nuclear fuel reprocessing was banned.

The initial ban was due to proliferation concerns and the policy remains to this day on that basis. While it's true that environmental groups oppose nuclear power, they weren't the ones who came up with the rule.

Do your research before going for another cheap slam (like this entire "article").

Well you know, 'greenies' is not just a dog snack, they are also a reliable punching bag.. its all fantasies and active imagination, but who cares.

 

[DejaWiz]

The roots of this article is merely trying to get people to look forward to what long-term effects will likely be. Kind of like how energy production would be shaped today if humanity had applied even half that kind of foresight to the effects of CO2 and other GHG emissions starting a century ago.

Is it also advocating for nuclear power? Sure it is. But, megawatt for megawatt, there is no other source that is safer, clear, and more efficient than nuclear.

 

[[21CW]killerofall]

The roots of this article is merely trying to get people to look forward to what long-term effects will likely be. Kind of like how energy production would be shaped today if humanity had applied even half that kind of foresight to the effects of CO2 and other GHG emissions starting a century ago.

Is it also advocating for nuclear power? Sure it is. But, megawatt for megawatt, there is no other source that is safer, clear, and more efficient than nuclear.

I can't find a single independent report that says which energy source is the cleanest. Every single article that I can find is either produced or sponsored by an energy company and states that their source is the cleanest. My assumption that the cleanest sources (including all environmental impacts through the entire life cycle of the building, production and disposal) would be under wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and/or tidal.

 

[snowcrash]

The problem with Nuclear plants is the what ifs, not how clean it is. A disaster will render a large area unlivable for possibly a century. All the proponents of it are burying their head in the sand ignoring the scenarios. Once the number of nuclear power plants increases, the chance of failure increases dramatically.

I'm all for the continued research into making it fail safe because I'm actually for it. But until that happens, I will not trust it and will never support it.

 

[SLee]

I don't remember the last time I heard about solar panel meltdowns and rendering large amounts of square miles unlivable.

That's because to generate even modest amounts of electricity, a solar farm already renders large amounts of land unlivable. To generate as much electricity as one large Japanese nuclear plant with solar would take as much or more space as the Fukushima exclusion zone.

 

[SLee]

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/
Perhaps because nuclear power is the second most expensive power in the US.

Which is misleading since it primarily looks at a per Watt basis, and doesn't account for the huge differences in capacity factor between reliable generation like nuclear and the unreliable generation of wind and solar, which requires either storage or dispatchable generation capable of saving the grid when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

 

[SLee]

Another dirty secret is: That's not the real reason nuclear fuel reprocessing was banned.

The initial ban was due to proliferation concerns and the policy remains to this day on that basis. While it's true that environmental groups oppose nuclear power, they weren't the ones who came up with the rule.

It's a stated reason, but it's a very weak one as the spent fuel after normal operation at an American nuclear plant is heavily poisoned by Pu-240, making it next to useless for weapons and every nuclear power gets their Pu-239 using dedicated infrastracture.

 

[Shintai]

That's because to generate even modest amounts of electricity, a solar farm already renders large amounts of land unlivable. To generate as much electricity as one large Japanese nuclear plant with solar would take as much or more space as the Fukushima exclusion zone.

You think very centralized power generation. Roofs for example is unused space perfect for solar generation.

 

[Shintai]

Which is misleading since it primarily looks at a per Watt basis, and doesn't account for the huge differences in capacity factor between reliable generation like nuclear and the unreliable generation of wind and solar, which requires either storage or dispatchable generation capable of saving the grid when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

Nuclear still loses big time. You are out where biomass is close to nuclear as the single thing left more expensive than nuclear. And that's just temporary.

You can also combined other power generations and still be cheaper of than nuclear. Unless Thorium hits, nuclear power is as good as dead.

Oh, and trust me, the wind always blows. Its just a matter of height due to the friction layer.

 

[SLee]

Nuclear still loses big time. You are out where biomass is close to nuclear as the single thing left more expensive than nuclear. And that's just temporary.

Plus wind and solar being much more expensive than nuclear once you account for the low capacity factor. Which is why there's such a correlation between unreliable electricity and electricity costs, with the likes of Denmark, Germany and parts of Australia who've invested heavily in unreliable electricity having the most expensive electricity in the world. And despite that, they've been ineffective in reducing CO2 emissions.

Oh, and trust me, the wind always blows. Its just a matter of height and location.

Which only increases it costs even more as you have to build more turbines and more transmission lines. And even then, you risk running into a period like this where there's virtually no wind and sun for more than a week:

 

[Shintai]

Germany got a terrible network. This is also why they cant properly utilize renewable energy or energy from other countries. This however is being worked on now. For example a 10 fold increase in the northen part of Germany up to Denmark.

You may also see the friction issue with having so much onshore capacity since it requires a higher elevation for constant wind. Specially with short wind turbines. New wind turbines today are up to 220 meters tall and higher are in developerment.

But again, nuclear isn't part of the future of that's what you think.

 

[Elios]

nop, LFTR is

LFTR by nature of being Thorium fueled IS a breeder Thorium is fertile not fissile and must be breed in to Uranium

 

[SecretStash]

Would I be judged for indifference or lacking altruism if I bought panels without care or concern for the environment?

 

[Khahhblaab]

Why do people keep comparing what happens in third world countries to what happens in the U.S.? Of course some third world country isn't going to give two shits about how they handle their toxic/nuclear/whatever waste.

Its likely because by displacing the problem overseas and not talking about it like you care, you wind up not being the leader of the free world and instead a country that is ok with being a dirty douchebag. Even though the evidence shows that e-waste has been dumped on these countries for years, it becomes an issue when social media takes pictures of the problem and sends those photos all over the world. America as one of, if not the largest consumer of consumer electronics is now connected forensically to that pile of e-waste.

So America, you talk of cleaning up your own land through clean water acts and preservation of many types, but because its expensive to cleanly recycle e-waste, you dump your problems elsewhere. Not very cool to the international coalition.

But this was before Trump pulled out of the paris accord......

 

[Khahhblaab]

One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.

Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.

Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.

Yeah. I totally agree with you on the gathering of all e-waste issues and dropping them on solar cell production and "potential" recycling issues in the future. Making electronics is a dirty process. But manufacturers are multibillion dollar industries that have figured out the best way to spend their corporate dollar. That means recycle our chemicals so we dont overspend when we can save the bottom dollar. E-waste recycling isnt a billion dollar industry. Iron and glass might be. So there isnt a lot of innovation or a corporate bottom line behind it. Its why its called waste. We made it, you bought it, you get rid of it.

Here is a common solar cell:

The worry-some plastic content are the eva and tedlar layers. The tedlar layer is not to scale as its really a film. They are used to bond everything together in such a way that they could be called glue. A thin layer that keeps everything together and water and moisture out. . Real e-waste has a much greater "plastic to burn to get at the good stuff content". Its not to be overlooked but it shows that someone is manufacturing the text that we are reading if its soo miniscule an amount of the whole.

I guess they dont want to come out and say that solar cells are made up of 90% silicone. A stable material that is the second most abundant material on earth and seen on beaches all over the world. Its also 90% the makeup of earths landmass and crust and you really like me when you are sunbathing.

As a matter of fact, I can get you to fly all over the world in search of me - Good beach, better beach, best beach. Vacation beach.

See. If I say it that way it doesnt seem dirty. Points out that someone is pushing out misinformation - eventhough we "do" have to be aware of its recycling issues.

 

[Khahhblaab]

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.

Yep again. I took the time to check out their site. They quote a couple of references:
doe quadrennial technology review table 10.4 and - an introduction to the concepts systems and applications of nuclear processes.

This is the DOE's table as printed:

This is what they are selling:

All this means is that it takes more materials to make the same amount of energy. Energy density. Nothing else. So where is the 300x more waste at. They even didnt include fuels in the graph.

As far as one toxic material quoted - lead - solar cells dont even contain lead. However, in order to store electricity, lead storage batteries are used as a nighttime remedy. So the toxic nature of non EPA disposal techniques for lead is included in the numbers. Funny thing is that lead batteries, think about the majority of cars on the road, is right up there with steel and glass as highly recycled - in America. Its amazing to me how "should be" respected researchers dont look at the problem and see the result is that proper disposal techniques need to be followed instead of saying that its toxic. Then so are every electronic product made and so are cars - ok, so we know that cars arent the best for the environment already - just saying. Its more a matter of doing what is proper for waste disposal then its inherently toxic.

Lil vent off. Just like fair associations instead of inflating the issues.

 

[Khahhblaab]

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.

http://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui

French has been doing it from the start. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear.

Cant make this shit up...........................................

 

[mullet]

This NOOBS!!

 

[Uvaman2]

This NOOBS!!

View attachment 29343

Some day, some day.. hopefully compact too some day.
That will be a mayor leap for humanity, bigger than any we had, bar- none

 

[babochee]

people who like sausage never want to see how it's made.

this is the exact same thing.

I make my own sausage...

 

[Uvaman2]

I make my own sausage...

Good!, shit I tried. It wasn't great.
A bit chalky, I think I tried to make it too lean.
Should have kept at it, maybe some day.

 

[otherweeb]

This NOOBS!!

View attachment 29343

OMG! DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH E-WASTE CREATING THAT CREATED !!!!

/sarcasm

 

[Khahhblaab]

This NOOBS!!

View attachment 29343

How come I seem to be the only one that doesnt know what that is?

Looks like a CVD chamber or maybe a plasma sputter chamber. Could also be some type of e-beam chamber. So what is it?

Thanx.

 

[[21CW]killerofall]

How come I seem to be the only one that doesnt know what that is?

Looks like a CVD chamber or maybe a plasma sputter chamber. Could also be some type of e-beam chamber. So what is it?

Thanx.

That would be a fusion reactor. Theoretically it should produce free, self sustaining, energy. The ones that are operating now are just research reactors and still require more energy then they produce. If these can be made to work, it basically makes all other large forms of electricity generation obsolete overnight. With these, your electric bill would drop down to almost nothing.

 

[ianken]

This study sponsored by Westinghouse... LOL.

And no, I don't know who sponsored the study.

We all remember the great PV panel factory explosion that rendered an entire city uninhabitable. It's so iconic that it's featured in any number of video games. #neverforget

 

[ianken]

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.

GOP controls it all now. Get it done.

Terra power in Bellevue WA is working on this, the traveling wave reactor. It shows great promise.

 

[Khahhblaab]

That would be a fusion reactor. Theoretically it should produce free, self sustaining, energy. The ones that are operating now are just research reactors and still require more energy then they produce. If these can be made to work, it basically makes all other large forms of electricity generation obsolete overnight. With these, your electric bill would drop down to almost nothing.

Got it!

Funny thing about all forms of energy, they all start with solar. Fusion is figuring out how to make what keeps our sun going for mill......errr, billions of years down here on earth. When they figure out how to get a sustainable reaction that outputs more than the energy that it takes to get the reaction started - easy sailing.

All fossil fuels are basically stored solar. Photosynthesis gave life to the plants and organic matter of million of years ago. Once died, created all of the layers of coal, oil and methane that we use today. "Wind" could even be considered solar because its the heating of one place over another that causes the meteorological high pressures and low pressures in the atmosphere that creates the winds that makes wind farms another way to extract the suns energy. When we speak of hydro, leaving out what it took to have water in the first place, there wouldnt even be a hoover dam. No sun. No rain. No rain, no replenishing of the lakes and rivers that humans dam up to create a place to store hydro (power). Solar cells is a given.

Nuclear may not have a direct connection to our sun, but its a connection to some other star that exploded - went supernova - and created all of the heavier elements, including uranium that is one of the keys to nuclear power. All power is solar.

So if all power is solar, we should spend more time figuring out how the sun works instead of all of these partial solutions. They have done us well for now but we now see that in reusing what the sun created long ago and stored the carbon in a way that didnt increase the amount of it in the atmosphere, we need ways to make electricity that also doesnt affect the only atmosphere that we have.

Thanks for the fusion reminder. When accomplished, we can both wait for the propoganda proponents to say: "Fusion is bad". We arent used to a clean way to make energy. You are putting propoganda folks like us out of business

WTF!

 

[tetris42]

Funny thing about all forms of energy, they all start with solar.

So how is geothermal solar exactly?

 

[Khahhblaab]

So how is geothermal solar exactly?

Missed that one

I could make a connection but its not as straight foward as the point I was making.

On geothermal there are two basic sides. One is that the heat is generated by nuclear forces that create the heat. Like a core that is one ball of uranium. The other side, which is the one that I prefer, is that gravitational forces are squeezing the planet and the core becomes molten because of the heat energy. Like a "sub" star, just planet sized.

If gravity over the dimensions of a star can cause it to go "star", I am along with the folks that say that planet sized gravitational forces can create enough heat to make the core go molten. We know that earths core is molten, its not clear as to why it is.

So geothermal is using the heat created when gravity melts iron and rock. Take a ball of clay and squeeze it untill it squoozes out between your fingers.

Geothermal!

Well not quite but you get the idea, and its soley (not solar) earth bound.

 

[Xrave]

That would be a fusion reactor. Theoretically it should produce free, self sustaining, energy. The ones that are operating now are just research reactors and still require more energy then they produce. If these can be made to work, it basically makes all other large forms of electricity generation obsolete overnight. With these, your electric bill would drop down to almost nothing.

It's getting closer

 

[Dullard]

That's because to generate even modest amounts of electricity, a solar farm already renders large amounts of land unlivable. To generate as much electricity as one large Japanese nuclear plant with solar would take as much or more space as the Fukushima exclusion zone.

Yeah, but if the "farm" is decentralized by putting the panels where the land is already covered by structures - say on top of the roofs of existing buildings - the footprint isn't as noticeable.

And what's the half life of a solar panel?

Fusion has been just 25 years away for the last 50 years, it'll likely be 25 years away 25 years from now.