That’s very interesting, I was not aware of that problem. I just assumed they could be recycled quite easily but not so. Based on this article solar power could present more problems in the long run and hence offset the benefits of it. This reminds me of the some of the concerns regarding nuclear power.
I’m responding to carpe, which if you’ll read back you’ll see he brought up Democratic politicians and I responded.
So maybe ask him.
Okay. I checked again and see I responded to you and not carpe. That’s my bad, apologies.
No problem.
Landfills are designed to safely manage waste; how do heavy metals being managed/contained in a landfill off-set the benefits?
You could argue that the production of the panels (and energy required) might off-set their net reduction, but collectively solar production has passed that point long ago.
The same holds true for electric cars and bikes, unfortunately. The batteries contain extremely toxic materials, and are considered hazardous waste.
And if I remember correctly, the mining of the materials needed also produces toxic waste as well.
The management of nuclear waste is nothing like the routine disposal and management of heavy metals and other toxic wastes in an appropriate landfill…
Guys, this is common e-waste…
Perhaps.
There’s this:
but there’s also this:
https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article214069424.html
Why are you linking examples of nuclear waste in relation to solar panels? There is no connection, nuclear waste is its own class of hazardous waste.
Solar panels are common e-waste…
You brought up that disposal of nuclear waste was routine. I pointed out that there are issues with that disposal.
Solar panels are common e-waste…
Yes…and toxic.
No I said it is nothing like the management of Nuclear waste, Eagle said it seemed similar.
Panels are no more or less toxic than the other electronics we dispose of as e-waste, daily, in massive quantities.
Well, I guess it depends on why people get solar power. If they get it because they want to reduce their electricity bill, then they get what they pay for.
If they get it for that reason but also to “help the environment” - then I don’t think they realize that solar power actually isn’t helping the environment at all, becausie mining the materials that go into these things is damaging the environment, as is the toxic waste that goes into landfills.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/us-landfills-are-filling-up/
… then I don’t think they realize that solar power actually isn’t helping the environment at all
Nothing you have posted comes close to establishing a net negative impact to the environment from solar panels based on their energy production off-setting manufacturing and disposal costs, after a lifetime of use.
All you have done is link aging articles that speculate on the topic of evaluating those factors, and don’t even make that claim…
I live in an extremely Liberal state where the taxes in general are one
of the highest in the Nation, and that takes a lot of money away from not only
myself, but most other middle class people that are barely making it.
Which state?
$30,000 for solar? No ■■■■■■■ thanks.
I’ve seen numbers for this before from a study on that exact subject. While I don’t remember them, the gist of it was that they will never recoup the money in savings, they would have to start from scratch and build a new, green home. It’s just too difficult to retrofit a typical home using today’s conventional construction practices, and we build fairly efficient homes already.
It’s much more than efficiency though, what with the need to go all low voltage appliances and lighting, solar and geothermal, virtually everything that uses electricity needing to be reworked, changed or gotten rid of. It’s more than a house, it’s a lifestyle as well, requiring a lot of changes.
Next generation solar panels are tackling that problem and getting very close to a solution. That still means a few years before widespread circulation of course.
