1 to 1 carbon to solar panel energy ratio.

[ZenOps]

So. The main argument that people seem to bring up about why solar panels suck is that they currently take just as much in carbon burning to produce as the energy they output over a lifetime. Of course this assumes that carbon is used in heating the ingots that are necessary to make the solar panels which is not always the case (three gorges dam) but I digress.

What if we have vastly overstated how much carbon we actually need for day to day life in modern civilization? Realistically - in fuel alone one Apollo mission might today produce enough solar panels to keep a township powered for a year. Add in the power cost of pounding out the metal for the rocket - and you might be able to produce enough power for that township for a lifetime.

I mean: Its fine that they did certain things once. But do you really want to eat a team of ponies to get to the South Pole a second time? Especially if you are only going to play a single round of golf?

As far as I can tell, if the US navy gave up simply fuelling 15% of its death dealing naval fleet and put all that carbon towards renewables, in a 1:1 ratio - the power output would be enough to keep several cities running.

Just like how someone figured out long ago that 40,000 nukes was probably overkill. Just a thought.

[davidI]

Reducing our energy demand is the lowest hanging fruit - smaller vehicles, more efficient buildings, less turnover of consumer goods, etc. etc. etc. would all greatly reduce our energy demands.

Unfortunately, having cheap energy is also what drives a lot of the big industries in our economies and they seem to have more influence over the government than voters do. Autos and auto parts, construction, aviation, shipping, mining, manufacturing etc. all depend on low energy costs. I believe the oil industry has become a planned target by capitalist lobby groups since it deflects attention from the industries that actually consume and pollute the most and in most of the world (outside of Canada, at least) oil companies are still very profitable since fossil fuel demand is continuing to increase.

My view of the entire environmental movement is that it has been counter-productive since protests are focused on the wrong issues.

The biggest problems with solar at the moment are that they are an intermittent energy source that still requires back-up energy sources and the panel construction has a lot of negative environmental consequences during both manufacturing and disposal which have not yet been remedied to the extent that they could be considered "green".

[ZenOps]

Good point. Industry and automation have factories running 24/7 without much human intervention and only moreso in the future.

I always felt the key is not so much energy storage, as is needing a breakthrough that would produce massive amounts of energy during the nighttime. If such a thing could be found it will literally be the gamechanger. During the day, solar is abundant enough.

[davidI]

I always felt the key is not so much energy storage, as is needing a breakthrough that would produce massive amounts of energy during the nighttime. If such a thing could be found it will literally be the gamechanger. During the day, solar is abundant enough.

Wind and hydro are arguably the only feasible renewable power sources at night. Nuclear is far more practical but after Chernobyl and Fukushima I can't see people getting behind building new plants. One of the biggest issues with solar that many pro-renewable people are ignorant to is the "Duck Curve". A quick explanation here: https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs

I think non-battery energy storage will be feasible in many areas and the most politically acceptable solution, but the economics and reliability still need some work. Two concepts I'm following that I think have great potential:

1. CSP with molten salt. I drove past the Noor facility in Morocco and it was very impressive: https://youtu.be/eTE7rGEb3tU
2. Energy Vault style tower solutions: https://energyvault.com/

[ExtraSlow]

Had never heard of Energy Vault. Looks like an interestingly simple idea, but I'd guess the real key for something like that is in tiny details of software and manufacturing. Kind of surprised that it's based on an open-air exterior crane system, although maybe any enclosed setup would be too expensive?

[davidI]

Had never heard of Energy Vault. Looks like an interestingly simple idea, but I'd guess the real key for something like that is in tiny details of software and manufacturing. Kind of surprised that it's based on an open-air exterior crane system, although maybe any enclosed setup would be too expensive?

I think the real key is in the efficiency of the motors for lifting and the generator for lowering the blocks - as a storage solution there can't be too much energy lost during input/output. I don't see many issues with an open-air system provided that the motors and generators are adequately sealed given cranes and cables and concrete are all relatively weatherproof.

[A790]

The biggest problems with solar at the moment are that they are an intermittent energy source that still requires back-up energy sources and the panel construction has a lot of negative environmental consequences during both manufacturing and disposal which have not yet been remedied to the extent that they could be considered "green".
This is a good point and unfortunately there isn't a lot of objective data available to highlight what, if any, efficiencies have been built surrounding solar and its environmental footprint. Most of what you'll find is several years out of date. Ex: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

Most topical content surrounding the topic, from valid first-party sources (vs. shit like "solarenergynow.whatever") just reference older articles and data.

But all of them have a common theme: we don't have any idea what to do with panels once they are damaged or at the end of their life. Recycling is hit or miss, waste is not properly being stored/processed, and as you called out, the bell curve of generation and efficiency for panels is not the best.

Right now, utility-scale solar works in certain areas that get a ton of sun. For most other areas, looking into wind, geothermal, or tidal generation makes more sense...

Which is why our core energy mix should be mostly natural gas, with wind and other sustainables as supplementary sources where they are economically viable.

You're right in that nuclear will never be a thing. It ought to be, especially thorium molten salt nuclear, but it won't ever be. So what's the next best thing?

EDIT: Energy Vault looks awesome, but I wonder if it's like vertical farming: a great idea that won't be executed due to logistical problems and social resistance.

[ZenOps]

I don't know that there is enough material to even bother recycling solar panels. Assuming the active part of the cell is simply silicon (sand) there is no reason to recycle it, the world is literally made of silicon. As for the retention frame, if made of aluminum it would be extremely easy to recycle. If made of some sort of stainless iron, you can either recycle it or not, iron is also readily available everywhere.

Realistically a solar panel installed in a "not hurricane or typhoon zone" would be similar to the ones they sell on Amazon for home enthusiasts. Which means maybe 5 kilograms for a 100 watt panel size. You would need to recycle hundreds of them to have the material equivalent of a single combustion engine car.

Its deceiving to look at the raw section sizes of land and think that they use a ridiculous amount of material to make, but they don't use much at all. A downtown office building probably uses more raw material than sections of land covered with solar panels.

Now the mounting posts, that's another story entirely. But at least you can use it as a fence post should someone figure out fusion power and makes solar obsolete.

[ZenOps]

As for where you can actually put these things: There is the extreme limitation of weather. Although you can install a solar panel in Florida, you do have to contend with the occasional 200 km/h hurricane. It doesn't matter if it happens for one hour every other year - a pebble going at that speed is just like a bullet to solar.

I'd personally write off most of the east coast and much of the west coast with "cheap panels" simply due to hurricane. Which is unfortunate because that's where the majority of the population is. Alberta? We can absolutely get away with cheaper panels, on the assumption that hailstones do not get larger than golfball size.

[ZenOps]

As for ZenOps logic: Never made sense to me why they chose rectangles for solar panels. A rectangular frame is weak to twist shear stress, which you can alleviate with a diagonal brace, essentially making two triangles.

But why didn't they make the panels triangles to start with to maximize frame strength? Its like putting a square slice of cheese in a round burger, pure retard?

[davidI]

I don't know that there is enough material to even bother recycling solar panels. Assuming the active part of the cell is simply silicon (sand) there is no reason to recycle it, the world is literally made of silicon.

There are numerous iterations of PV designs now but your assumption that cells are simply silicon is incorrect.

It seems the most common disposal method at present is to simply unload the panels on to developing countries. Of course, they do not have the money to deal with any sort of recycling and just landfill or incinerate the used panels which can have serious environmental consequences.

From this 2016 Life Cycle Analysis (https://www.solarpowerinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/N253_9-14-1530.pdf):

! Module disposal is potentially a major
issue
– Some modules contain hazardous waste,
but limited data available to verify which
modules fail the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
– Some deployment estimates show that PV
waste could equal 10% of today’s e-waste
by 2050
– Disposal in regular landfills not
recommended in case modules break and
toxic materials leach into the soil
! Regulatory environment
– Europe regulates panel recycling, and
Japan and Korea are establishing recycling
programs
– Currently no regulatory framework in U.S.
and no public PV recycling facilities


A more recent and in-depth paper on recycling that discusses many of the challenges: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119302321

[04Terminator]

Zenops. You are overstating the carbon creation during solar panel manufacture.

Current Chinese panels will offset their carbon in 2 years, current European panels in as little as 4 months. The difference is in regulation and the source of energy for manufacture, European manufacturers using more clean energy and stringent regulation.

The more clean energy we use, the faster solar panels can offset their carbon footprint.

As for disposal. It's really easy and straight forward. The issue at the moment is there aren't enough panels being recycled for opening recycling facilities, yet not enough recyclers to recycle panels currently. Of course that's changing, and again more so in Europe.

However. After 30 or 40 years of producing carbon free energy, you could incinerate a solar panel and still be 1112 TIMES ahead in carbon savings than had you prodiced the equivalent 30 years of energy output using today's "clean" natural gas.

[davidI]

As for disposal. It's really easy and straight forward. The issue at the moment is there aren't enough panels being recycled for opening recycling facilities, yet not enough recyclers to recycle panels currently. Of course that's changing, and again more so in Europe.



Can you please provide your source for this comment?

[04Terminator]

Can you please provide your source for this comment?

I attended the ESNA conference last year, and recycling all things clean will be be big business. I spoke to an Australian group that were in the process of opening a facility in South Australia. I recall one guys name was Galloway. Anyway, their conceens all focused on volume not yet being there, not technical aspects.

LG reps were also there, and they specifically mentioned that end of life disposal was a major design consideration for their products. We were specifically talking batteries.

I'll be attending this years conference in November, I love San Diego.

[davidI]

I attended the ESNA conference last year, and recycling all things clean will be be big business. I spoke to an Australian group that were in the process of opening a facility in South Australia. I recall one guys name was Galloway. Anyway, their conceens all focused on volume not yet being there, not technical aspects.

LG reps were also there, and they specifically mentioned that end of life disposal was a major design consideration for their products. We were specifically talking batteries.

I'll be attending this years conference in November, I love San Diego.

I'll rely on the findings of scientific research papers rather than statements from a bunch of sales reps for now. Volume is a concern for economics but the recycling and disposal processes should be determined prior to bulk manufacturing which has not occurred for most designs deployed to date as far as I've been able to gather.

[ZenOps]

Personally I think China is just about on the cusp of going solar panels energy to solar production. Meaning, build a combination solar reflector/solar photovoltaic power plant at about 200 MW and simply have that melt silicon ingots. Heat the sand to a minimum temperature using reflectors, pour the sand into the electric arc furnace for final heating at precise temperatures, and then simply harvest ingot to make more solar panels (onsite) for as many hours as the sun shines. Truck in a little bit of bauxite and some copper wire, and you can make the entire panel onsite.

Literally self sustaining, literally like printing free money.

If its possible and runs without any problems it will absolutely replace carbon. Chinese have always been masters of efficiency and free stuff.

[04Terminator]

I'll rely on the findings of scientific research papers rather than statements from a bunch of sales reps for now. Volume is a concern for economics but the recycling and disposal processes should be determined prior to bulk manufacturing which has not occurred for most designs deployed to date as far as I've been able to gather.

Maybe you aren't looking efficiently, using scholarly jargon etc. These arent little companies selling monogrammed pens. So I can guarantee end of life disposal is a major design consideration with all of them, not just LG. This isn't the oil industry with no well clean up plan, and pride that they replanted 7% of the trees they clear cut.

As for the panel recycler I talked to. One simple Google and I got this hit. I'm sure they are just investing millions, clueless how to recycle, and the volume concerns are stupid. Lol. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/01/18/australias-first-solar-panel-recycler-plans-to-help-green-the-full-life-cycle-of-components/

[ZenOps]

This is solar we are talking about, not a 5 year checkup on a nuclear plant refuelling cycle where you have to figure out what to do with waste that can melt a skyscraper. By comparison solar is stupendously simple.

The solution to lead and cadmium is simply to not use those types of panels to start with. Lithium batteries, insanely easy to melt and reform into new ones. Does anyone really care about recycling glass? I mean, go to your average active volcano and it creates millions of tons of volcanic glass every day.

As far as I'm concerned as long as the wires are stripped and the frame recycled, the rest of it can literally be dumpstered (especially if they do not use silver interconnects). Its just melted sand at that point. While silver is great for panel efficiency, you really don't have to use it if you are willing to sacrifice a couple percentage points of efficiency.

[04Terminator]

This is solar we are talking about, not a 5 year checkup on a nuclear plant refuelling cycle. By comparison solar is stupendously simple.

The solution to lead and cadmium is simply to not use those types of panels to start with. Lithium batteries, insanely easy to melt and reform into new ones. Does anyone really care about recycling glass? I mean, go to your average active volcano and it creates millions of tons of volcanic glass every day.

Clean energy haters make the craziest excuses why it can't be done. My friend over dinner told me "sure, wind power is cleaner than Nat gas, but it still makes carbon, so we should just stay with gas". Lol.

Similar to the "hey, throw away your laptop, because unless you give up tech and are living off the land, you can't make changes for the better ". It's an insane asylum out there.

[davidI]

Maybe you aren't looking efficiently, using scholarly jargon etc. These arent little companies selling monogrammed pens. So I can guarantee end of life disposal is a major design consideration with all of them, not just LG. This isn't the oil industry with no well clean up plan, and pride that they replanted 7% of the trees they clear cut.

As for the panel recycler I talked to. One simple Google and I got this hit. I'm sure they are just investing millions, clueless how to recycle, and the volume concerns are stupid. Lol. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/01/18/australias-first-solar-panel-recycler-plans-to-help-green-the-full-life-cycle-of-components/

Again, what are you basing any of these statements on? Solar panels have proven very difficult to recycle and manufacturers have been focused on reducing cost and improving efficiency using techniques that have only made recycling more difficult due to the introduction of additional chemical element into the manufacturing process.

What is this clean-up plan you refer to? Who is responsible for the costs of clean-up? Even where there is legislation to prevent landfilling, are companies posting securities for those future costs? Or will they simply spin-out the assets and walk away leaving tax-payers to hold the bag as is constantly done in other industries?

If the present value costs of recycling components are uneconomic, what makes you think companies will be able to economically pay such costs in 30 years? Are solar panels economically competitive through their life cycle, including safe recycling/disposal? If you have a link to a study that supports such a claim I'd love to see it.

I'm not clear on what your "one simple Google" article has in it that you're trying to use to support your claims? It's basically just a press release from a start-up that's trying to market itself, even though they seem to still be in the R&D stage. They're operating off grant monies per the article so who is "investing millions"? Tax payers?

It seems their main milestone thus far has simply been figuring out how to separate ethyl vinyl acetate from the glass. If the manufacturers had made this so simple per your initial comment, why was accommplishing this so difficult? They also acknowledge in your article that costs of simply shipping the cell for processing is currently economically unviable, let alone the cost of actual recycling.



This is solar we are talking about, not a 5 year checkup on a nuclear plant refuelling cycle where you have to figure out what to do with waste that can melt a skyscraper. By comparison solar is stupendously simple.

The solution to lead and cadmium is simply to not use those types of panels to start with. Lithium batteries, insanely easy to melt and reform into new ones. Does anyone really care about recycling glass? I mean, go to your average active volcano and it creates millions of tons of volcanic glass every day.

As far as I'm concerned as long as the wires are stripped and the frame recycled, the rest of it can literally be dumpstered (especially if they do not use silver interconnects). Its just melted sand at that point. While silver is great for panel efficiency, you really don't have to use it if you are willing to sacrifice a couple percentage points of efficiency.

What panel designs are you referring to as being so stupendously simple to recycle?

Progress is being made in finding recycling solutions, but I am yet to find a process that would be considered "simple" or "economic" at this time.

Here is an intresting paper with proposed processes for recycling end-of-life silicon wafers. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14686996.2019.1641429

Note that "A total of 42 elements (Ag, Al, Au, B, Be, Bi, C, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Gd, Ge, Hf, In, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, Os, P, Pb, Pd, Pt, Re, Ru, Sb, Sn, Ta, Ti, U, V, W, Y, Zn, Zr) that are likely to be contained in the collected EoL silicon-based PV panels were considered."

They're making great advances in technical solutions for recycling and disposal - the next step will be achieving acceptable economics and ensuring comprehensive legislation is in place to ensure environmentally safe disposal/recycling solutions are in place.

Another paper (https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=321102020088087121085086103025102069021063020068087078105086020089003088108098121119059058002121107109114089101098064116091016050009068002021115011114109020002119029090058030123026098127026071127076065066086122088027106011123020112008079065091074083114&EXT=pdf)that considers economics of various recycling methods:

"Regardless of the potential environmental benefits of crystalline Silicon panels recycling outlined in this work, solar PV panel recycling still represents an important challenge financially, operationally, technically and logistically. As we were able to show with our model, the cost and income structure proposed by DAdamo et al. (2017) results in financial losses and could ultimately result in improper handling of thepanels"


To be clear, I'm not criticizing the efforts of anyone striving to figure out these problems to make solar systems more efficient, economic, and environmentally friendly. I am however critical of anyone who claims that solar installations are majestic utopian unicorns that will remedy the world's energy issues in their current state. Before deploying billions of dollars of taxpayer and consumer dollars, I think it's worth having a clear understanding and plan for the total expected environmental and financial lifecycle cost of these systems.

[ZenOps]

Recycling is stupendously simple in that if you mandate that they can be recycled, but do not have the means to recycle them properly, they do stack - exceptionally well. Just like stacks of paper, they are ready to be neatly stacked and shipped anywhere where they may be adequate facilities to do so. 1.5 million panels, once you remove the frames and neatly bundle them together could probably fit on a few railcars. Literally a half of a single shipment if necessary.

Recycling a 5 gram plastic water bottle that is not managed, thrown on the street and/or one that picks up a banana peel on the way to the garbage - Is insanely difficult to recycle. Not only do you have to crush it, you have to wash it, and you have to do it - every day. By my estimation, by weight - recycling that water bottle costs more than a solar panel.

Besides, its literally a once in 15 to 25 year recycling event. Not a daily one, like water bottles. I stand by its *exceptionally easy* to recycle solar panels. I'm not even sure why anyone is talking about it. Black Friday is coming up: Buy a Canadian Renogy solar panel and then tell me its going to be hard to recycle, I just don't see it.

By my estimation: Once the plant based operators get about ten years in on the age of their solar panels, they might do a "clearance" where they sell used but still "probably got a decade left" of 70% initial output panels to the populace for 1/3 to 1/4 price (or maybe closer to free). It makes sense to put out a few cheapies to let people get a feel for it before they decide if they want to go in on it.

[davidI]

^ Again, no actual evidence to support your opinion. Why are there literally hundreds of scientific papers on the techno-economic difficulties of recycling solar waste if it's "exceptionally easy"? Maybe it's time you educate all those researchers who you assumably believe learned nothing while earning their PhDs :rofl:

The International Renewable Energy Agency projected that the amount of solar panel waste could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. Many governments have already identified PV panels at toxic electronic waste so it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

It seems your solution is simply to ship or sell degraded panels to the third world for them to handle, just as we do with a lot of our existing recyclable waste. Sadly, this does not ensure they'll be reycled and just means the environmental hazards will be dumped upon the poor. It's not an acceptable solution from my perspective.

[ZenOps]

I would suggest that people that think that solar will be hard to recycle are full retard then. Or possibly being funding by the endless money of the oil cartels.

https://www.reuters.com/article/silver-solar-idUSL8N1DV4R5

"A typical photovoltaic cell generating up to 4 watts used 0.17 grams of silver in 2014, down from 0.3 grams in 2010"

They did make a "breakthrough" a while ago, which is actually common sense. Don't use an thin width line with lead solder heaped ontop like what a 15-year old with a soldering iron would use - to connect the cells, use a one or two inch wide strip of aluminum foil thickness type idea underneath if you "insist" on using silver. Which again, you don't "have" to use. While you probably can use a 1 inch microthin strip of silver, you could use a two inch strip of much less expensive material.

Based on a 2014 panel, 4.25 grams of silver per "high quality" 100 watt solar panel is what would be used and recoverable.

https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/solvent-extraction-and-electrowinning-sx-ew Its actually quite easy to remove pure copper from rock if you simply let it sit for a while. Tens of thousands of tons of copper are extracted in this manner nowdays from extremely hard to extract rock - no heat needed, very little energy needed, no harsh chemicals needed.

To recover silver (if that is the only part that you want to recover) I can imagine it would just be a matter of putting a few deep cuts along the backside, maybe put it through the shredder if for some reason you want to speed it up a few days, and then leaving it in an electrowinning solution for half a day at a few volts.

I believe Taseko mines in BC will be finishing off a modern electrowinning plant soon, I'm not too sure how much copper they plan on extracting in that manner - but I can imagine they also are looking at the thousands of tons range if not more. And this is metal inside of rock at 24% purity, and its definitely economical to do it with copper - silver will definitely be done.

[davidI]

Silver is obviously not the problem but since you can't take a minute to read any actual research on the subject of recycling PV panels I'm done here.

[ZenOps]

Again, I'm not even sure its worth recycling. Its SAND. 27% of the earth is silicon. Whatever you want to top as a clearcoat or glass is whatever manufacturers decide is best, but they can absolutely use materials that are easy to recycle if that is what people want. If you want to use traditional silicate glass, guess what - its SAND.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust

Silicon being 700x more common than carbon. I think somewhere along the way people got confused with 1 inch CPU processors being $1,000 that general low quality silicon was somehow "expensive".

Next thing you are going to say is that we have to recycle carboard drinking straws.

To me, the ultimate solar panel would a flood filled with a low melting point molten glass, literally bind the solar cells inside the glass. Or inotherwords, half a glass pane, keep it mostly molten, lay the panel on top, and then float more glass on top. But that is definitely far off, there is no practical way to do that - yet. Advantage is, if you absolutely must have the internals you can simply shatter the glass and grind it up (recover with electrowinning), or melt it and pull the internals out (which no one will probably do) If you want to go a step further, coat the back with a micron thick layer of reflective but not conductive material, and it can double as a mirror at end of life.

It would have exactly the same strength as the windows you are looking through right now, and if those have never broken due to hail, then hail damage is definitely not an issue (In Canada, we can even do horizontal installation, exactly like windows, but not windows you look through.)

KaA2zUwRHp0 *Shudder* the hand solder and thin lines. Reminds me of the Apollo memory modules, lol.

[davidI]

^ Seems you need to read and understand more about the manufacturing of solar panels before even getting your feet wet in the recycling / disposal stage.

[speedog]

There sure appears to be a lot of armchair experts in this thread.

[ZenOps]

BTW: If the GenZ industrialists ever do perfect filled glass, I'd really like to know if you could just trace along the edges with a glass cutter, snap them off, and simply get a long edge chisel - line it up with internals, thwack it with a rubber mallet - and would it actually just split in two? Glass tends to do that, it sticks to itself and is great at "encapsulation" but when placed along other materials it tends to "slip".

e2PyKiZCEHQ Basically one side shatters into a gazillion pieces, but the other side stays completely intact.

[ZenOps]

As for non-silicon thin film applications: Well, its thin film. Literally the paint job on your car is 10x thicker, and I don't see anyone recycling the paint on their car, even if it has some exotic materials to make it shiny and colourful. I'd be willing to bet that car paints of various colours probably have dozens of carcinogens, but simply all locked away under a solid overcoat - so nobody really bothers to make sure its removed before junking it.

Just like I don't expect people to eat thin film solar panels. Nor should they drink car paint, or eat car paint chips.