Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.
It seems like a good thing that solar is getting popular, but what about all the materials that go into making the panels, recycling them, etc.? Is solar really as green as it's made out to be?
-Griffin
Alas, there's a cloud in every green lining. Just when environmentalists think we've uncovered a win-win solution to some ecological ill, it turns out there's a downside to be dealt with: Compact fluorescent bulbs reduce electricity consumption by 75 percent but come with a dash of mercury; a new Prius takes 46,000 miles of driving before paying off the energy cost of manufacturing (if you make it that far); even tofu, as it turns out, may have a higher carbon footprint than chicken.
It's not surprising, then, that solar panels also have a dark side; namely, greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals involved in manufacturing, and a lack of regulation regarding recycling. First, though, let's take a look at the big picture.
Solar far outshines electricity produced from fossil fuel sources: Per kilowatt, it offsets up to 830 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 1,500 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. What's more, because photovoltaic (PV) panels generally have a long lifecycle -- up to 30 years -- the amount of waste generated by panels past their prime is relatively small, especially when you consider the three-to-four-year turnover of other electronic waste like computers, televisions, and cell phones.
But with solar growing in popularity thanks to falling prices and various tax incentives, we could see a wave of e-waste in the next 20-some-odd years if the industry doesn't take action now: The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), which works to promote eco-friendly practices in the high-tech industry, warned in a 2009 report that "little attention is currently being paid to the potential risks and consequences of scaling up solar PV cell production. The solar PV industry must address these issues immediately, or risk repeating the mistakes made by the microelectronics industry."
(Mistakes is a nice way to put it; the United States' failure to regulate e-waste has resulted in our hazardous junk being shipped off to developing nations, where it piles up in digital dumping grounds that pollute the air and groundwater and sicken people who live nearby.)
So what are some of the issues surrounding solar? And how can solar become greener (ironic though that question may be)? Let's take a look:
Toxic chemicals. While it's nowhere near the amount produced by, say, coal-fired power plants, a number of nasty chemicals are used in solar manufacturing, including arsenic, cadmium telluride, chromium, and lead. While one immediate risk may be to the workers who construct these panels, the long-term hazard is where all these materials will go once the panels are no longer useful.
Companies in the US are working to address these concerns, implementing take-back programs like the one offered by thin-film manufacturer First Solar, which recycles over 90 percent of the materials collected from old panels. Another thin-film company, AQT Solar, is looking into safer alternatives to cadmium like zinc sulfide. "Our goal is to definitely reduce our dependence on toxic materials, and if possible, eliminate them completely," says AQT CEO Michael Bartholomeusz.
Greenhouse gases. The whole goal of solar-generated electricity may be to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, but unfortunately, there are even more potent greenhouse gases involved before a panel is ever plugged in. The SVTC report states that sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which is 22,000 times more powerful than CO2, is used to clean the reactors used in silicon production.
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), another global warming whopper (17,000 times more powerful than CO2), is used in the manufacturing of thin-film PV panels. This wasn't an urgent issue a few years back, when thin-film only made up a small percentage of the solar market; but thanks to cheaper manufacturing costs, thin-film is expected to double its market share by 2013. Luckily, alternatives exist: German-based startup Malibu has developed a technology that uses fluorine, a gas with zero global warming potential.
Manufacturing. It would be great if all solar panel production facilities were powered by, well, solar power, but this isn't always the case: The manufacturing side of solar can be very un-green, since its energy-intensive processes are often powered by fossil-fuel based electricity. The need to construct brand-new facilities for production also can add to a solar company's footprint.
One possible solution? Use existing (but dormant) auto-manufacturing plants to house production, a la traditional PV manufacturer Skyline Solar. The company also uses about 90 percent less silicon in its panels compared with traditional solar installations, to help minimize the high environmental cost of silicon production.
So, do any of the above disclaimers mean we should say see ya to solar? Of course not. Even with the energy and waste involved, PV power in exchange for all our fossil fuels would still reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent.
Hope this has been enlightening!
Follow Jennifer Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jennigrayson
Jennifer Grayson: Eco Etiquette: How Can I Convince My Husband to Use Cloth Diapers?
Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity. My husband has been fine with the green...
The pro nuke folks are very frightened of this, and must find ways to make green energy
seem scary, impossible and dangerous! As if anything could be as bad as nuke power!
Waste bio fuels, IS NOT BURNING TRASH.
It is two basic processes: Bio Charcoal and Fisher Tropes.
But the pro nuke pr folks will send you to site talking about burning tires!
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste/
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Waste_to_Worth_-_CEFWC_submission.pdf
good paper on existing landfill versus bio fuels.
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/garbage-energy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse-derived_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy
http://www.covantaholding.com/big_waste.shtml 50% of Municipal waste is landfilled 14 sq km per year.
In total, the upper limit of the bio-energy potential could be over 1000 EJ per year. This is considerably more than the current global energy use of 400 EJ.
And if Waste bio fuels won't do, desert algae alone can provide enough fuel to supplement solar and wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy
"Concerns regarding the operation of incinerators include fine particulate, heavy metals, trace dioxin and acid gas emissions"
Duh.
Fabco is making $hit up.
Waste-to-energy is often touted as a 2 for 1 benefit of eliminating the landfill, getting rid of both it's emissions and expense, and replacing it's equivalent tonnage of coal. However, the creative accounting used by some for it's carbon negativity, amounts to comparing lightbulbs we use today to kerosene lamps we may have used in the past, and giving ourselves a gold star for how much co2 we are saving. A credit for replacing a landfill is a temporary amortization at best, not permanent carbon negativity as it is often touted.
Waste-to-energy plants produce some pretty concentrated toxic waste just as any coal plant would if it were using the same type of scrubbers. Scrubbing is concentrating. Everyone should keep in mind, that scrubbers are not 100% effective leaving who knows what to breathe downwind, as well.
http://www.corkscrewroad.com/westwind/cementplanthealth.htm
"No matter what the company says will come out of the stack, studies worldwide have shown that real emissions are considerably greater and subject to sporadic events of particularly high concentrations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy
"Concerns regarding the operation of incinerators include fine particulate, heavy metals, trace dioxin and acid gas emissions"
These plants can be built upon current dump sights or upon military bases or other locations where waste can be converted to energy without injury to our environment. You know this and so do I. Why doesn’t the LA Times do some major community service by writing a documentary about current “Waste to Energy” sights, along with the advantages and disadvantages of such functions???
The link below will help your readers in deciding the usefulness of such “Waste to Energy” sights.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Waste+to+Energy+plants&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7HPIA_en
gaptidbits@yahoo.com
We stop dumping our poo all over the planet, and we get all the energy and fuels we need to supplement solar and wind!
BioChar in particular is scalable from the poorest people on the planet ot the most advanced countries in the world.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste/
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Waste_to_Worth_-_CEFWC_submission.pdf
good paper on existing landfill versus bio fuels.
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/garbage-energy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse-derived_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy
http://www.covantaholding.com/big_waste.shtml 50% of Municipal waste is landfilled 14 sq km per year.
Again, thank you.
Everybody seems to be pushing their own pet energy sources, without realizing that not one of them by themselves, from conservation "negawatts", solar, wind, coal, oil, nuclear, can supply the GW/day necessary here.
It is not a question of solar vs nuclear vs biochar vs wind vs negawatts, it will take all the above.
“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html
"we need to develop 13,000 GWe of carbon-free power (within the next 25 years)...
We would have to be installing more than 1,500 large ...wind turbines every day for 30 years. If we used desert-based concentrated solar thermal ....we'd have to install 80,000 huge 37 foot diameter dishes covering over 100 square miles every day for 30 years. "
And even if we added the big elephant of clean power, nuclear power, ... this is still an almost insurmountable goal. That's why at the Aspen Energy Forum held earlier this year, all of the renewable experts agreed that every clean power technology, including nuclear, has to play a role in solving the climate crisis."
When I first heard about the LFTR, the first thing that really caught my attention, was the fact that one of the Oak Ridge prototypes actually had a core leak from a bad weld for a week or two, and nobody even noticed. The fuel salt had frozen at the site of the leak, and self plugged itself without causing a catastrophe.
That is a higher level of safety than exists with today's reactors, isn't it?
http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/22/a-brief-history-of-the-liquid-fluoride-reactor-2/
"Response to accidents or sabotage. A properly-designed LFR can withstand accidents of tremendous magnitude such as a breach of vessel and containment, whether intentional or accidental. If the fuel salt were inadvertently exposed to the outside environment through a combined breach of containment and vessel, the salt would freeze and occlude fission products in the salt as stable fluorides"
New Generation 3+ reactors are have zero chance of any sort of life threatening reactor accident. They are thousands of time safer than the older reactors and nobody is talking about shutting those down.
Every year you not so renewable junkies with your worthless renewable products defer the nuclear solution three million people die worldwide from coal pollution and we get another year closer to the as little as ten years away civilization ending climate/peak oil/ocean acidification meltdown that will kill billions.
Better you hold your nose and vote nuclear than risk the end times.
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/pdf/NMIC_SunEdison_Comments_Att3.pdf
A customer in the Northeast U.S. wished to install a 3 kW PV system and was told the utility required $250,000 of comprehensive general liability insurance.
A customer in the Southeast U.S. installed a 9.3 kW PV system and was required by the utility to carry a $1 million liability insurance policy.
When a Pacific Northwest state implemented its net metering law, one of the utilities proposed that net metering customers maintain $2 million in liability insurance.
A 4 kW PV system may produce 7,200 kWh/year, with a value of approximately $580 per year. A $200 increase in the homeowner.s insurance premium is equivalent to 34% of the annual energy savings from the PV system and increases the simple payback period for the system by nearly 40 years.
http://earthshots.usgs.gov/SiouxFalls/SiouxFalls
The hail destroyed an array of 512 solar panels
http://www.rms.com/Publications/1999_Sydney_Hailstorm.pdf
The hail from the 1999 event broke roof tiles, skylights, and solar panels
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/science/hail970713/index.php
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/science/hail970713/images/solarpnl.jpg
The hail also dented numerous satellite dishes and caused extensive roof damage including complete destruction of a 504 panel solar array.
At least we don't have to worry about a meltdown from solar panels.
http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/22/a-brief-history-of-the-liquid-fluoride-reactor-2/
"Response to accidents or sabotage. A properly-designed LFR can withstand accidents of tremendous magnitude such as a breach of vessel and containment, whether intentional or accidental. If the fuel salt were inadvertently exposed to the outside environment through a combined breach of containment and vessel, the salt would freeze and occlude fission products in the salt as stable fluorides. Gaseous fission products are removed from the salt in normal operation and would not comprise much of the fission product inventory. In the event of complete power loss and no backup power or cooling, the reactor would melt a plug of frozen salt in the bottom of the reactor and drain into a passively-cooled, noncritical configuration. Thus reactor operators could conceivably turn off all power and walk away from a full-power reactor and it would passively “safe” itself without incident."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
"MSRs can be safer....Even in the unlikely case of an accident, most radioactive fission products would stay in the salt instead of dispersing into the atmosphere. A molten core is meltdown-proof..."
you can make a collector from recycled materials and go from there.
PV can often be added to existing homes.
The government and power companies need to work something out to make it more feasible. One problem in California is that I believe energy companies don't have to pay for any of the energy that is beyond that used by the home. That is, if the energy produced by the system exceeds that used, the homeowner gets nothing. That means that the homeowner wants to produce no more kW's than he uses in his lowest power consuming month, or otherwise he ends up donating power to the company.
So one major incentive would be for the homeowner to benefit from all the energy he produces, not just turning the meter backwards on what he has used, then donating the excess to the power company.
I lived with a passive solar system supplying most of my hot water, year round, for several years. It worked great, even on sub-freezing days. During storms I would supplement it with a propane system. I started with a homemade collector, but eventually invested in a clad-copper plate. I was living "off the grid" at the time, and was very comfortable with a 12-volt solar system for light, passive solar hot water, and propane for cooking and heating, along with an air-tight wood stove and a generator for washing clothes, power tools, and for back-up electrical.
Certainly such a lifestyle isn't for everyone, but there are many ways for us to cut our HC energy dependence without suffering, and passive solar is one of the easiest and cheapest.
Unless a big hail storm takes them out. How many 30 year roof shingles make it 30 years? Not many.
1kg of CIGS, embedded in a solar cell, produces 5 times as much electricity as 1kg of enriched Uranium, embedded in a nuclear power plant."
http://www.nanosolar.com/company/blog
Rough calculations: 500GJ Joules of energy per kg produced by uranium.
NanoSolar 1-2um thick, density 5.43 gm/cc, =5.4 grams per meter. = 4 TJ per kg.
CIGS gm/meter = 230 Global = 100Gjoules per kg
ThinFilm 2$ per watt panels us about 1 kg per meter water in their construction, and nothing after that.
Read the full environmental cycle costs for solar:
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/20theuropvscbarcelona4cv114_raugei.pdf
http://events.solarplaza.com/thesolarfuture/blog/
and YES, we must apply good environmental rules to solar wind and waste bio fuels, but never more than for Fossils and nukes.
"The company’s thin-film modules use cadmium telluride to convert sunlight into electricity instead of the higher cost polysilicon used in most solar panels. That allows them to install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, according to Hardy." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w
3 cents.
Let's also consider the enormously successful GHG-sequestration of ecosystems like the Mojave (yep, same as temperate forests), and the huge land waste that Big Solar in the Mojave would cause (yep, 10 acres/MW capacity but only 25% of capacity is ever produced, less line losses) and again we see that siting solar panels on roofs instead of on tortoise burrows is a no-brainer.
then we look at the drop in productivity when PV gets real hot (as in deserts), we look at the huge cost, the eminent domain, the unreliability of remote power and long lines, and we come up with the same answer - PV is only green and only smart when it is used within the built environment. Slaughtering functioning, healthy ecosystems for power production is absolutely NOT green and should not be allowed.
You have a new fan.
Thanks for the info.
Well done...as always!
Sooze