
Solar panels are starting to die, leaving behind toxic trash - jocker12
https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/
======
jeffbee
PV: By 2050, 6 million metric tons of pre-vitrified, almost perfectly inert
and easily recycled "waste" material that had a 50-year service life.

Coal: 140 million metric tons of toxic glop, at least 100 parts per million of
mercury and 10 ppm of uranium, every year, right now.

~~~
femto113
Came here to say the same thing. I don't understand why (semi-)reputable
outlets are hocking this anti-renewable propaganda. Reminds me of an
article[1] earlier this year about the coming "wind turbine waste", which
sounds big when you give a number with tons after it but in reality amounts to
a small fraction of waste from disposable toothbrushes.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-
turb...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-
blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills)

~~~
epistasis
I've been seeing an uptick of anti-renewable sentiment, either coal or nuclear
is probably doing a media buy at the moment.

So much of what we see in news outlets are driven by dedicated PR drives, and
these dying industries are trying to hold on, or trying to unload stranded
assets on the next biggest fool. (For example BHP announced their exit from
coal: [https://companysavingexpert.co.uk/2020/08/19/bhp-to-exit-
the...](https://companysavingexpert.co.uk/2020/08/19/bhp-to-exit-thermal-coal-
mining-within-two-years/) )

~~~
acidburnNSA
Nuclear is low-carbon energy being killed in the US by cheap fracked natural
gas. It's a low-carbon partner with wind and solar. Wouldn't make sense for
the nuclear industry to attack renewables.

Attacking fracked gas would make more sense.

~~~
andromeduck
No the natural alliance right now is between gas and "renewables" because
they're synergistic in that gas is the only technology that can paper
wind/solar intermittency/variability today.

~~~
tarsinge
We have a very good synergy between nuclear and renewables in France, see:

\- [https://electricitymap.org](https://electricitymap.org)

\- [https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-
delectricit...](https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricite-
par-filiere)

\- Illustrated example with real data:
[https://twitter.com/tristankamin/status/1102620969808658432?...](https://twitter.com/tristankamin/status/1102620969808658432?s=21)

~~~
Krssst
While it works I am not sure what the point of (wind/solar) renewables is when
the grid is already low-carbon. My understanding is that it increases the cost
of nuclear plants by reducing their load factor (since they have to reduce
their output power to give way to renewables), but I don't see what we gain
for it.

Maybe some additional usable capacity when coupled with reversible hydro?

~~~
epistasis
France, like most other countries, has not been able to successfully build new
nuclear, so there is no other option as their current fleet ages out.
Renewables will be far cheaper than trying to have a second construction
miracle.

~~~
andromeduck
There are no miracles in engineering.

------
baybal2
I don't know what they are writing about. PV wafer reclaim has been around for
at least a decade, at least in China.

Reclaiming a cell is as easy as polishing off its surface layer, which
contains most of defects, and resurfacing it.

A much more crude method just heats up the cell to the temperature where most
defects from solar radiation disappear, but not hot enough for dopants to
start diffusing more than they should, and then reselling it as a lower spec
cell.

~~~
biophysboy
Your comment made me wonder something: how delicate are solar panels? Like, if
a hailstorm hits a town with solar panels, will they be completely destroyed?

~~~
johnconnolly
From a solar installer in Colorado: [https://blog.namastesolar.com/hail-solar-
panels-how-much-hai...](https://blog.namastesolar.com/hail-solar-panels-how-
much-hail-can-solar-panels-handle).

seems they're likely damaged by hail roughly the size of a golf ball, but in
the link above they point to an example where 2.75in diameter hail did little
damage to panels at NREL.

~~~
CarbyAu
It's "size of golfball" hail that makes me wonder if shielding the solar panel
with 40mm wire mesh (often called chicken wire) is worth the solar efficiency
loss.

One thing about Climate Change is: more energy in the system means worse
extreme events, and the less extreme events more often. But when is the cut
over point?

------
sh1mmer
While this issue is worth exploring and talking about from a policy and
science perspective it’s disappointing that the article doesn’t mention that
solar e-waste is still considerably less harmful, and much smaller in scale
than fossil fuel waste.

I sent this to a friend of mine who is an energy expert who reminded me about
how terrible coal ash is:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Dan_River_coal_ash_spil...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Dan_River_coal_ash_spill)

~~~
acidburnNSA
A more interesting comparison, moving forward, in my mind, is with nuclear
waste. Solar and nuclear both make low carbon electricity and prevent air
pollution heath impacts of combustion. Yet most people oppose nuclear because
of the waste products.

Here we have to compare solar making large amounts of moderately toxic waste
from solar that remains toxic forever vs. nuclear making very small amounts of
extremely toxic waste that becomes less toxic over time. Clearly more people
dislike nuclear waste, but the E=MC² thing makes it so small that it can be
completely internalized.

At the very least, it is valuable to talk about the negative externalities of
decarbonizing at scale with solar as we debate the details of the clean energy
transition.

------
fyfy18
I was under the impression that - baring physical damage - solar panels won't
just stop working one day as the article implies, but they merely decrease in
efficiency over time. Most solar panels today come with a manufacturer's
guarantee that after 25 years, they will still be 80-something percent
efficient.

At this point they would have paid for themselves over many times, and would
now be generating free electricity, so for most installations there is little
point in replacing them.

~~~
vz8
The last time I had an estimate for solar, the break-even was 18 years, so it
made no sense whatsoever, financially speaking.

When you mention after 25 years they would have paid for themselves many times
over, based on what criteria? I'd love to revisit this topic -- power costs in
Florida are very high.

Edit: Just curious on why the downvotes? Not enough context? Negative
sentiment? (not intended, genuinely curious about revisiting solar)

~~~
SECProto
> I'd love to revisit this topic -- power costs in Florida are very high.

Power /bills/ may be very high (due to hot/humid climate necessitating
extensive air conditioning). But a quick google shows me power /rates/ in FL
are around $0.11 per kWh - which is very low on a global scale (and on the low
end of average for the US[1]). Solar costs are coming down on a per-kW basis,
so the per-kWh electricity cost is the one you need to compare to find when it
breaks even.

[1] [https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-
state/](https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/)

~~~
thechao
This is my problem; my power is ~7.5¢/kWh; my walls are 12” thick (6x2 studs +
drywall + facade), so my electric bill only runs about 120$/month, averaged. I
have a 68$/month fixed flat hookup fee. That means I’ve got to get solar to
“pay out” at ~52$/month.

------
beervirus
> A solar panel is essentially an electronic sandwich. The filling is a thin
> layer of crystalline silicon cells, which are insulated and protected from
> the elements on both sides by sheets of polymers and glass. It’s all held
> together in an aluminum frame. On the back of the panel, a junction box
> contains copper wiring that channels electricity away as it’s being
> generated.

None of this sounds like much of a problem in a landfill. I guess some panels
might use lead-based solder, but I would be shocked if it’s more than a
handful.

If it’s not economical to recycle them, why _shouldn’t_ they go in a landfill?

~~~
acidburnNSA
One reason is that you end up using a lot of raw materials if you aren't
recycling when you build out solar electricity at a scale that matters for
deeply decarbonizing the world.

~~~
beervirus
In that case, recycling them should be a money saver, and people should do it
for economic reasons.

------
andys627
Just remember that the greenest kilowatt hour is the kilowatt hour never
produced.

~~~
option
Of those produced, statistically, nuclear is both cleanest and safest [1]

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)

~~~
znpy
Yeah, but go tell the people in Fukushima.

And keep in mind that Japanese people are usually religiously meticulous about
work, procedures and safety.

And still remains the problem of radioactive toxic waste.

Edit: I don't want to underplay your comment, but it's important to understand
that when dealing with nuclear power all it takes is one major fuck-up to
completely screw a whole region.

~~~
wrycoder
They meticulously put the standby generators in the basement, where they got
flooded out.

~~~
acidburnNSA
The plant was designed for Kansas, where they'd be safe in the basement from
tornados. But in Japan they should have been moved to higher ground.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Whole new application of _" Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas
anymore."_

------
iamericfletcher
" Voluntary, industry-led recycling efforts are limited in scope."

Did anyone else chuckle when they saw this?

Also, what will happen to the poor people who cannot detach from the grid? As
the amount of people using solar increases, I am sure the costs for those who
can't afford solar will increase, right? Also, as solar increases, if it does,
the already horrible grid infrastructure will suffer even more so as the
utility providers face even less financial incentive to provide upkeep.

~~~
dimitrios1
I am taking a hunch here, but I imagine that it is cheaper for you to provide
energy to the grid (once the grid is already established) than for the power
companies to provide energy to the grid. IIRC, your unused power you generate
goes back into the grid correct?

~~~
jacoblambda
The argument they are making is one that you will see a lot in these types of
discussions. As renewable energy becomes cheaper and easier to add to
individual houses, the supply of cheap energy combined with the decrease in
energy demand from wealthy households will drive down energy prices and cut
into the operating margins of power companies.

If too many people start producing power and not buying it themselves, power
companies would not be able to afford maintaining the power grid as
effectively or would have to increase prices for people who can't supply their
own power.

Basically the argument is that a movement for those who can afford to be self-
sufficient to do so ends up being a tax on those who can't afford to.

There is some level of merit to this argument and if we transition to a
heavily renewables based energy system, we will likely see this occur to some
extent during the transitional period.

There are a handful of solutions to this problem but the easiest is to move
maintenance of power infrastructure from the public utility to the government
and implement a local tax to pay for the power grid. Power Utilities would
still exist however instead of also maintaining the grid, they would just be
responsible for producing power and supplying sufficient redundancy to
minimise/eliminate brown- and black-outs.

With this solution, everybody shares the burden of maintaining the grid rather
than just those who can't afford to be self-sufficient. Those who are able to
be self-sufficient can feed back into the grid to help recuperate their
expenses on their energy equipment as well as some of the tax they paid in.

------
mensetmanusman
You can properly dispose or recycle anything non-radioactive with enough
energy, heat and oxygen. Soon this process will be powered by excess renewable
energy.

Still less toxic than coal.

~~~
refurb
Anything organic.

Apply as much energy, heat and oxygen you want to mercury and it’s still
mercury.

~~~
toast0
You can bombard it with neutrons to produce (radioactive) gold, though.

[https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.60.473](https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.60.473)
(1941)

~~~
mensetmanusman
Haha, was going to post this as well, but thought it was too snarky :)

So few people know that the alchemists ended up being correct. (they just
didn’t have enough energy at their disposal!)

------
robotbikes
Cananyone explain the mechanism through which a solar panel dies or even loses
efficiency ? I understand physical damage to the panel but how does a solar
panel degrade ? Are stored solar panels losing efficiency or is it a result of
an interaction with the solar/ultraviolet or some other radiation ? Is anyone
working on solar panels that degrade less and last longer. One issue with
solar panels right now I'd imagine is that even 25 years and the ROI are quite
long periods of time for many Americans who don't plan on staying in their
houses for that long and solar isn't mainstream enough that people appreciate
the value it adds.

~~~
osamagirl69
Solar cells themselves do loose efficiency very slowly (less than 1% per year
for most modern monocrystaline silicon cells) due to defects collecting in the
semiconductor material. It is the same reason that LEDs slowly loose power
over time. Due to the extreme conditions in the semiconductor material (high
electric fields, often moderate to high temperatures) the dopants can diffuse
into places they do not belong, or cluster together both of which hurt the
performance.

That said, most panels die before the cells themselves go bad due to
mechanical failure of the cells (cracking, etc) or failures in the electrical
wiring in the panel due to corrosion.

It is the same problem as with LED lighting. I have not seen a single LED bulb
which lasted long enough for the actual semiconductor devices to age
noticeably, but I have seen dozens of bulbs where thermal cycling caused the
electrical contacts to the chip fail or the power supply capacitors have gone
bad.

Also, due to the rapidly increasing efficiency and decreasing costs of solar
cells, it can often be economically viable to replace your array with fresh
cells just for the added power output you get. If you took cells form 20 years
ago and replace them with current cells you can quadruple your output power
for the same area!

------
moneytide1
Is there a way to mass-disassemble panels and replace the cells? Panel sizes
could have been long standardized. I used to buy slightly damaged 6x6 cells on
eBay from the factory, so could this be the size template for the automated
tooling and robotic maneuvering required to switch out the active material?

------
_iyig
The Stirling engine's time has finally come! :)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EahfGfDdgNY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EahfGfDdgNY)

Not really, but it's a neat alternative for turning solar energy into
mechanical power. Achievable (at grossly inefficient power outputs) by the
hobbyist without expensive tools or nasty chemicals. Much easier to recycle at
the end of a system's useful life.

------
throwaway189262
Uh aren't solar panels mostly glass and silicon? The article says silicon is
"valuable" for recycling. It's not. It's sand, it's worthless.

Glass and silicon are both rocks. Putting them back into the ground isn't
going to hurt anything

~~~
phendrenad2
The problem is the toxic chemicals in between the glass. Are we going to bury
the panes as deep as we dug them up? Or will they be near the surface,
creating a layer of toxicity for future generations?

~~~
pfdietz
Which chemicals are those?

~~~
phendrenad2
TBH I'm just taking this and various article'a word that they exist.

~~~
pfdietz
Don't be a conduit for misinformation.

------
thetinguy
Solar panels still use leaded solder?

~~~
seventytwo
Not the ones manufactured today, but the ones on the article are 30 or 40
years old, so many of those might have had leaded solder.

~~~
samatman
Which is good news, because thanks to the exponential growth of solar, panels
manufactured in the bad old days may as well not exist.

The vast majority of solar panels were manufactured in the last ten years:
they are largely free of toxic atoms, and built to a higher standard of power
delivery and reliability.

In short, the article is clickbait.

------
jokoon
I wonder how many solar panels + storage you need versus your average nuclear
plant

------
colechristensen
The word _toxic_ has become a great indicator for bullshit.

------
2OEH8eoCRo0
I bring this up every time solar panels are talked about as some god's gift to
energy production. Nobody wants to talk about the insane amounts of e-waste it
brings. Not to mention they're constantly improving so people throw out
perfectly panels for new ones.

I'm pro solar but it does have a few downsides that we shouldn't ignore.

------
akerro
That's not the only "clean" energy that's hard to keep for long with low
costs:

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-
turb...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-
blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills)

~~~
Nasrudith
So non-toxic waste is somehow a catastrophe compared to all of the other
nonrecycalbe garbage already being produced? That is a blatantly stricter
standard than literally anything else is held to.

~~~
pfdietz
I"m pretty sure one could cut those expired turbine blades into short pieces
if they were too large.

------
throwawaysea
Wind turbines also suffer from a similar problem. After some number of years,
they just get landfilled. See
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-
turb...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-
blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills) or
[https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-06/wind-
turbi...](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-06/wind-turbine-
blades) for more on that.

Similar concerns were raised around solar panels by Michael Moore in a recent
documentary, which claimed that the total lifetime cost of a solar-powered
society makes these alternative green technologies not really green. See
[https://medium.com/@tejasgole67/is-michael-moore-
right-8603f...](https://medium.com/@tejasgole67/is-michael-moore-
right-8603f982d049) and [https://medium.com/@tejasgole67/is-michael-moore-
right-part-...](https://medium.com/@tejasgole67/is-michael-moore-right-part-
ii-84f75e5d9343) for a discussion around that.

Ultimately there may be no getting around the fact that we simply need to
reduce demand. And reducing demand, if we want to preserve our quality of
life, likely means population control.

~~~
acidburnNSA
The Moore Documentary got lots of flack but does raise some pretty good
points, particularly about combustion of biofuel.

You can see the whole thing here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE)

I disagree with the movie's conclusion, which seems identical to yours. We can
use tech to keep quality of life high by using responsible and sustainable
energy systems like nuclear/wind/solar/hydro.

PoTH hardly even mentioned nuclear, which tears their whole "we must
depopulate" narrative apart easily.

