"If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model, they can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than IRENA anticipates. That figure translates to around 315,000 metric tonnes of waste, based on an estimate of 90 tonnes per MW weight-to-power ratio."
If you conservatively assume that solar panels have the same density as plastic (1g/cm^3), that works out to 315,000,000kg / (1g / cm^3) = 315,000m^3 That's a cube 63m on each side, or approximately one Hindenburg Zepplin.
Even if we have to treat those solar panels as toxic waste it doesn't sound like a very difficult disposal problem to me.
>Even if we have to treat those solar panels as toxic waste it doesn't sound like a very difficult disposal problem to me.
Nuclear industry has a worse track record dealing with much much smaller volumes of waste because of a magical boogeyman that somehow makes people lose all rationality. Pray that wind/oil/gas/nuclear advocates don't find trace amounts of some chemical that makes babies grow three arms in solar waste or the same may happen.
There's an assumption that all discarded 1st world PV panels are instantly landfill. US school busses live out a happy and long afterlife in Central America. Free panels with 10-15 years of life remaining will find a home.
I recently bought 8kw of used solar panels dirt cheap. From the standpoint of weight and watt/sqft they aren't the best, but they worked perfectly for me, and just made it easier to add more panels than if I was buying new. From an economics standpoint, I doubt the majority of the panels will get destroyed.
Continuing to rely on fossil fuels to the extent we currently do will bequeath a damaged if not dying planet to future generations.
This is opinion, not demonstrable fact.
Do you mean to say that fossil fuel driven climate change is an opinion or do you mean to say that the effects of that climate change are an opinion?
Human induced climate change is generally accepted by experts. That climate change is and will cause massive disruption and economic cost is not really a controversial opinion/projection, except by those who seem to want to weaponize the denial for political gain or short term profit.
The forecasts of fossil fuel driven climate change are based entirely on computer models.
We are currently in an interglacial epoch. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was ice a mile thick here in New Hampshire. We have also recently come out of the so-called Little Ice Age. In the early 18th century, it was possible to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor, which is abnormal. So, it’s been warming.
The world-wide tropospheric temperature over the last forty years, as measured by satellite, has increased steadily at a rate of about 1.5 deg C per century. That is nothing to be worried about. I hope it continues.
The forecasts are increasingly divergent from reality. At some point, that will have to be recognized.
I am a retired physicist. I don’t have any political ax to grind. I read the papers on both sides of the argument. Mainly, I look at the tropospheric temperature record. I claim that the models are disproven, since reality is well below the lowest warming forecasts and has been for decades.
So what’s going on that the environmental scientists largely seem to agree that we’re headed toward a cliff? Are they just bad at science? Or is their science just being wildly miscommunicated by the media et al? How do you reconcile your “it’s all good” with the popular perception of climate science?
Solar is unreliable and the push for policies favoring wind and solar contribute to Texas Grid Blackouts. It really is amazing how much power, influence, and profits this movement have achieved.
Extraordinary claims should be well supported. Please provide reliable sources for your claim.
At least the last TGB was due to unusually cold weather, bad preparation for frozen gas pipes etc. If the "renewables" contributed anything, from what I remember, it would be perhaps a rounding error.
Solar and wind is not as reliable as a coal fired plant but you also don't have to continuously supply coal and it is not that bad as you would imagine either. Yes, it demands more planing, sensors detecting the conditions a good grid, perhaps some short term storage and longer term demand/ production adjustments. The great thing is, you can shut of a solar or wind power plant in probably minutes and it costs you nearly nothing (besides lost opportunity). Try that with a coal fired plant or nuclear power plant. You can also build solar and wind in places, where you wouldn't want a coal fired or nuclear power plant.
From what I can see, solar and wind seems to be the more economical way overall. It isn't perfect now and we have to have other sources in the mix but longer term I don't really see a reason, why most of the planet couldn't use solar, wind, water dams, geothermal etc. with some sort of smart energy storage or better demand/ production shaping for most of our energy needs, especially if we end up paying less for the same service level.
At least with nuclear, I believe we can store the reactor energy in molten salt which can then be used later to turn turbines. So you can effectively shut down electrical energy production without entirely losing out on opportunity. Of course, you can only shut off production for so long or eventually you will run out of salt mass to store heat in (or storage capacity for the molten salt), but I’m guessing this isn’t a problem in practice?
> From what I can see, solar and wind seems to be the more economical way overall.
My biggest concern is the storage. We still haven’t fleshed that out very well, and until we do we’ll probably be pretty dependent on fossil fuel plants. I really wish we’d build more of these latest generations of nuclear plants (much safer, better storage) if only to diversify our energy sources and provide some extra capacity for stretches when renewable production is low and also to maintain our nuclear competency until we are really in the clear with respect to energy demand.
I’m not a nuclear purist; I’m just nervous about putting all of our eggs in the wind and solar baskets.
Thank you for the book recommendation. I don't know if it is still as relevant, when it was written in 2014. The situation changed dramatically, the International Energy Agency (IEA) writes in the report https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=o... "Supportive policies and maturing technologies are enabling very cheap access to capital in leading markets. With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gasfired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen." The agency even reconsidered estimates for the future, estimating more usage of solar, because it trends cheaper than previously thought.
Certainly the electric grid in the USA is in an unfortunate position because it is not so well connected, looking quite island-like. There is a great need for much higher long distance energy transfer capacity and better interconnects.
We know, that the wind doesn't blow constantly and can quite reliably predict it days in advance/ can also apply statistics. It is a factor in planing from the start, else you cannot calculate the return on investment and will not get financing. With storage or enough transmission capacity, you can work around this problems and flatten the peaks and valleys in production or demand. The central limit theorem is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem if you have enough independent sources (which you create by having long distance transmission capacity or vast storage capacity basically).
Also, in some rather remote parts of the world, solar and wind (and perhaps micro dams) is the only way you can generate electricity economically. This doesn't only concern islands and "third world" countries but also remote parts in the USA.
If you conservatively assume that solar panels have the same density as plastic (1g/cm^3), that works out to 315,000,000kg / (1g / cm^3) = 315,000m^3 That's a cube 63m on each side, or approximately one Hindenburg Zepplin.
Even if we have to treat those solar panels as toxic waste it doesn't sound like a very difficult disposal problem to me.