Are we headed for a solar waste crisis?
June 21, 2017

By Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson

Last November, Japan’s Environment Ministry issued a stark warning: the amount of solar panel waste Japan produces every year will rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040, and the nation has no plan for safely disposing of it.

Neither does California, a world leader in deploying solar panels. Only Europe requires solar panel makers to collect and dispose of solar waste at the end of their lives.

All of which raises the question: just how big of a problem is solar waste?

Environmental Progress investigated the problem to see how the problem compared to the much more high-profile issue of nuclear waste.

We found:

• Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

• If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).

• In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.

The study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants and the solar panels themselves, which contain similar heavy metals and toxins as other electronics, such as computers and smartphones.

While nuclear waste is contained in heavy drums and regularly monitored, solar waste outside of Europe today ends up in the larger global stream of electronic waste.

Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as chromium and cadmium, known carcinogens. All three are known to leach out of existing e-waste dumps into drinking water supplies.

The deployment of solar has increased significantly in recent years in response to government subsidies and mandates. Global installed capacity more than doubled between 2012 and 2015.

In 2016, solar provided 1.3% of the world’s electricity, with 301 GW installed. Nuclear reactors provided 10% of the world’s electricity in the same year.

A recent report found that it would take 19 years for Toshiba Environmental Solutions to finish recycling all of the solar waste Japan produced by 2020. By 2034, the annual waste production will be 70 – 80 times larger than that of 2020.

http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

A lot of those materials are recyclable.

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

mcgoon said:

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

Yes the solar film industry is set to boom.

roughbarked said:

mcgoon said:

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

Yes the solar film industry is set to boom.

Though I am perpetually wondering when we are going to find enough plastic eating algae to deal with the plastic issue..

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

mcgoon said:

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

Yes the solar film industry is set to boom.

Though I am perpetually wondering when we are going to find enough plastic eating algae to deal with the plastic issue..

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a big step in the right direction.

mcgoon said:

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

The_observer said:

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

so a pipe dream then

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

one thing that is hindering recycling at the moment is supply. just not enough defunct panels to make a profit.

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

so a pipe dream then

Really, this study is a practical promotion for nuclear. Practical as opposed to idealogy.

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

so a pipe dream then

So was nuclear power – and within living memory.

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

so a pipe dream then

So was nuclear power – and within living memory.

http://www.ecogeneration.com.au/solar-salvage-and-pv-recycling/

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

Early days yet, it seems.

The innovation only got a mention in the news a few weeks ago. Seems that they’ve recently overcome some stumbling blocks to the idea.

so a pipe dream then

So was nuclear power – and within living memory.

Yes I appreciate that, but the technology you speak of may never come to fruition

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

so a pipe dream then

So was nuclear power – and within living memory.

Yes I appreciate that, but the technology you speak of may never come to fruition

I’d bet that phrase was uttered more than once in the post-war 1940s.

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

So was nuclear power – and within living memory.

Yes I appreciate that, but the technology you speak of may never come to fruition

I’d bet that phrase was uttered more than once in the post-war 1940s.

and how much toxic waste will there be until this new technology come along, if ever.

Why not just go nuclear?

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

It probably wasn’t available for the study.

The fact that the nuclear waste is generally radiofuckingactive does make a slight difference to the bullshit article.

sibeen said:

The fact that the nuclear waste is generally radiofuckingactive does make a slight difference to the bullshit article.

at least it doesn’t freeze and stop working!

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

I’m thinking that the University of Newcastle’s innovation of printed solar cells will change the whole game.

Easily produced using a fraction of the materials of existing cell panels, and at a small fraction of the weight, they can be literally rolled out on any roof or other surface very quickly.

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

It probably wasn’t available for the study.

because the technology doesn’t exist?

sibeen said:

The fact that the nuclear waste is generally radiofuckingactive does make a slight difference to the bullshit article.

Just a little. And it is within the realms of possibility to set up a solar panel recycling scheme to solve the problem, and all without a single goat being harmed.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

The fact that the nuclear waste is generally radiofuckingactive does make a slight difference to the bullshit article.

at least it doesn’t freeze and stop working!

your arguments are always so out of the leftist manifesto, & as such, so bullshit

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

Yes I appreciate that, but the technology you speak of may never come to fruition

I’d bet that phrase was uttered more than once in the post-war 1940s.

and how much toxic waste will there be until this new technology come along, if ever.

Why not just go nuclear?

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Let’s not pursue any innovations or developments in any technologies, we’ll just make do with things as they are. What we have now is good, we don’t need to look for other ways of doing things.

There’s a name for that philosophy – what is it, umm.. oh, that’s it – ‘the Amish’.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Thats interesting. Are they a goer now? how expensive? Have they been tested for ‘practicality’?

Funny that technology wasn’t mentioned in the study?

It probably wasn’t available for the study.

because the technology doesn’t exist?

It does exist. You aren’t reading the posts made in this thread.

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

I’d bet that phrase was uttered more than once in the post-war 1940s.

and how much toxic waste will there be until this new technology come along, if ever.

Why not just go nuclear?

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Let’s not pursue any innovations or developments in any technologies, we’ll just make do with things as they are. What we have now is good, we don’t need to look for other ways of doing things.

There’s a name for that philosophy – what is it, umm.. oh, that’s it – ‘the Amish’.

No, in the meantime, until this technology is realised, if ever, go nuclear.

Less toxic waste, & if CO2 is really a concern, its a no brainer.

I’m not against nuclear power. Hell, coal-fired power is a large part of the cause of global warming, and coal smoke and ash is not good for children and other living things.

Nuclear, sure, but don’t lets stop looking for other ways as well.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It probably wasn’t available for the study.

because the technology doesn’t exist?

It does exist. You aren’t reading the posts made in this thread.

pull your eyes out of your arse & go read the thread properly

mcgoon said:

I’m not against nuclear power. Hell, coal-fired power is a large part of the cause of global warming

LOL, funny there is no evidence to back up that waft

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

The_observer said:

and how much toxic waste will there be until this new technology come along, if ever.

Why not just go nuclear?

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Let’s not pursue any innovations or developments in any technologies, we’ll just make do with things as they are. What we have now is good, we don’t need to look for other ways of doing things.

There’s a name for that philosophy – what is it, umm.. oh, that’s it – ‘the Amish’.

No, in the meantime, until this technology is realised, if ever, go nuclear.

Less toxic waste, & if CO2 is really a concern, its a no brainer.

We could all try not wasting electricity talking shit on the internet too.

elon will sort the waste problem. he’s a fixer. he fixes things.

If anyone’s interested:

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/paul-dastoor

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/printed-solar-trials-helping-energy-crisis-in-australian-first/8526868

ChrispenEvan said:

elon will sort the waste problem. he’s a fixer. he fixes things.

Good. He can fix me a drink, as the Americans would say.

mcgoon said:

ChrispenEvan said:

elon will sort the waste problem. he’s a fixer. he fixes things.

Good. He can fix me a drink, as the Americans would say.

you drink too much.

ChrispenEvan said:

mcgoon said:

ChrispenEvan said:

elon will sort the waste problem. he’s a fixer. he fixes things.

Good. He can fix me a drink, as the Americans would say.

you drink too much.

Medicinal purposes only, i assure you.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Let’s not pursue any innovations or developments in any technologies, we’ll just make do with things as they are. What we have now is good, we don’t need to look for other ways of doing things.

There’s a name for that philosophy – what is it, umm.. oh, that’s it – ‘the Amish’.

No, in the meantime, until this technology is realised, if ever, go nuclear.

Less toxic waste, & if CO2 is really a concern, its a no brainer.

We could all try not wasting electricity talking shit on the internet too.

you first,,,pleaseeeeeee

ChrispenEvan said:

elon will sort the waste problem. he’s a fixer. he fixes things.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

elon will sort the waste problem. he’s a fixer. he fixes things.

:-)

How long would it take for present reserves of Uranium to run out if it was all utilised for nuclear power?

Witty Rejoinder said:

How long would it take for present reserves of Uranium to run out if it was all utilised for nuclear power?

dont bother quoting dr karrl, please

Witty Rejoinder said:

How long would it take for present reserves of Uranium to run out if it was all utilised for nuclear power?

Surely it would have been in the industry’s interest to have done these studies.

Witty Rejoinder said:

How long would it take for present reserves of Uranium to run out if it was all utilised for nuclear power?

Current usage is about 63,000 tU/yr. Thus the world’s present measured resources of uranium (5.7 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

Thanks Boris.

There is a huge reserve of heat below our feet which you would think would be a good solution, pour water down a hole and wait for the steam to come up, condense out then pour down the hole again. Obviously it’s not as easy as that, but once (if) cracked would be revolutionary.

How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?