Don't have the time to dig through this now, so I'll leave it here for you guys to tackle for now.
reminds me of when i see an ad for the fifth time that claims to share a "secret" with me: it's never a secret.
Article: The environmental impact of photovoltaic panels (PVs) is an extensively studied topic, generally assessed using the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology. Due to this large amount of papers, a review seems necessary to have a clear view of the work already done and what is still to be done.
Article: The typical and arguably most comprehensive way to measure the environmental impact of solar panels on the earth is the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology. Defined as the whole lifespan of a product, the life cycle includes everything from raw material acquisition and manufacturing to the disposal or recycling of the solar panel. Using that information, decision-makers can select the manufacturing, construction, and recycling processes that result in the least impact on the environment.
In Europe, solar panel recycling has reached a far more developed state than in North America. For example, over 70% of PV manufacturers take part in a global PV CYCLE Network that helps producers meet the legal obligations of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive legislation. As members of this initiative, producers are actively engaged in the sustainability of their product during manufacturing and throughout its lifespan.
If North America followed the EU model, the promise of 96% material recyclability would be fulfilled, which would cover almost two billion new panels by 2050.
Counter point:IRENA projected that this amount [of solar panel waste] could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.
Article: The paper could be read as a counterpoint to some of the estimates in a 2016 report from the International Renewable Energy Agency that has been widely cited (including by me) in discussions about rising demand for solar panel recycling. The report projected that the United States would have a cumulative total of 7.5 to 10 million metric tons of solar panel waste in 2050.
Since 2016, the pace of solar power development has accelerated to the point that old estimates are no longer reliable. Based on this growth, the amount of waste in 2050 would be much higher than IRENA projected.
But that’s not the case, according to Mirletz and her coauthors. Using more recent data about the reliability of solar panels, they estimate that the United States will have a cumulative total of 8 million metric tons of waste in 2050. Considering the increase in assumptions since 2016 about how much solar will be deployed, that’s a big decrease in the share of panels that end up needing to be recycled. (For perspective, the country generated more than 250 million metric tons of municipal solid waste in 2018, the most recent year available.)
Instead of being recycled, many of those decades-old panels will still be operating, Mirletz said.
Article: The International Energy Agency studied the risk to human health from heavy metals leaching out of solar panels and reported it was below US screening levels, while water contamination levels were within the guidelines from the World Health Organization.
A 2021 life-cycle analysis by the United Nations found that solar panels produce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the manufacturing stage, but it is low in comparison to other energy forms.
The UN also assessed toxicity and found solar panels to be much a lower risk than coal, the production of which causes arsenic to leak to the surface and into the groundwater from the mining process.
Article: The methods estimate potential impacts from disposal of end-of-life (EOL) PV modules in non-sanitary landfills under the following worst-case conditions: no leachate collection or groundwater monitoring, no liner for preventing leachate migration, uncovered waste, and lack of stormwater management. Examining worst-case conditions allows the exploration of maximum potential risk to attempt to ensure disposal does not increase health risk above regulatory thresholds.
Specifically, this report presents an analysis of potential human health risks associated with non-sanitary landfill disposal for three PV technologies, focusing on release of the highest-prioritized chemical element for each: lead (Pb) in crystalline-silicon (c-Si) PV modules, cadmium (Cd) in thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV modules, and selenium (Se) in thin film copper indium selenide (CIS) PV modules. The prioritization of these chemical elements for analysis is based on stakeholder interest. Because the methodology is chemical-specific, the risk assessment results for these chemicals cannot be directly generalized to other chemicals, although the risk assessment methodology can be applied to other chemicals. If the chemicals chosen are indeed the ones presenting greatest risk, then the results herein should represent the upper bound of health risk from exposure to a single constituent.
Under the layers of health-protective assumptions applied, for Pb for c-Si PV, Cd from CdTe PV and Se from CIS PV, cancer risks and non-cancer hazards are found to be at least one order of magnitude below the US regulatory screening thresholds of 1×10^-6 cancer risk and non-cancer hazard quotient of 1. Health screening levels can differ by country or region; exposure-point concentrations in groundwater and surface water of Pb, Cd, and Se for c-Si, CdTe, and CIS PV, respectively, are also within water quality guidelines from the World Health Organization.
Article: With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.
Yeah, I was just in a real rush.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/A factual search reveals that Forbes has produced a misleading claim, according to an IFCN fact-checker. Although Forbes is usually evidence-based in science, they do not always support the consensus regarding climate change. For example, they have employed James Taylor as a columnist who writes anti-climate science propaganda and has connections to the questionable Heartland Institute and Exxon-Mobil. They have also published articles by Roy Spencer, who has a long track record of human-influenced climate change denial. Spencer has also been a speaker for the Heartland Institute and has connections to the fossil fuel industry. Lastly, Forbes has published several articles rated Very Low for Science Credibility by IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback.
it's not my source, it is the OP source...another thing NZ does is hide links in hyperlinks.
Article: Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counterarguments may be made that the target is dishonest or lacks the claimed expertise.
Article: September 2022
There’s a big regulatory barrier that gets in the way of some potential solar recycling. In most parts of the U.S., solar panels are classified as hazardous waste. This severely limits the number of recyclers willing to accept solar panels, due to tight regulations and testing requirements.
The state of California two years ago reclassified solar panels as "universal waste," a category that is also home to batteries and lightbulbs. Orben said this opens the door for more waste handlers — already permitted for universal waste — to accept solar panels. They may end up just storing the panels and shipping them to a more qualified recycler, but Orben said it creates more opportunities to divert panels from landfills.
...
The economics of solar recycling or reuse are likely to be an unwelcome surprise for many solar owners, Orben said, because most do not budget for any kind of end-of-life services.
He’s confident that recyclers such as his own company could scale up as demand for the services increases, but he’s not so sure the public is ready to see the price tag.
"They’re in for a rude awakening," Orben said.
| silicon | copper | aluminium |
