Solar panels are composed of photovoltaic (PV) cells that convert sunlight into electricity. When these panels enter landfills, valuable resources are wasted. And because solar panels contain toxic materials, such as lead, that can leak out as they decompose, landfill also creates new environmental hazards. The key arguments against solar panels are that they require more energy and equipment that burns fossil fuels to extract, manufacture and transport than they save.
Another argument is that toxic chemicals are used in the manufacturing process that cause more harm than good. Solar panels are harmful to the environment because toxic chemicals are used in their manufacture. Manufacturing processes have waste products that can be harmful to human health and ecology. Old solar panels can become toxic waste due to the heavy metal content of solar cells and other contaminants.
If the average weight of a commercial solar panel is 20 kg, then 500000 solar panels equals 10000 tons per day, or 3.65 million tons of solar panel waste per year. Greg is at the key to a point, along with the others looking for biogas production. It takes very little energy to produce methane, which is why large landfills in larger cities are now taking advantage of it. Someday, landfill recovery will be a large industry, mining, metals and plastics and various other materials.
Technology does exist and as soon as the oil industry realizes that it is dying, it will be the source of funding to change the way we do things on this planet. It is the only industry that will have the funds to move away from current energy sources, they took everything from us. Between the pharmaceutical and oil industries, the government is nothing more than the puppet on the ropes controlled by these monstrous organizations. I know someone's going to say something like what a moron or a crackpot is when I bring the scriptures, but it's coming anyway.
The days will be shortened because of the righteous, lest any living being be left alive. We have exploited the planet to the point where the loss of life is incomprehensible. Scientists back this up when they say that of all the life that has existed on this planet, 97% or more of it is extinct, and that in the last 500 years at least 30% of what was left has now disappeared. How far are we willing to take this? On average, there are 350 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44, each year in the United States.
UU. When integrated into the distribution, it obtains approximately 2.15 children per woman, which is above replacement. The population continues to march towards the inevitable Malthusian trap, because the only thing that really prevents people from having more babies is that they cannot afford them (and yet they are still trying harder). You label that solar and wind energy is expensive and unreliable.
solar energy has not been expensive compared to nuclear energy for about 10 years. Solar energy provides the cheapest kWhs in almost the world. We have wind that reliably provides a plurality of loads and, occasionally, a majority of cargo in jurisdictions around the world. Measured capacity factors for wind and solar power compare at least as favorably with their predicted values as reactors.
Our energy demand fluctuates seasonally and daytime, and between 40 and 60% of it can be easily adapted to wind and sun availability. Besides, your dumb nuclear reactor still needs a backup gas turbine. Except that instead of running intermittently to support “unreliable” renewables, that gas turbine needs to be sized and maintained to operate when its clumsy nuclear reactor stops working for 3 months due to an “incident”. I don't think anyone should hear what you have to say.
You seem a stubborn clinging to a reality that no longer exists. I read a Swedish study that said that if all toilet waste across the nation were converted into biogas, they could supply fuel to about 10,000 cars. There are 6.3 million cars in Sweden, so not many. Some people have a better understanding than others.
I have used some of the techniques that Bob has listed. Suit from the dead 2 lead-acid batteries the size of a monster using a small solar panel and the recommended voltage. They went from being very dead (only a few v's) to enough to start a monstrous diesel engine and maintain a reasonable voltage. They weren't like new, but that's better than the $300 it would have cost to replace them.
Degradation over 25 years, at least on LG panels in my house, is guaranteed to be less than 83%, according to the documentation, I should expect a loss of about 0.6% per year and I would assume that rate would continue after the 25-year point. For real? Can you show some numbers for the cost of relocating them? Have you tried to send something to those “empty spaces”. Answer me this: what is the cost to ship a 60″ x 24″ x 3″ package that weighs 15 lb from CA, to DE? Which makes a little sense because lead solder is still the only material that guarantees large temperature variations without developing tin pests, and it has a total suppression of tin whiskers. If you want to do something that has a guaranteed lifespan of 30 to 40 years, you need to use lead.
The reflectors are slightly curved mirror panels. Airlight has tried a variety of different reflective materials, from glass to mylar, but it seems that they have finally opted for an aluminum foil, which is not prohibitively expensive and has a very high reflectance. However, aluminum foil needs additional material to protect it from the elements, since it is very flimsy. The Sunflower has six “petals”, each of which consists of six reflectors.
At the focal point of the 36 reflectors there are six collectors, one for each block of six reflectors. Solar panels that shine in the sun are an icon of everything that is green. But while generating electricity through photovoltaics is actually better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, several incidents have linked the manufacture of these bright symbols of environmental virtue to a trace of chemical pollution. And it turns out that the time it takes to compensate for the energy used and the greenhouse gases emitted in the production of photovoltaic panels varies substantially depending on technology and geography.
Solar farms can also reinforce inequality. Subsidies and carbon taxes have made cleaner energy cheaper. In Germany, there has been a backlash against renewables in opposition to the high costs that these measures impose on the poorest consumers who are still dependent on utilities and the grid. Similarly, the poor and even communities where solar energy is produced may not receive electricity.
A massive solar plant proposed for Tunisia was described as “neo-colonialist” because it would have delivered electricity directly to Europe through submarine cables. Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking the entire panel. Common problem impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony. There is much more at stake, but you just have to look at the sun's solar cycles of the past to give a clearer picture of what is currently happening.
Solar Sunflower, a Swiss invention developed by Airlight Energy, Dsolar (a subsidiary of Airlight) and IBM Research in Zurich, uses something called HCPVT to generate electricity and hot water from solar energy. Because wind turbines are usually owned by the community, solar panels are usually owned by the owner of the house in which they are mounted. Some types of nuclear reactors may claim maintenance levels similar to solar reactors, but they are not exactly easy to produce such a reactor and have a very definite completion date when too many half-lives have passed to produce enough. Thin film solar panels are the kind you see on calculators and sundials, and offer the lowest efficiency.
So maybe someday, powering photovoltaic panel manufacturing with wind, solar and geothermal energy will end concerns about photovoltaic energy's carbon footprint. A simple solution to the chemicals used in solar panels would be to find alternative methods for manufacturing modules. Unfortunately, end-of-life management of current solar energy systems does not include a viable recycling program to effectively eliminate the toxic effects of solar landfill waste. None of this will happen quickly or easily, and some solar industry executives will be reluctant to internalize the cost of safely storing or recycling solar panel waste, perhaps for understandable reasons.
If there were a solar panel design in which cells were only held in place mechanically, the cells could be replaced at the end of their useful life, and it would be quite trivial to recycle the metals and silicon from them. Quebec is the least earning from solar energy deployment, as its grid is already almost free of emissions. Solar cells tend to irradiate quite a lot over the years, slowly reducing their performance as the PN junction degrades. Considering that solar panels can last between 30 and 40 years, that still leaves a long lifespan that does much more good than damage.
Solar cell manufacturers purify pieces of polysilicon to form brick-like ingots and then cut them into wafers. . .
