Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Lu Fang, secretary general of the photovoltaics decision in the China Renewable Energy Society, wrote in an article circulating on mainland social media this month that the country's cumulative capacity of retired panels would reach up to 70 gigawatts (GW) by 2034.
That is three times the scale of the Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydropower project, by power production.
By 2050 these waste panels would add up to 20 million tonnes, or 2,000 times the weight of the Eiffel Tower, according to Lu.
[...] A panel's lifespan ranges from 20 to 30 years, depending on the environment in which they are used, according to the US Department of Energy. High temperatures can accelerate the ageing process for solar cells, while other negative factors – such as the weight of snow or dust storms – could cause material fatigue on the surface and internal electric circuits, gradually reducing the panel's power output.
[...] A solar panel contains metals such as lead and copper and also has an aluminium frame. The solar cells are made up of pure, crystallised silicon wrapped under a thick layer of plastic membrane for protection.
[...] A sales manager of a solar power recycling company believes there could be a way to dispose of China's solar junk, nonetheless.
"We can sell them to Middle East," said the manager who requested not to be named.
"Our customers there make it very clear that they don't want perfect or brand new panels. They just want them cheap," he said.
"They are re-selling these panels to household users living in deserts. There, there is lots of land to install a large amount of panels to make up for their low performance," the manager added.
"Everyone is happy with the result," he added.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:09AM
Send them all to Al Gore! [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Monday August 07 2017, @02:42AM (3 children)
Ah, the Ankh-Morpork solution to refuse disposal, there's always someone lower down on the scale than you that you can dump it on. It also keeps with the general Ankh-Morpork ethos that once dumped, it's somebody else's problem.
I was however expecting them to dump them in Africa rather than the middle east.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 07 2017, @02:58AM
They're not 'dumping' them. You get higher prices in the Middle East. And once they quit producing any power, they will still provide a small degree of shelter, from the sun?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday August 07 2017, @07:20AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 07 2017, @11:31AM
US/Europe -> China/India -> Middle East -> Africa
The joke is: in 200 years, recycling technology will advance to a point where African landfills become the world's primary resource for metallic elements.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:44AM (14 children)
FUD. The article talks about the cost of recycling silicon crystals and how expensive that is going to be. Then don't recycle it! Isn't it just fancy sand? Of course you're going to want to recycle the aluminum, copper, and lead because those things are worth recycling. They also worry about the cost of trucking out old panels from installations but fail to think that if you shipped in a bunch of new replacement panels, then you would likely have a bunch of trucks that can either return empty or return with the old panels. Is there no common sense left in the world? Grrrr!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday August 07 2017, @03:07AM
Grrrr! indeed.
No, there is no intelligence on Earth (so it seems, half the time)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @03:29AM
And once you run out of people who'd want to buy "preloved" solar panels you can just start dumping them into huge piles.
Once a pile is huge enough you can call it an ore deposit or a vein and then use mining tech on it.
This works better if we can improve mining technology so that smaller and less concentrated deposits are economical.
See also: https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/20-1-metal-deposits/ [opentextbc.ca]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @05:42AM (2 children)
TFS also talks about selling the old panels with reduced performance to the Middle East countries.
So... China figured out how to sell sand to the Middle East. Ouch.
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Monday August 07 2017, @01:04PM (1 child)
Australia has been selling sand to the Middle East and Africa (Sahara) for ages; apparently because they have higher quality sand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @04:46PM
Crikey, we sell them a lot of camels too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday August 07 2017, @07:31AM (2 children)
It is fancy sand in the same way as diamonds are fancy coal.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 07 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)
Didn't you hear, man? Diamonds are just fancy coal, it's all a conspiracy of the DeBeers family to lock up supply and drive up demand. Up with profits, down with the truth.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @03:15PM
Well, it kind of is. They've way over-hyped the diamond as the singular precious stone that can mean “I love you.” They also aren't so nice when it comes to how they obtain the diamonds they sell from what I understand.
Personally I think diamond is a useful substance for industrial applications, but I think it's too (aesthetically) dull to be the centerpiece of a work of jewelry. Myself I'm partial to turquoise and aquamarine, even though neither stone is terribly rare or expensive. I'd rather have something from a lover who wanted me to have it because I'd like it, not because I'm some random prize to be won because some advertiser told him he needed a girlfriend and another advertiser told him he needed to get his girlfriend a diamond. Oh, add to that consumerist whore mentality all the girls out there who heard from one advertiser that they need a boyfriend and from another that their boyfriend doesn't really love them unless he buys them an expensive diamond ring with just the right flaws and impurities to prove that it was formed in a tectonic process over millions of years instead of grown in a lab to be a much closer approximation of an ideal carbon lattice….
Ugh, what a bunch of consumerist crap.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @10:14AM (2 children)
The majority of modern solar cells have some form of toxic metal as one of the doped compounds. Now having said, that, if that surface layer could be cut/ablated/etc off, then yes you could just grind up the silicon and call it sand (although there may be other dangers until the pure silicon degrades into other compounds.)
HOWEVER, this whole thing seems a bit silly. The energy cost to melt down all those panels is still less than the energy produced *BY* the panels, and all that is really needed is a sufficient quantity of them in an induction smelter such that they can be separated into layers, then cut into pure silicon, pure dopants, and a 'waste' layer. The waste gets thrown in the next batch and the relatively pure silicon and dopant layers get refined and reused in future panel manufacture. While energy intensive, it is not a complicated process once the framing materials for the panels are separated and any adhesives/plastic are cleaned off the surface of the solar cell material.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @01:47PM
Wait, the solar cells are all doped? So why doesn't this disqualify them in the energy competition? Someone call the WADA! ;-)
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Monday August 07 2017, @10:08PM
Wait you're saying the amount of energy needed to melt a panel exceeds the panel's total energy output over 20 to 30 years? I find that hard to believe.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 07 2017, @01:45PM
As a feasibility study, consider that recycling might be a good idea if the recycling is easier than mining.
Now the average copper in your walls right now came from ore with a grade below 0.5% by mass. Its not unrealistic that a "great big pile of used solar cells" has 0.5% by mass of pure copper interconnect wire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_extraction#Concentration [wikipedia.org]
Another thing to consider, sorry no link but you can figure it out, consider the famous Escondida mine in Chile, which produces about 5% of the worlds copper today, and it got its Spanish name because the ore is a decent fraction of a kilometer underground, there were no outcrops. Dig an open pit mine a kilo straight down on the prophecy of a geologist that there's good stuff deep down there ... and creationists claim geologists have no faith, LOL. I mean, seriously, that 0.5% ore had to have a kilo of dirt and rocks removed first, and people are complaining that used solar cells require a really expensive pickup truck to acquire, LOL.
If you ran solar panels thru a wood chipper and delivered the dust to a copper mine they'd probably be pretty happy. They're not currently set up for the polymer contaminants but they're bright folks they'll figure it out. Its a lot easier than digging it out of the ground...
My guess is solar cells will become like car battery lead which is endlessly infinitely recycled.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday August 07 2017, @06:18PM
Given that you yourself answered this question just sentences before and yet still are uncertain, I would say the answer is probably, "I duno lol."
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday August 08 2017, @09:49PM
It's a hit piece paid or by coal, gas, and oil producers to muddy the waters on solar energy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday August 07 2017, @02:58AM (14 children)
We send our ewaste to China, they apparently intend to send theirs to the ME, where do they eventually send it? The circle has to close eventually. Or do they figure when they get too old they will simply pile up in the desert, get covered in sand and await rediscovery after the next civilization arises like the Sphinx?
Something all 'yall green energy types should keep in mind. It all has life cycle costs and externalities that must be accounted for when assessing an energy source. Nobody stopped to consider that panels by the square mile wouldn't last forever and that something would need to be done with them? Or did they not care, too busy chasing egoboo and government handouts to bother?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday August 07 2017, @03:01AM (1 child)
Nobody stopped to consider that panels by the square mile wouldn't last forever and that something would need to be done with them?
Build a "prefab" house? They just have to keep the wind and rain (and the sun, how ironic) out.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:13PM
Use them as roofing material. Cheap shiny shingles.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Gaaark on Monday August 07 2017, @03:11AM
It won't be like the Sphinx: more like the Statue of Liberty in P.O.T.Apes (buried along with American liberty).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @03:21AM (9 children)
Same happens for coal, right? Or, for hydropower [sciencedirect.com].
Of, for the matter, with anything related with human presence (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch): e.g. you build a house, getting it down 30 years later for redevelopment is an externality. Or... you eat you lunch and, later, take a shit, your shit is an externality.
Which leads us to the quux of the matter: if you yourself choose the behave like a shit, you as a whole become an externality.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 07 2017, @04:16AM (8 children)
Ya. Difference is some power generation methods are profitable. We know this because we can look at a world driven by practical energy. There are externalities but they are obviously net gains for civilization, the argument over who eats them not withstanding. By definition no alt / green method is so profitable it is built on subsidy, operated at a loss (more subsidy) and when it hits end of life we all get hit up one last time to decommission it. Loss from start to finish. If we actually tried to get to 100% green our civilization would collapse long before we got there.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Fluffeh on Monday August 07 2017, @04:46AM (4 children)
Maybe not [independent.co.uk]. There are also quite a few counties ranked rather highly on the Environmental Performance Index [wikipedia.org] that you might want to look at. They don't seem to be collapsing too much.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday August 07 2017, @08:21AM (3 children)
No they haven't. Ignore the fact that every single time you dig deeply into the numbers they don't add up. The electric grid isn't everything and they haven't even started on some of the big energy consumers. A few hybrid and battery powered round about town gocarts ain't a pimple on the ass of the energy needs of transportation. Cars, big trucks, buses, trains, ships and the real tough nut, planes. Good luck building an electric plane to replace a modern jet airliner, capable of intercontinental flights carrying hundreds of passengers.
Even after all that we will still be pumping up dead dinosaurs because making plastics the hard way is a lot more expensive (even when we even know how to do it at all on any sort of scale) than getting the precursors from oil. Ever noticed how much stuff is plastic? Now look at the myriad other products that come out of oil refining that would have to be replaced. Some of the best minds have dedicated a Century of research into petrochemistry, replacing that will be a long slow effort that mostly hasn't even started yet.
And all the feelz of every snowflake with sadz thinking about this reality won't change it. Because in the end not 10% of them would actually give up their stuff that depends on it. They would happily sacrifice their mothers to the Bugblatter Beast of Trall if Al Gore told them it would save the Earth but they themselves would not give up much at all. It is like taxes, a snowflake would love to raise someone else's taxes so they can feel sanctimonious and holy but if you point out that they can go to a Dept of the Treasury page today and give until it hurts, that they can be holy right now, you get zero takers.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday August 07 2017, @08:55AM (1 child)
I don't disagree with everything you write - although I am probably somewhat more rose-coloured-glasses than you are... but... I prefer to think that we can do something, we should do something and steps in the right direction are the right thing to do. I'm not going to get defeatist, drop my arms to my pockets and call it a day because its too difficult or because no-one else will come on board.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @07:38PM
yeah, jmorris seems to argue against something if he believes it infringes upon the entitlements of a given industry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @09:25PM
Awww, po jmo got twiggawd again.
Who knew it would be about solar panel recycling. Oh! Right, "recycling" is a liberal progressively socialist propaganda term. Carry on, I think you stopped just short of the necessary spittle for "righteous anger".
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @05:50AM (1 child)
Unlike fossil fuels, which are built and still function on subsidies, not to mention trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on wars to support them. Fossil fuels are also infinite and will, of course, never run out, so relying on them will let our civilization last for an eternity.
Fuck green energy! Fuck sustainability! Fuck the environment! If our kids wanted to have a planet in nice condition, they should've been born earlier, dumb fucks!
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Monday August 07 2017, @07:44AM
No, it's all a big extraterrestrial geoengineering project. You see, there are warmth-loving extraterrestrial intelligences who'd like to settle on this planet. So they want it to be much hotter. Now geoengineering is a long-term project anyway, so they decided to go the easy way: They genetically manipulated some apes to develop a limited amount of intelligence, enough to eventually build a civilisation able to burn fossil fuels, but not intelligent enough to collectively grasp the consequences. The idea is, the ape civilization will heat the planet up by burning all fossil fuels, and by doing so make the environment uninhabitable by themselves, so they essentially remove themselves after they did their job. At that time, the extraterrestrials can easily move in to the nicely warmed up planet.
So far, the plan is working pretty well.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:56PM
I'll send you the bill for my insurance premium going up due to extreme weather, I'll see how profitable your coal burning is afterwards.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday August 07 2017, @04:53PM
Pick a random square kilometre of useless land (about 250 acres) and stack the panels about ten metres (11 yards) high. Hey presto, all 20 million tonnes disposed of.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday August 07 2017, @04:03AM
At the gas stations now, they have two pumps. One for regular gas and one for unleaded. And they tell you, buy the unleaded. Because it doesn't damage the ozone layer. Because the lead floats up. They say it floats up -- how, I don't know -- to the ozone layer, and damages it. So they want us to buy the unleaded gas. It ruins the car, ruins the engine. Eats right through the engine. So you lose the car, or you lose the ozone layer. Which, if it happened, would mean anyone who wanted a fabulous tan could have one. Which would be very bad. According to scientists, suntans are a bad thing. So they give us a choice about the gas. What about the solar panels? Do those come in regular and unleaded? Because I'm thinking of putting some in, on the wall. And I want to know about the silicone too. Because the silicone implants were a big problem. When they leaked, some terrific ladies got flat chested. A person who is very flat chested is very hard to be a 10. So now the implants come without silicone. They brought sexy back. So I'm asking again, what about the solar panels? Do they come without silicone, or do you have to get the silicone? I'm thinking of putting some in, but I don't want them to leak and make problems. Which could happen if they're full of silicone. When you've got a 2000 mile wall and the silicone is leaking out of it so it goes flat, that's a huge, huge problem. Unsexy! #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by ledow on Monday August 07 2017, @07:15AM (2 children)
Gosh, so you're saying that these "renewable" techs aren't all that renewable and every 20-30 years we have to throw all the stuff away or expend a lot of energy to remove it, recycle *some* parts of it, and then reinstall it, generating waste in the process, and using up more of the natural resources used to create them in the first place?
Yeah, we all knew that. Only now is it starting to come back to bite you. I wouldn't even like to think about how complicated it is to break open a solar panel, take out the useful bits, recycle the rest and reuse bits of them, and then figure out how to dispose of the rest. Because "we can sell dodgy panels to the Middle East" doesn't sound like a long-term solution either.
It may *still* be greener than other methods, but it's nowhere near as clear-cut as it's made out to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @07:42PM
well. i've yet to see who has figured out a way to recycle all that oil we burn. unless you mean how the acid rain and pollution are harvestable for the health effects, then I guess we have plenty of evidence of that.
these stupid arguments are like the studies that come out saying organic produce and meat has negligble differences in nutrients than conventional Monsanto promoted marketing, so buy BMO and pesticides and enjoy a future of big business profits.
there are no people buying organic because of the nutrional differences. they are buying organic to be exposed to less environmental toxins, or because they care about the animals for whatever reason, or they believe in supporting the little man.
its never about what these think tanks come up with and spend lots of money pursing to refute some problem that didn't exist.
recycling solar panels is one of those problems that don't exist. in 30 years, if my solar roof fails, I will put it in a landfill like all that other shit no political party has found a use for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @09:29PM
To my knowledge no one ever thought solar panels would last forever. Now the key is making recycling preferable instead of digging more mines just so we can throw a bunch of it in a landfill years down the road. It is entirely feasible to make an almost closed system. Recycle with solar power, make new panels, repeat.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday August 08 2017, @01:26AM
What's that in Libraries of Congress?
Either the mass of the buildings or their contents would do nicely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:12PM
so has everyone decided to destroy the middle east and use it as the world's landfill? between the depleted uranium the US is dumping(see Beyond Treason documentary. lady who made doc just died of cancer from her military immunizations) via expensive weapons and this news that's kind of what it's starting to look like.