In 4:40 where you talk about hazardous elements in some modules (specifically Cadmium and Arsenic), i would like it if you made it clear, that these are only in certain types of solar panels - namely thin-layered PV - which are very very uncommon for multiple reasons. No Silicon-PV-module has any of these materials in it and Silicon PV-Modules are all the ones where you see individual cells (so basically almost every panel ever used). The only rare and expensive raw material inside a regular silicon module is silver for the electric contact on the front of the cell. Hazardous materials are not present in a finished module (so this is obviously not accounting for acids etc. in the construction process). The way you present it in the video it sounds like if you buy a regular module with individual cells (which everyone does because they are cheaper and more efficient) you might end up having Cadmium or Arsenic in it without knowing. But that is not the case! It is only true if you buy an unconventional Solarpanel which is based on entirely different materials and technology - not silicon cells (e.g. CdTe and CIGS Modules). Apart from this detail i really liked the video for a short overview of the topic though!
Thanks for the additional info Captain, i might just add that they do bind materials like Arsenic, Phosphore or Antimony so the Monocrystalline silicon, mostly used for processor manufacturing. Appart from the acid , like you said, there is also some Nickel, a bunch of solvants and rare metals. Great video btw
Well, it's not as simplistic as it sounds. But the complexity of this whole topic, going to a real LCA and not just exchanging opinions, is well beyond the scope of simple comments on youtube clips.
As if making ICE engine isn't hazardous at all. Look all the complex chain of lub oil from the machinery to up protect the engine itself. Not to mention massive cast iron being wasted on cutting the engines.
There’s always a yin in every yang and vice versa, solar panel is still a better choice for cheap and green energy. Hopefully we will get way more sustainable solar panel in the future
Make a requirement. 75% of energy cost for Marijuana production must come from green energy producer's. Watch how fast green energy products improve. Almost overnight garented.
Yes it's cheap alright but only because... every step in producing a SP is powered by cheap coal and fossil fuel energy and that's the only reason why. Take coal and fossil fuel out of the equation, watch how fast the price WILL jump up!!
I think it would be helpful to compare solar cells with respect to conventional energy for other variables than CO2 emission. There are about 10 million death yearly from air pollution, mainly from burning coal. The amount of toxic waste that coal burning produces is staggering. Over 400 million tons of fly ash is produced yearly, of which only one third is reused. The rest is dumped in land fills or ash ponds. Fly ash contains a lot of toxic heavy metals. Fly ash can even contain as much nuclear waste per kWh produced as the nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant. The radioactive waste from coal is dumped, while that of nuclear power plants is contained and stored. Than we have the enormous amount of mining, the oil spills, the gas flaring en methane leakages, the water polution by fracking, the domestic polution of burning fossil fuel for cooking, etc... We have to consider all these things when comparing to renewables. Not only the CO2 emissions.
Yes. I am glad people are aware of this problem with burning coal. Some estimates I have seen argue that over a lifetime a coal burning plant gradually releases as much radioactivity into the air as you would get from blowing up/vaporizing a nuclear reactor with a similar output. The other fun fact is when you look up how many fatalities you get per energy output of coal, full lifecycle from mining to pollution... wiki says that if all energy has been produce from a single source just in 2014, it is 5.2 million deaths for brown coal, 3.9 million for black coal, 11.8 THOUSAND for CURRENT nuclear, probably most from mining uranium (wiki does not mention solar/wind but other sources says those numbers of deaths are well above nuclear).
Careful now that sounds like FACTS and LOGIC opposing a sensationalised media spin that lies by omission. I actually like DW in general and this is embarassing for them.
Don’t forget that solar energy is not sustainable on its own and needs a back up from fossil sources. So count this factor in while evaluating its greenness. But in all honesty, I believe that it’s time for Western Europe to ban the use of all fossil sources whatsoever. It’s gonna be hard but after all more than 700ml people on this planet somehow live without electricity at all so why not follow the green trend?
@@ЛюдмилаАртюшкина How about NUCLEAR POWER for baseload as we transition, since it has very low emissions and only the most TRIGGERED of the Leftiest Left Leftists are afraid of it? I strongly dislike the tories of UK, they're quite corrupt and incompetent, to the point churchill would pull out a revolver and make them DANCE; but these small modular reactors are a good idea, and thorium research is going very well since Hastelloy was discovered and pretty much perfected?
@@ЛюдмилаАртюшкина yes, green energy does not work on its own. Energy storage is too expensive (batteries cost almost double what it takes to produce advanced nuclear power). Solar is cheap when available. The current optimal solution is to use solar and have nuclear power plants for when sun does not shine... no need to waste money on energy storage.
It is relatively easy to calculate the carbon footprint of production and disposal costs. Yes, these are real, but generally a tiny amount compared to the amount offset over 25 years of production. I remember the same panic/misinformation about wind turbines, then scientists did the math and found out it takes less than a year for turbines to make up their production carbon footprints
@@neptun2810 I know, that's why seeing a 10 minute story on a non-issue is frustrating. You know the whole topic is only brought up by anti-renewable energy lobbies to implant doubt in new tech, anyway. From a carbon balance perspective, it's a non-issue. Yes, waste mgmt is an issue to consider, just like everything else that gets made.
they claim - solar panels produce 43 g CO² per kWh ! that's impossible ! a 1 kW panel produces (in India) more than 4 kWh per day (annual average ). efficiency decreases every year over 20-25 years (considering 80% between 15- 20 years etc). It will produce 29950 kWh. if their claim of 43g/ kWh CO² footprint is right ; it means 1 kWh solar produces 1290 kg CO² from mining through installation. totally false ! petroleum lobby at work.
Full lifecycle of the product should always be taken into account from manufacture to disposal… this is not just a problem for green energy, it’s a problem for everything. And should always be considered carefully to determine the mitigations that will need to be employed in order to overcome the issues… and they should not include trading in any format.
@@luisgutierrez8047 The Disposal Cost of Nuclear Power is insane. I'm not even talking about Nuclear Waste but the Powerplants themselves. The oldest German Nuclear Powerplants are now longer in the Process of Decomissioning and Dismantling than they have been running, and that Process is more expensive than the Revenue those Powerplants have earned before. This may even be the Case for all Nuclear Powerplants in Germany. That's also the Reason for the insane Energy Prices in Germany (and not "uneconomic" Renewables), because that Money is not paid by the Energy Companies themselves but by the Government which in Terms gets the Money from an Energy Tax.
The only thing that makes solar even possible is lithium ion batteries. This is another fossil fuel that has to be mined and when it starts to run low will cost more for the consumer which will cause war at the places that live on top of lithium.
Exactly, yes it's cheaper to blah blah blah... but it can be recycled, so it doesn't have to be in a landfill the government can do recycling of said materials, and it ends up being a net negative to the budget as far as money, but it doesn't have to be in a landfill..
The USA subsidises the oil industry to invest more to get people jobs. Solar energy isn’t profitable as is is the recycling of solar panels and the mining of lithium is very damaging to the environment. We shouldn’t replace one crappy solution with another crappy solution so this is why we need to invest in nuclear energy.
Just the fact that they can be recycled, and get used again to make more panels, is a win against fossil fuels, which can't. The recycle process will only improve over time
A* good read on this subject is: Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism by Ozzie Zehner Was a required read in my graduate environmental class.
Yes, but given the quantity, (millions and millions of panels) disposal needs to be perfect, or future generations are going to face mountainous piles of landfill leaking toxins into the environment. Recovering the cost of proper recycling is not viable and I fear panels will be dumped. We cant leave that for our kids to clean up.
@@archcollie5708 The cost of recycling can easily be added to the sale price without much problems. As the video mentioned recycling is mandatory in the EU and yet there are plenty of solar panels.
Make the buyers of solar panels pay the disposal costs right up front. That would add perhaps 50% cost to a solar installation. It would go into a government fund to create a green bureaucracy to deal with the waste.
These types of videos are important but we also need to think in bigger scale like what to do with all type of waste not only solar panels but plastic, electronics, medicine, and a lot of other special things.
I installed my first solar plant in 2007, and since then I paid an annual fee for future disposing and recycling of panels. In Italy this fee is compulsory by law and we have consortiums specialised for this task. I think it's the same all over EU. Solar is not perfect, but its carbon footprint is 10 times less than methane and 20 times less than coal. Not too bad!
I think one of the biggest flaws in logic a lot of people have is acting like only one kind of green energy (usually specifically renewables) is best for both cost and the environment. Studies have shown that the best way to get the most green energy for the lowest cost and environmental impact is to have a combination of solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and battery storage. We could get so much farther if we stopped treating it like a competition between energy sources and used them together.
Do advocates treat energy sources like a competition? I don’t tend to see that among my circles. I only see opponents to green energy claiming such a thing, trying to say we’d need multiple forms of new energy when we could just use good ol’ coal. After posting this, you got me thinking. Be careful who you take at their word. Many people post disingenuous stuff to piss off “the other side” of whatever issue is at hand.
@@nickthompson1812 I typically hear it from not-super-educated armchair solar/wind advocates when I tell them I’m involved in the nuclear industry. I also know a few people in the nuclear industry who don’t really like renewables most likely from jealousy that everyone loves those energies and people hate nuclear. But you have a point: most people who actually do their research and care about green energy aren’t treating it like a competition.
I'd be interested to from someone in the nuclear industry what they think of the optimal distribution of green energy capacity might look like. Nuclear gets hated on, and yet produces less CO2 per kWh than solar. A nuclear plant has a geographic footprint several orders of magnitude smaller than what solar needs to produce the same capacity. Over the past year, I've really warmed up to nuclear.
You didn't even discuss the elephant in the room, namely energy storage. Batteries are a huge concern, the greenhouse gasses in building them such as the mining required... as well as recycling/disposal.
Great video. I think that as production processes improve and the market becomes more competitive, both solar panel's co2e ouput, and price should fall drastically. A lot of the recoverable materials will probably become more expensive to mine in their raw forms as time goes on, so that should help making recycling more economical. It is important to not create a whole new set of issues when trying to solve the climate crisis.
Probably the biggest challenge honestly. Fixing one to only create a worse one is very short sighted thinking, about Critical to think about all consequences
There's no time to waste in waiting for things to become profitable. Governments should ban throwing away old solar panels, and recycling should be mandatory. On the other hand we use too much energy that we don't need without realising how, it's just consumerism that should be banned also. Every single thing that we buy needs a high amount of energy to produce, and almost no industry runs on clean energy. Nobody sees that. People think that the only energy they use is light and home electricity, but it's in every single thing we buy.
@@leslydeboraespinoza3940 I agree! I think THE first thing to be sacrificed on the Alter of anti-consumerism is your phone...and anything else you have around you that you don't need for breathing.
@@danielkingery2894 yes! Everything we really need is food (and it should be produced in agroecology systems, not industrial ones), water, and a place to live. We have lived during millions on years without smartphones, industrial clothes, televisions, or air conditioning. And we are not happier with them, so don't why not let go! Living in communities with ecological ways of producing food is the best way to go (in my opinion and that's what I plan to do) . You don't need no electricity, no fossils fuel, nor pesticides, only some animals to fertilize naturally you crops, your workforce, the sun, water, and your loved-ones :)
To find a viable solution to this we need to make the complexity of manufacturing simpler . A lot of research is needed regarding this. I want plastics that are having lesser toxic chemicals. To solve the polution we need to solve the root cause that's plastic. Hope scientists soon come out with plastics that cause lesser harm to environment and marine life.
Plastic already a solution. It was invented to be reusable. Not one time use. But capitalist didnt make much money so they decrease rhe quality and make it cheaper. But the lifespan is so short.
Finally a video that talks about the lifecycle of a solution. Everything we create produce emissions because our civilization is built on energy consumption. The best we can do with these solutions is to reduce our emissions. To become net zero or carbon negative, we need to revive the system we destroyed. The system that created a liveable planet for us. Nature with its highly complex and delicate biodiversity. Nature will absorb all the CO2 we pumped.
@@crappymeal we don't have to go back to nature. We need to stop destroying it. Bless large parts of the planet with our absence so that it can recover and provide clean air, water, and moderate climate for us.
How about we just get rid of electricity? 3/4 of the worlds population will die. People will live lives free from the internet and die happy and early.
There are some interesting projects in China where they use PV in combination with agriculture to make deserts green. Projects of >50 km2. The panels stop a little bit of evaporation, which allows plants to grow.
Thank you for making this video Its good to see the downside of solar power. There is a philosophy that in order to fix a problem you have to know what the problem is....
Recycled glass saves about 50% energy to produce new less transparent glasses those can be used for making bottle etc. Crushed glasses can be used as a better/stronger alternative than conventional diminishing construction sands.
We will probably have a combination of energy sources. Solar will be one. Wind, nuclear, ocean tides and rivers. Fusion? We will learn better ways of doing things also. We already know some of those. Hemp, bamboo, algae, and other things are coming into play.
Note. Hydrofluoric acid is more than just your normal "toxic". It requires extreme precautions around piping or anything else. It may look like water but it can't just be washed off. The flouride ion readily penetrates to your bones and destroys them.
What about the batteries needed to store the produced energy? I think those should be considered in the calculations as panels by themselves would be too unreliable to replace current energy sources. Solar energy also requires costly specific upgrades to the grid system.
@@4000marcdman Or maybe they know it's a meaningless argument when 90% of the parks are directly connected to the grid. Ever wondered why we don't need batteries for fossil fuel energy production? It's because storing it in batteries would be foolish.
Spoken like someone that has no clue what they are talking about. A small amount of users use storage for their cells. Most parks and homes are connected to the grid. So the grid is the battery.
@@4000marcdman What are you talking about? You mentioned batteries and your claim was that people use batteries to store the energy from the solar panels. I said no, that is not how it works and people use the energy (what they need) the rest is put back in to the grid for someone else to use. How is that not green? We need to modernise our grids, make them smart and connected to each other across borders. We also need to invest in energy storage (green alternatives are available), mix in some nuclear power and we may reduce the dependency on fossil fuels down to 0. But people like you are not interested in a real solution. You only present problems and missinformation to keep us in the dark ages. Yikes..
But these still require fossil fuels for everything from production to transport to replacements, and then they cause these additional waste problems that using energy sources like natural gas don't cause.
Suggestion for your next episode: How fossil fuels just don't appear in our tankers, cars and pumps. People seem to forget that fossil fuels need to be extracted, refined and transported. That process alone contributes to billions in environmental damage, death of living animals, organisms, lakes and parts of the oceans, humans. It is also responsible for the huge cost to our societies in the form of medical expenses (diseases directly linked to toxic pollution), clean up measures and measures to fix the damage that nature does thanks to the global warming effect (hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters linked to global warming).
Very, very interesting and thanks for sharing. You compared renewables with fossil fuels but not with nuclear energy. I would be interested to see an updated video for 2022 on this topic that takes my suggestion into consideration. Thanks!
The reason they didn't make that comparison is that Nuclear only produces 5.1g of CO2 per kwh!! That is nearly 10 times lower than solar. So it wouldn't be great for their narrative as Germany is removing Nuclear completely, and now with the ware with Ukraine I hope they start understanding their mistake that natural gas isn't the way forward.
@@ShadowebEB 5.1g is completely wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous number? The real number is closer to 66g according to a recent ScienceDirect publication from Muellner et. al. Why would you invest in nuclear instead of renewables? The gas comment also makes no sense. We shouldn't be dependent on russia therefore we should make ourselves depend on Kazakhstan? What?
@@k.m.7533 Google is your friend when you want to search for info, just Google "nuclear co2 per kwh" and you'll see it. You found an obscure link from a "study" (I found what you were talking about) which took 2 numbers, one exaggerated on one side, and the other exaggerated on the other, and he just made an average of both and got a number... Wait that's what you're talking about concrete evidence? What about all the other reports from every other organizations and studies you have everywhere? Also there are many producers of Uranium in the world, the volume is way smaller than Petrol or Gas, so easier to transport. So your comment makes no sense.
@@DWPlanetA Here's a better question for you - Where is area in developed nations that isn't already dedicated to something that would need to be bulldozed over for solar? Outside of the occasional rooftop, you are mostly left with national parks, nature reserves, forests and farmland. Now consider the fact that both solar and wind require massive tracts of land to match the production of fossil fuel reactors and we're left with a massive conondrum. At least if you fully shut out nuclear from the options.
Would like to get a sense on the scale of the panel waste compared to our other waste problems. A typical solar panel lasts about 25 years as opposed to single use plastic or short lived clothing goods. If this falls under the top waste issues, would make sense to target this.
Our home solar production along with geothermal is killing. Last month we ran our house and two electric cars for $51. Two years ago our e-bill was $450 for the same time period. Our overall break even point is four years (we were burning oil and 20 year old AC). That kind of return will push technology improvements and financial gains.
I know it's possible to design panels to be easier to recycle. Since it wasn't a necessity, not much thought was given to it. It may cost more on the front end but if it cuts the overall cost when the cost of recycling is added to it, is it not worth doing?
I spent a month putting together a report about this for my company (citing Garvin Heath many times) and you just... uploaded a video that could have saved me the trouble 😭
Very good video as always, thank you. Small critique, however, in an age of many people 'educating' themselves through reading headlines, the title of this video appearing in people's feeds would automatically create a viewpoint that solar = bad. We should be aware of the negative environmental impacts of solar, but should also understand that it is by far a better solution than fossil-derived energy.
Problem that some places in world have huge summer/winter difference in solar energy(for example all finland), they had cold winters and fossil fuel are necessarily here at least for heating boilers (all modern fossil fuel plants works as both boilers and electricity generators)
Great video. Could you make a video on new nuclear technologies liks molten salt reactors? A lot of people especially in Germany don't give nuclear a chance but I think some of these new technologies would compliment other renewables beautifully as they do not depend on outside conditions. They are also considered to be extremely safe.
@@jan-lukas The US build an experimental molten salt reactor in the 60s. It was working, but had no breeding capability like the new designed reactors. They had to use enriched U235 instead of the now planned Thorium or natural Uranium. China is experimenting with Thorium MSRs, because they can mine it in the country.
The point being with solar is that it has evolved over time to be cleaner and dramatically less expensive to produce. And there is still a long way to go. The real economy is to ensure all human activity is recycled at the end of its life. Once you build in recycling to any economy you have a very robust way of life which can go on forever.
The problem is the ridiculously high, almost child like level of expectation, going off fossil fuels is not going to be painless or perfect, but it has to be done.
Not just has to be done, it will be done one way or another, either the world finds alternatives and switches early, or the world runs out and is then forced to switch. Fossil fuels are not like all the other minerals for which there are always less economic reserves to be found if needed. Fossil fuel reserves are actually finite because they are biologic in origin. Meanwhile the global demand for more energy will grow infinitely.
How about focusing on nuclear? It is a known quantity, all aspects of it are well understood and the only issue with it that has no fix is human stupidity.
@@OzixiThrill The problem isn't nuclear it's self. It's that it requires the continuance of an out dated grid structure, large facility's transmitting power 100's of kilometers. This method wasn't Idea or efficient, but was the only way we could do it. With solar and wind and say flow batterie's for storage, we can make microgrids. Smaller safer more cost effective and reliable.
@@terrytytula For one, I fail to see how the current grid structure is "outdated". It is also by no means a universally accepted idea; Some people want a global grid, rather than micro-grids, for example. Also, small and micro-reactors also exist, so even in a micro-grid situation, nuclear would work.
@@terrytytula You are misunderstanding something, grids of the future are larger, not smaller. It's to make up for unpredictable supply of renewables, large continent spanning grids are essential. One day perhaps even globe spanning grids, if Finland is low on wind, sun in Spain has to make up for it. Transmission is not as much of a efficiency issue as you think, high voltage DC links are expensive, but incredibly efficient over long distances, few percent losses per 1000km depending on how much you pay for it. The real inefficiency is when the grid is not large enough and you have excess with no load for it, or shortage you have to make up for with extra supply of fossil fuels which can get very pricey if you want extra on short notice. With traditional grids you build as much capacity as you need, where and when you need it, there is nothing outdated about keeping things simple, but it's a luxury you can't have with renewables. You just don't get the same control over supply so you are forced to get clever with controlling consumption, evening the problem out over larger grids. As an absolute last resort maybe even paying for batteries, but that gets unaffordable real quick, it's generally cheaper to just consume your power some other time, extra cost of several hundred times for power coming off batter isn't really workable for most loads. For a hospital or a server room, no price is too high, but most industry must wait for cheaper power. With concessions it's all doable, but it's not going to be cheap or simple, conventional nuclear would be a much more straightforward and robust solution. But well... human stupidity is indeed a very large problem.
Thanks for your comment. We have touched battery technology in the following videos: "How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries" th-cam.com/video/-vobMl5ldOs/w-d-xo.html "Can you recycle an old EV battery?" th-cam.com/video/PbOBmnZRpZ4/w-d-xo.html Let us know what you think of the videos in the comments section 🙂
If you want to keep everything solar, there are heat storage technologies based around inorganic salts, that can power the grid for a few hours after sunset. But you're right, solar needs to be complemented with Nuclear, Hydro, Wind or Tidal to keep the grid ON at all times, under different weather conditions.
And that's the average, which includes lot's of old plants too. CANDOs are below 4g CO2/KWh, the Swedish fleet are 2.5g CO2/KWh. SMRs will be even better as they need much less concrete per KWh, which is the largest contributor for the CO2 emission of nuclear. No other technology can get even close to this numbers.
@@solutionrebellion i mean, when we finally manage to launch the first thermofusion reactor, I think that it'll be the cleanest but this is still a long way off, so far we have a lot of problems with just launching this type of reactor
The problem is that nuclear energy is so efficient and environmentally friendly. Every big lobby can see it as a threat to it's interests. It doesn't work for big Oil and Gas, big coal or big green. Nuclear energy could provide people with plentiful, reliable and cheap electricity, but that would mean the end of their lucrative businesses. 🙈
The ways to deal with it is, 1: make sure energy to produce comes from renewables. 2: recycle materials 3: come up with better materials. 4: improve lifespan by minimizing the degradationfactor as much as possible. 5: improve efficiency. There are several ways to do this. Stacking solar cells on top of each other will increase efficiency, collecting the lost heat and using it for other applications, such as warming the house or heating water for the warm tap, further increases the efficiency.
Old Solar panels don't suddenly die, they simply fade away, very slowly! They could have a 2nd life as a building wall cladding material, used intact, without damaging them. If these old panels can be 'opened' non-destructively, the glass panels make cheap windows and Skylights in a roof. This glass has a very high strength useful rating because it is 'hail-proof'!!
I invite you DW guys to visit the biggest recycling plant for solar modules in Europe in Frankfurt (Oder) and see how a process works which recycles 95% of the module, especially including the semiconductor material. This part was missing in your clip.
Why wasn't the impact on the land addressed? The area the solar farms covered seems to be quite large how much of population demand is provided. LA, NYC, and Las Vegas would still need huge amounts of electricity. I'd imagine it'd take more than a few panels to do it.
Nothing can be completely evil or perfectly fine . Every good thing has an ominous part and every evil thing has positive side. But we have to choose better things/ways with lesser harmful components for us or the environment. This is the essence of nature and human life.
The simple answer is E-waste storage facilities that stockpiles E-wastes and sorts it for maximum profitability. A company that has the ability to store mass quantities until the demand meets the point of valuable recycling.
I would love to have a few of those recycled solar panels. I bet they produce at least 10% of their original capacity and would work nicely as roof tiles on the barn for 50+ more years.
I was in a local solar park, and there was this cracked and crooked panel thrown in the middle of the field, as if discarded. They told me there was someone walking on it for fun the other day, thinking it's completely broken. We pulled out the multimeter and measured the output voltage (open circuit voltage). The measurement showed 40 Volts, with the theoretical maximum being at 42 Volts. A broken-looking panel ready to be disposed was able to produce 95% of its maximum capacity, without even being properly angled towards the sun.
@@fritanke2318 Haha yes, but it's part of the warranty so they had to return it. Besides, it's kind of a bad investment to have one panel, unless you have a very specific use for its DC output.
@@TheCh0senOne 1 160w panel, a car battery, and a cheap 300w inverter saved me $1000 this year so I guess it depends on where you are and what you do. I bought another panel and battery for the saving. The electricity prices went to the roof this autumn so I charge my batteries when the price is low at night and use it for lights, computer and electronic stuff at the evening. I dont get rich but it is enough to get another inverter that can run my freezer next summer. So over time 1 panel can be a good investment.
I believe your estimates are low.!.!... End of useable life is a variable, and domestically used PV can be repaired in modules, not en-mass.!.!.!. It can be planned for with the generation.!.!.!.
Honestly... The recycling cost of everything we make should be included in the purchasing price. That money should then distributed and invested into funds which help recycling industries- and research, depending on current recycling demand and projected recycling need. This is definitely something the EU should implement (and the world of course).
One needs to look at the overall cost/impact of a set of technologies required to meet the customers 24/7 requirement. Therefore the storage/backup systems have to be included in any assessment, economic or environmental.
Yess! Finally! You're the one! I'm so exhausted of hearing about nuclear being expensive compared to renewable while almost nobodies consider in their figures cost and pollution of the necessary continuity solutions.
@@carl-johannilsson5666 yeah. Just think of that, for Australia (being isolated and a single country it's easy to do simulations) just a 10 % of nuclear in the energy mix would reduce between 20 and 30% the need of storage (it depends on how you balance your strategy: more storage or more overproduction). Now, it's obviously a more complex evaluation in Europe, USA or other areas, yet the same concept applies: why choose the costly and resource-intense way to cover your base load if you can use a major amount of nuclear instead?
@@bellini98-1 It's a really good question! Here in Europe is down to the fact that leftwing and green parties loathe nuclear power. They have some misconception that if you have nuclear power you can easily develop nuclear weapons. Nukes is other hand good to have when China knocks on your door and announces that authoritarian dictatorship is its way haha
@@carl-johannilsson5666 The two major issues with the whole "nuclear weapons argument are: You can just reuse it as fuel, rather than drop it. There are power plant designs that don't create weaponisable by-products.
Theres always a drive to point out additional environmental damage from renewables, but the fossile fuel industry has the same issues. For every kg of CO2 equivalent theres additional waste seaping out unused test drill locations that arent propperly capped, theres a lot off energy intensive construction involved that isn't easy to recycle either like the vast quantities off concrete that are needed for a giant petrochemical installation. Our damage to the enviroment is always a really complicated puzzle, not just for renewables. Thats why power is also only just a part off the puzzle and the main issue is out overconsumption as a grand totall
8:26 "So what does all this mean? Well, yes, solar power is not entirely green. But that definitely doesn't mean we should turn our backs on it, its benefits are way too great for that. Instead, we should openly address its problems - and figure out how we can fix them." Reasonable logic, but the Germans apply it selectively. Otherwise there wouldn't be a nuclear phase out next year.
In a circular economy there would be as much thought put into how to separate the materials for reuse as there is into how to manufacture the panels. There needs to be an automated "de-manufacturing" approach that creates a better economical approach.
I do not see misinformation. The ones who condemn this video should check existing scientific literature (valid databases like Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science), and they should remember that a researcher's role is to question, report objective facts, address issues while these are at initial state, not when it's too late. The information here is balanced, it does say the pros and warns about issues that, in fact, are there, it is only encouraging to do better, foreseeing issues to resolve and that will get exponentially worse, based on facts. This is progress. This is doing research, taking into account all aspects and always looking to improve.
What I would have like to know is how much energy is needed to make a solar panel (from mining to the finished panel and after its recycling) comparatively to the real energy produced by a solar panel during its life.
Friendly reminder that a grid full of solar panels requires backup, as solar panels only run at full power during summer months at the middle of the day. This capacity today is being completely taken over by fast reacting natural gas plants. Just use batteries you may argue. Or use other storage methods. Yeah, but that means you also need about 3 to 5 times the amount of solar panels or even more to keep those batteries charged during the winter months. And I don't even know if you could do it on areas where it snows. You can also transport electricity long distances, ok but factor in the costs of the powerlines too. If you are interested, I suggest you look up why people like me like nuclear energy so much. It can not only cover our electricity demands on the day, but also on the night and additionally things like our industrial heat demands, truly displacing fuels from the landscape.
Actually they don't - panel efficiency degrades as they heat up. They're more efficient in Spring (in the middle of the day) than in Summer where temperatures are greater than 25°C
@@g00rb4u Well that implies that you have the same amount of solar radiation in the spring and in the summer. Solar radiation is often not a problem near the equator, but it, when you are far from it, and there is when energy is often needed the most on winter, autumn and spring
Inside the tropics this is often not a problem. Btw I dont want to bash on solar, they have their place, and we should use them. But, it will be very hard for them fully replace our grid, alone, and even with the help of wind, hydro and tidal.
Spot on! Solar panels are a great source of energy but they are not "one side fits all" solution. It is clear that in many parts of the world they need to be part of an energy mix, for example solar + wind + nuclear + storage. Another fact is that by 2050 most of world's population is expected to live in big cities often in high rise buildings. That doesn't go well with the idea of decentralized solar power generation. In my opinion we are looking for one big nuclear come back!
You forgot one thing. How much farm land would a solar array eat up? Does solar work to produce steel casting? Or any castings for that matter. How about just the production of cement, which requires almost 3000⁰f using everything from natural gas to old tires. A lot of questions need to be answered in their entirety. Mostly what I've heard has been the positive. Now how about the true cost. Showing where when and how alternative energy will be used and beneficial.
Does the per kilowatt include energy storage for numerous hours or simply just during operation? Ultimately, the goal is to use solar for all energy need, yes?
In most talks about renewables, the calculations are without storage and under ideal circumstances; It's the two big catches that you might not notice until you already built the farms... And then suddenly needs something to shore up the deficit while also seeing your carbon footprint rise, rather than drop.
My old solar panels not working anymore but the glass and frame are still intact,So I decided to make these old pv a small table and it looks good and durable....you can try it also.
This analysis is welcome but one should start with stating that ALL energy production devices have upfront carbon costs. Why do we start calculating these for renewables instead of for all? I'm tired of climate change deniers calculating upfront costs for electric cars but conveniently forgetting to do the same for ICE cars.
I'm tired of the blind leading the blind. How come everyone who has an opposing opinion is tarnished with the "climate change deniers" brush? I care about the environment, and if that is climate denial, then I have a problem with the definition. Open your eyes. EV's are great, because they are innovative and go fast, but they are not going to save this planet until you supply them with clean electricity. Renewables covering the earths surface producing unreliable power, is never going to work. Small high-populous countries like Japan can never have enough solar or wind turbines, because there is not enough land space to meet the demand. Countries like Australia have no water for hydro. Let's get the energy issue worked out before we flood the earth with electric cars and toxic batteries that require recharging from coal fired power plants. SMR's are the only answer, but blinded people are scared of the only viable source of clean energy available.
Solar capacity factor in Canada is about 12%, ie in a year 8750 hours, they make the equivalent of full nameplate power for about 1000 hours. In six winter months about 3%. In Arizona they might have a capacity factor of 30%. Is the life expectancy still 25 or 30 years for both? That would make solar up north pretty much dirty power no matter how you cut it, considering most of our power is clean green waterpower.
@@rickrozen2341 Nuclear is definetly not 100% green. At least not fission. It IS pretty much the cleanest out of all of them, especially if we add the land requirements into consideration, which often lead to renewables needing to displace plantlife to be built.
Liked the take on this. Solar cells might not be entirely green or part of a circular economy yet. But that doesn't mean we should not use solar cells. Sticking with fossil fuel powered electricity generation would be like sticking with burning wood and not use coal in the 1800s. How then would the two industrial revolutions happen and lead to the production of the device that we are reading this on? So solar cell powered electricity generation is the way to go, probably for the next hundred years till something new comes up.
It (future tech) is already here... they know that they can't monetize it so there's no way we can be allowed to can have it. Especially self-powered houses, tools and vehicles.
@@JoeGator23 Maybe. But here in our state of Kerala (India) the Govt is offering heavy subsidies for people to buy solar panels that plug into the grid. This is quite fascinating because the sole generator and distributor of electricity in Kerala is that very state owned electricity board. They are also paying money to the people for the electricity they provide to the grid. From one point it looks like the Govt should not be doing this because they are basically digging their own ditches, but it is happening. May be they will shift their monetisation route from being a producer to a distributor of electricity. I don't know, will have to wait and see.
Buy a german module, and the manufacturer need to be RoHS conformant, meaning no hazardous or toxic elements are used, and the Manufacturing process is ... what a wonder ... fully energized by PV modules. Because it is just economic for the manufacturer
How much net benefit is there to the environment if a gas generating station is replaced by the equivalent capacity in solar panels, assuming that a greater quantity of forested area must be cut down to make room for the panels?
I would love to see a video about how easily recyclable these panels would be if they were designed with that purpose in mind. Seems many things are designed to be thrown away, which most likely drives the recycling cost up.
MB, agreed! Pollution and End of life recycling and recovery costs must be factored into every product we use! This isn’t just green thinking. Even conservatives must recognize that we have to use scarce resources in a way that maximizes resource availability over time!
Yep I have a problem with a shipment that came from Europe of solar panels where 75% of them got damaged. I still have them only because I have some space to put them in, but long term I want to see them get recycled. If I take them to the local recycling centre they will only get sent to land fill. Storage is what we need!!... Maybe a shipping container at the local recycling centre. A shipping container paid by the recycler and placed on land own by the council?
There is always going to be an up front emissions cost for developing renewable energy sources, that's just a simple and unavoidable fact based on the world's overall energy being mainly fossil fuel based for so long. Society will have to undergo a relatively less green transition when switching from depending primarily on fossil fuels to renewable sources. The key is that we need to develop energy grids that are diverse when it comes to the variety of renewable sources that can be harnessed, depending on a country's specific renewable potentials. This way, the negative impacts of any one source (there are literally always externalities with any technology, there will never be a perfectly green technology to generate energy) are mitigated until more sustainable materials and technologies can be implemented into renewable sources. Anyone who thinks that there is a completely green solution to energy generation with few or no polluting effects is delusional. The key is that renewables, like you mentioned, still emit way less carbon into the atmosphere compared to fossil fuel sources and there is also a finite amount of fossil fuels within the earth to be harvested. Of course, there are other aspects of renewable energy source waste and production that pose environmental threats but we as a species will have to live with this fact, and do our best to minimize them. I think the overall negative impacts of staying primarily fossil fuel based greatly outnumber those of renewable sources in their infancy. Still, fossil fuels and nuclear power are a necessary evil to facilitate this transition until infrastructure and technology allows renewables to pick up the slack. There is no overnight solution to suddenly become green when it comes to energy production. It will take decades or longer to transition and technologies will have to undergo many iterations towards becoming more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, environmental pollution is inherent with civilized society and the goal should be to minimize this and renewables are still and will be the best way for us to do this. There will still be a great deal of emissions and other types of pollution generated before we are a near or fully renewable society. Not to mention the fact that developing countries have no alternatives but to harness fossil fuels to be able to exist as a country and generate a working economy, developed countries have to be leaders in promoting and establishing renewable energy grids to offset this. Anyone who discounts renewable sources due the other potential environmental threats aside from carbon emissions simply isn't seeing the bigger picture. Nevertheless, I do think it is important that we understand the potential negative impacts of renewable sources and videos like this are important in educating people about them and bringing these issues into the wider conversation of energy transition to renewable sources.
@@Mogadypopz nope. Too expensive and too slow. Just add wind and storage to solar both take 1yr to 18 months to complete at about 1/5 the cost of new nuclear per MW/h of energy over their lifetime.
@@bertthompson4748 currently nuclear is expensive to build because about each reactor is a custom job. Unique or customized production will always cost more. If you could have a standard design nuclear reactor, you could mass produce and lower costs. The delivery of a standard design would be faster and with less hassle for approval. Plus, if you add cost of energy storage to solar, minus subsidies and preferential treatment in the market, nuclear is not too expensive by comparison. For costs, you have to include EVERYTHING in the comparison (including the lifetime of solar panels vs that of a nuclear reactor which can last for maybe three times as long as solar panels).
Nobody ever talks about the environmental costs of solar in land size and ground use. Those fields of solar panels you show through the clip are quite disturbing images. Nobody talks about what happens to the wildlife, the plants and grasses, the water run off and the long term effects and changes to these solar farm areas. Rooftop Solar makes sense because we all live in houses and it's just using an already installed structure. But solar farms seem somewhat environmentally destructive
3:25, fun fact, the ground water in much of Silicon Valley is still contaminated with things like tetrachloride, and the area is home to many "Superfund" cleanup sites due to the very toxic nature of silicon manufacturing. Nasty stuff.
The problem is.. there are no trees around that “climate friendly solar panels “ if they where put on buildings and other standing structures this would make the difference all of my solar panels are mounted on roofs of sheds ect
Yes I am a personal fan of commercial rooftop and parking lot solar. Sadly it is the least likely to get funded and also approval from local utility monopolies. Utility companies want to make large grid scale projects so they maintain control and profitability. They do not care of the occasional house gets some solar because they still keep the connection fees, and there is not much potential for over production. But they do care if large buildings get large solar projects because the potential to generate a significant over production, and losing a customer that pays a lot per month for utilities whole only keeping a small connection fee. But yes, commercial solar moves production to the endpoint, has enough scale to be economic, does not disrupt natural lands and makes buildings more attractive instead of uglier. Easily there is enough commercial land in every city to power the whole city with solar. And combine it with electrified vehicle fleets and industrial machinery for even more benefits. But it is going to be hard to do on a large scale because the local utility lobby will block it. It needs a progressive government, progressive utility and a progressive land owner to make it happen.
And it also uses a large area of the landscape. And you probably won't ever be able to store the energy for use at night. It's not a viable alternative yet and it may never be. And it's limited to when the sun shines.
So refreshing. In the past I would always point out the reason solar panels are the future amid a barrage of misinformed comments. Now all those talking points are clearly written and at the top of the posts! We have a future! I never doubted...well not totally doubted our collective progress into sustainability.
Chemical engineers have been highly successful at eliminating hazardous waste products from production of many items. For solar panels, the aluminum frames can be recycled, and it will be beneficial to recover metal used for interconnects. Glass and silicon will not end up working for real recycling - sand is just too cheap - land filling is probably the way go, although if leaching isn't a significant problem the surface of the panels could probably be used as road aggregate after crushing.
Actually glass is being recycled already in other industries so it would make sense to recycle photovoltaic glass, as regards of cheap resources, both Aluminum and silicium are cheap and abundant elements, however removing the Oxygen from them is very energy intense which is the main cost factor in the production of these material, therefore it would make sense to recycle the Silicium as is already done in case of aluminum. It could either end up as metallurgical Silicium for steel manufacturers or as a source for new solarcells. In a study the International Renewable Energy Agency concluded that producing photovoltaic modules from recycled materials would half the energy demand in production and therefore reduce emissions intensity and price. Just putting that here to show that landfilling these substances would probably be a waste of potential energy imbedded in the materials.
To be very clear: highly pure silicon is NOT from the sand of beach. It is an energy and CO2 intensive process to obtain purified silicon from very very limited amount of quartz mines on our planet.
@@yunluo2488 According to the United States geological Service Quarz Sand resources compared to demand are nearly endless, quarzsand was also used in glass making for centuries. Now the inherently CO2 emitting part of the process is the reduction of SiO2 to Si. Recycled Si is already reduced. The only part that will involve CO2 emissions is the electricity for the further refining steps, however electricity can also be sourced from renewable sources.
@@paulschmidts5429 The quartz sand for silicon (not SiO2, not glass) production needs very special quality: Oxygen is not an issue but the other impurities such as Boron and metals. All the polysilicon for PV comes from about 5 mines in the world. What you pointed out is a common misunderstanding on the abundance of silicon.
The negative sides are minuscule but kinda blown outta proportion here. The hazardous material in solar panels is a myth, the only place where hazardous material is found are the high performance solar panels that are used in niches applications such as space tech.
Excellent information to motivate us all towards moving to a renewably powered "circular economy" and that wind and solar PV are key low carbon sources for new electricity. I remember SunPower having the "Cradle to Cradle Certification" for their high efficiency solar PV panels. Is this the pathway and recipe towards achieving our global circular economy?
It's great that people are talking about this and coming up with clean, renewable solutions for manufacturing and disposing of solar panels as they will be our primary source of power in the coming decades and centuries. Wind power is wonderful but limited to only certain areas of high wind resource and away from urban housing but solar is not, it can go virtually anywhere and everywhere.
I think that solar panel recycling should be a public service, like regular recycling. That way, the profit motive is taken out of the equation. Perhaps there can even be an incentive for recycling, or even a mandate with steep penalties like fines for not recycling the panels
@@CoolGirl007 Yep while solar and wind energy essentially run on governmental subsidies nuclear energy already is providing for itself since companies that produce small nuclear reactors such as Rolls Royce and Terrapower receive no funding.
Still no one is talking of the green and fertile land that is used and the cost of loosing it as after 25 years of solar panels u need at least 5-10 years to make the land fertile again
One item not mentioned is that solar panels require a lot of space and unfortunately I saw them installed on agricultural land, thus transforming good agricultural land in industrial waste land after their end of life date.
victorradu, that is not necessarily true. Since panels must have max sun exposure for greatest efficiency, most are tilted or even elevated. They also occupy only between 5 -30% of the land they are on, allowing for normal agricultural activity around them. Some even provide added benefits such as shelter for livestock and crops. Several studies have shown that crops grown under solar panels do better and need less water - so do animals and the moisture from the plants also keeps the panels cooler and allows them to work better in hot climates. Several universities in the US and the UK have shown that growing wildflowers under solar panels, increases the number of pollinators including bees and the wildflowers themselves do better. Even the industrial waste problem is being rapidly resolved with some companies promising that this will be a $US 27 billion industry by 2030 and worth $80 billion by 2050, because there are many valuable components which can be recovered. Newer panels also last up to 70 years, rather than the 25 or so which the earliest ones did.
What about salt water energy. Tried an experiment with copper wire around 2 pvc pipes inside one another held in a flowing salt water from the ocean and produced a current. My pipe was only a foot but produced enough to light an led desk lamp. Consider something larger placed in the ocean current!
I think that once we realise that our economic system is based on cheap fossil fuels, which are still most of our energy sources and more scarce every day, we will realise that all of the processes that were not economically feasible today, might make a lot of sense in a world which aknoledwes limits. I dont see prices going down o that context.. Or at least that is how i see it.
Solar panels live for 20 to 30 plus years not like the convectional energy plants that needs constant stocks of coals (how many mountains need to be unearthed, trees, forests, eco systems lost from mining?) And the large amounts of Co2 in Daily basis, air pollution, water pollution. On the other hand, its not like you need to change your panels monthly or yearly...and (hopefully) maybe that time, after 20 long years, they have already produced technologies to recycle panels efficiently, so i would say Panels are greener.
There’s a negative to everything. However, the positives overall still outweigh the negatives. Highlighting the negatives when most people aren’t even on board with renewable energy detracts from the main issue. I’m very disappointed in how this information is presented.
The negatives that have not been mentioned is the enormous areas of land needed to produce solar and wind energy. Look at the fields covered with panels as shown in this video, you cannot many grow crops there, not many animals can live there, trees definitely cannot grow there. Solar panels make sense on house roofs, but not when they take over land from agriculture or nature. Plus this video said nothing about the waste from wind power which has its own unique problems.
“Renewable” energy actually isn’t a viable longterm solution this is why we need to invest in SMD’s. Also journalist are free to cover what they want this isn’t North Korea.
another point to highlight is using up farm lands or clearing forests to create solar farms, which in itself causes ecological and habitat destruction :(
Very informative video & being a EU-citizen, I wasn't surprised to learn that the US & China don't care about the environment nearly as much as the EU.
I am also an EU citizen and have this to tell you. Spain, Austria, and Germany are preparing a series of educational videos which will show their taxpayers how to survive SEVERAL WEEKS without electricity. Answer me this: why are they doing it now? Is it perhaps the case that most renewable energy will never be able to satisfy the growing needs of Europeans once all the mines are closed? Good luck working from home without electricity. Heck, good luck surviving a week without electricity. Even if you don't know German, the visuals are clear: th-cam.com/video/mHWcOQ_7Y-U/w-d-xo.html
@Shelly X I wasn't referring to CO2 emissions, but the requirements for recycling used solar panels by environmental laws in the EU, not to mention many other laws & requirements imposed on companies not existing in either the US or China for protecting the environment.
@@fairskies9353 Not until you watch this th-cam.com/video/6zP0L69ielU/w-d-xo.html although I wasn't talking about CO2 emissions, but environmental protection laws & regulations in general.
I really would like to know how many people here are using solar panels for their home and had calculated how much electricity or energy utility charges are they saving. And as per that saving how many years they will need to recover the full installation cost and maintenance costs over that period.
I have solar. The consumption of kw/hrs i take from the generating company has fallen by nearly 50%. I do not use batteries, they are not essential. I only produce power during the day, no storage. My charges have dropped by 48%. Any excess i produce goes to the generating company for which i get paid. The payback period is circa 5 years in my case. Rising energy prices will reduce that. I have reduced carbon emissions by approx 3,280kg since installation. All installations will be different in their payback period. It primarily depends on how "Sun rich" your area is. My maintenance costs are zero. Panel cleaning is the only requirement, and I do that myself.
In 4:40 where you talk about hazardous elements in some modules (specifically Cadmium and Arsenic), i would like it if you made it clear, that these are only in certain types of solar panels - namely thin-layered PV - which are very very uncommon for multiple reasons.
No Silicon-PV-module has any of these materials in it and Silicon PV-Modules are all the ones where you see individual cells (so basically almost every panel ever used).
The only rare and expensive raw material inside a regular silicon module is silver for the electric contact on the front of the cell. Hazardous materials are not present in a finished module (so this is obviously not accounting for acids etc. in the construction process).
The way you present it in the video it sounds like if you buy a regular module with individual cells (which everyone does because they are cheaper and more efficient) you might end up having Cadmium or Arsenic in it without knowing. But that is not the case! It is only true if you buy an unconventional Solarpanel which is based on entirely different materials and technology - not silicon cells (e.g. CdTe and CIGS Modules).
Apart from this detail i really liked the video for a short overview of the topic though!
Yes, according to Wikipedia arsenic is used as the N-type dopant in other semiconductors, but solar cells use phosphorus.
Thanks for the additional info Captain, i might just add that they do bind materials like Arsenic, Phosphore or Antimony so the Monocrystalline silicon, mostly used for processor manufacturing. Appart from the acid , like you said, there is also some Nickel, a bunch of solvants and rare metals.
Great video btw
Well, it's not as simplistic as it sounds. But the complexity of this whole topic, going to a real LCA and not just exchanging opinions, is well beyond the scope of simple comments on youtube clips.
Nice clarification 👍🏽
As if making ICE engine isn't hazardous at all. Look all the complex chain of lub oil from the machinery to up protect the engine itself. Not to mention massive cast iron being wasted on cutting the engines.
There’s always a yin in every yang and vice versa, solar panel is still a better choice for cheap and green energy. Hopefully we will get way more sustainable solar panel in the future
Still the R&D to get there is never added to the cost. Only the We did it finally. We create problems to create solutions we are the Avengers....
Fission still seems like the best choice to me. Take a look at ThorCon and you may change your mind about solar being the best choice.
We do believe in solar energy. Our task is to make it greener.
Make a requirement. 75% of energy cost for Marijuana production must come from green energy producer's. Watch how fast green energy products improve. Almost overnight garented.
Yes it's cheap alright but only because... every step in producing a SP is powered by cheap coal and fossil fuel energy and that's the only reason why. Take coal and fossil fuel out of the equation, watch how fast the price WILL jump up!!
I think it would be helpful to compare solar cells with respect to conventional energy for other variables than CO2 emission. There are about 10 million death yearly from air pollution, mainly from burning coal. The amount of toxic waste that coal burning produces is staggering. Over 400 million tons of fly ash is produced yearly, of which only one third is reused. The rest is dumped in land fills or ash ponds. Fly ash contains a lot of toxic heavy metals. Fly ash can even contain as much nuclear waste per kWh produced as the nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant. The radioactive waste from coal is dumped, while that of nuclear power plants is contained and stored. Than we have the enormous amount of mining, the oil spills, the gas flaring en methane leakages, the water polution by fracking, the domestic polution of burning fossil fuel for cooking, etc... We have to consider all these things when comparing to renewables. Not only the CO2 emissions.
Yes. I am glad people are aware of this problem with burning coal. Some estimates I have seen argue that over a lifetime a coal burning plant gradually releases as much radioactivity into the air as you would get from blowing up/vaporizing a nuclear reactor with a similar output. The other fun fact is when you look up how many fatalities you get per energy output of coal, full lifecycle from mining to pollution... wiki says that if all energy has been produce from a single source just in 2014, it is 5.2 million deaths for brown coal, 3.9 million for black coal, 11.8 THOUSAND for CURRENT nuclear, probably most from mining uranium (wiki does not mention solar/wind but other sources says those numbers of deaths are well above nuclear).
Careful now that sounds like FACTS and LOGIC opposing a sensationalised media spin that lies by omission. I actually like DW in general and this is embarassing for them.
Don’t forget that solar energy is not sustainable on its own and needs a back up from fossil sources. So count this factor in while evaluating its greenness. But in all honesty, I believe that it’s time for Western Europe to ban the use of all fossil sources whatsoever. It’s gonna be hard but after all more than 700ml people on this planet somehow live without electricity at all so why not follow the green trend?
@@ЛюдмилаАртюшкина How about NUCLEAR POWER for baseload as we transition, since it has very low emissions and only the most TRIGGERED of the Leftiest Left Leftists are afraid of it?
I strongly dislike the tories of UK, they're quite corrupt and incompetent, to the point churchill would pull out a revolver and make them DANCE;
but these small modular reactors are a good idea, and thorium research is going very well since Hastelloy was discovered and pretty much perfected?
@@ЛюдмилаАртюшкина yes, green energy does not work on its own. Energy storage is too expensive (batteries cost almost double what it takes to produce advanced nuclear power). Solar is cheap when available. The current optimal solution is to use solar and have nuclear power plants for when sun does not shine... no need to waste money on energy storage.
It is relatively easy to calculate the carbon footprint of production and disposal costs. Yes, these are real, but generally a tiny amount compared to the amount offset over 25 years of production. I remember the same panic/misinformation about wind turbines, then scientists did the math and found out it takes less than a year for turbines to make up their production carbon footprints
You don't even need Scientists to do the math. This is math on 9th grade level.
@@neptun2810 I know, that's why seeing a 10 minute story on a non-issue is frustrating. You know the whole topic is only brought up by anti-renewable energy lobbies to implant doubt in new tech, anyway. From a carbon balance perspective, it's a non-issue. Yes, waste mgmt is an issue to consider, just like everything else that gets made.
In fact, they say it's a tiny amount, they are objective and correct.
@@gabr1p1p1 that's good. I couldn't make it through the sensational first several minutes. It took so long to get to the factual story, I gave up
they claim - solar panels produce 43 g CO² per kWh !
that's impossible !
a 1 kW panel produces (in India) more than 4 kWh per day (annual average ).
efficiency decreases every year over 20-25 years (considering 80% between 15- 20 years etc).
It will produce 29950 kWh.
if their claim of 43g/ kWh CO² footprint is right ; it means
1 kWh solar produces 1290 kg CO² from mining through installation.
totally false !
petroleum lobby at work.
Full lifecycle of the product should always be taken into account from manufacture to disposal… this is not just a problem for green energy, it’s a problem for everything. And should always be considered carefully to determine the mitigations that will need to be employed in order to overcome the issues… and they should not include trading in any format.
Ye, nuclear gets called out as being expensive compared to cheap solar panels, but they don't mention it's because of this.
@@luisgutierrez8047 The Disposal Cost of Nuclear Power is insane. I'm not even talking about Nuclear Waste but the Powerplants themselves. The oldest German Nuclear Powerplants are now longer in the Process of Decomissioning and Dismantling than they have been running, and that Process is more expensive than the Revenue those Powerplants have earned before. This may even be the Case for all Nuclear Powerplants in Germany. That's also the Reason for the insane Energy Prices in Germany (and not "uneconomic" Renewables), because that Money is not paid by the Energy Companies themselves but by the Government which in Terms gets the Money from an Energy Tax.
The only thing that makes solar even possible is lithium ion batteries. This is another fossil fuel that has to be mined and when it starts to run low will cost more for the consumer which will cause war at the places that live on top of lithium.
Recycling solar panels isn't profitable. Well, the US subsidizes fossil fuels. They should subsidize solar panel recycling.
Exactly, yes it's cheaper to blah blah blah... but it can be recycled, so it doesn't have to be in a landfill the government can do recycling of said materials, and it ends up being a net negative to the budget as far as money, but it doesn't have to be in a landfill..
The USA subsidises the oil industry to invest more to get people jobs. Solar energy isn’t profitable as is is the recycling of solar panels and the mining of lithium is very damaging to the environment.
We shouldn’t replace one crappy solution with another crappy solution so this is why we need to invest in nuclear energy.
Do NOT subsidize "capitalism" . . . . . . .
@@rickrozen2341 Excellent thinking Rick.
Solar is subsidized at every level already.
The good news is that solar panels are recyclable.. but it's not perfect.. when was anything ever perfect?
Just the fact that they can be recycled, and get used again to make more panels, is a win against fossil fuels, which can't. The recycle process will only improve over time
A* good read on this subject is:
Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism
by Ozzie Zehner
Was a required read in my graduate environmental class.
@@Eet90Fuk and the efficiency of the panels as well
Yes, but given the quantity, (millions and millions of panels) disposal needs to be perfect, or future generations are going to face mountainous piles of landfill leaking toxins into the environment. Recovering the cost of proper recycling is not viable and I fear panels will be dumped. We cant leave that for our kids to clean up.
@@archcollie5708 The cost of recycling can easily be added to the sale price without much problems. As the video mentioned recycling is mandatory in the EU and yet there are plenty of solar panels.
One solution could be a unified ISO recycling standard that all manufacturers of solar pv adhere to. Recycling considered in the panel design itself.
Make the buyers of solar panels pay the disposal costs right up front. That would add perhaps 50% cost to a solar installation. It would go into a government fund to create a green bureaucracy to deal with the waste.
Absolutely. Japan does it very effectively with white goods.
More legislation is almost never a good idea
These types of videos are important but we also need to think in bigger scale like what to do with all type of waste not only solar panels but plastic, electronics, medicine, and a lot of other special things.
I installed my first solar plant in 2007, and since then I paid an annual fee for future disposing and recycling of panels. In Italy this fee is compulsory by law and we have consortiums specialised for this task. I think it's the same all over EU. Solar is not perfect, but its carbon footprint is 10 times less than methane and 20 times less than coal. Not too bad!
So I checked your channel out to see your setup... but you don't have a single video? We need more Italian home PV videos to inspire others.
This idea also proves it CAN be done.!.!.!. Good on yah.!.!.!.
I think one of the biggest flaws in logic a lot of people have is acting like only one kind of green energy (usually specifically renewables) is best for both cost and the environment. Studies have shown that the best way to get the most green energy for the lowest cost and environmental impact is to have a combination of solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and battery storage. We could get so much farther if we stopped treating it like a competition between energy sources and used them together.
Do advocates treat energy sources like a competition? I don’t tend to see that among my circles. I only see opponents to green energy claiming such a thing, trying to say we’d need multiple forms of new energy when we could just use good ol’ coal.
After posting this, you got me thinking. Be careful who you take at their word. Many people post disingenuous stuff to piss off “the other side” of whatever issue is at hand.
@@nickthompson1812 I typically hear it from not-super-educated armchair solar/wind advocates when I tell them I’m involved in the nuclear industry. I also know a few people in the nuclear industry who don’t really like renewables most likely from jealousy that everyone loves those energies and people hate nuclear.
But you have a point: most people who actually do their research and care about green energy aren’t treating it like a competition.
I'd be interested to from someone in the nuclear industry what they think of the optimal distribution of green energy capacity might look like. Nuclear gets hated on, and yet produces less CO2 per kWh than solar. A nuclear plant has a geographic footprint several orders of magnitude smaller than what solar needs to produce the same capacity. Over the past year, I've really warmed up to nuclear.
You didn't even discuss the elephant in the room, namely energy storage. Batteries are a huge concern, the greenhouse gasses in building them such as the mining required... as well as recycling/disposal.
Great video.
I think that as production processes improve and the market becomes more competitive, both solar panel's co2e ouput, and price should fall drastically. A lot of the recoverable materials will probably become more expensive to mine in their raw forms as time goes on, so that should help making recycling more economical. It is important to not create a whole new set of issues when trying to solve the climate crisis.
Probably the biggest challenge honestly. Fixing one to only create a worse one is very short sighted thinking, about Critical to think about all consequences
There's no time to waste in waiting for things to become profitable. Governments should ban throwing away old solar panels, and recycling should be mandatory. On the other hand we use too much energy that we don't need without realising how, it's just consumerism that should be banned also. Every single thing that we buy needs a high amount of energy to produce, and almost no industry runs on clean energy. Nobody sees that. People think that the only energy they use is light and home electricity, but it's in every single thing we buy.
@@leslydeboraespinoza3940 I agree! I think THE first thing to be sacrificed on the Alter of anti-consumerism is your phone...and anything else you have around you that you don't need for breathing.
@@danielkingery2894 yes! Everything we really need is food (and it should be produced in agroecology systems, not industrial ones), water, and a place to live. We have lived during millions on years without smartphones, industrial clothes, televisions, or air conditioning. And we are not happier with them, so don't why not let go!
Living in communities with ecological ways of producing food is the best way to go (in my opinion and that's what I plan to do) . You don't need no electricity, no fossils fuel, nor pesticides, only some animals to fertilize naturally you crops, your workforce, the sun, water, and your loved-ones :)
Its happening already
To find a viable solution to this we need to make the complexity of manufacturing simpler . A lot of research is needed regarding this. I want plastics that are having lesser toxic chemicals. To solve the polution we need to solve the root cause that's plastic. Hope scientists soon come out with plastics that cause lesser harm to environment and marine life.
Thanks so much! We are working on a piece regarding this. We will be releasing it soon on this channel so check this space :)
Plastic already a solution.
It was invented to be reusable.
Not one time use.
But capitalist didnt make much money so they decrease rhe quality and make it cheaper. But the lifespan is so short.
Everything has a carbon footprint. Just continue to progress and improve
Finally a video that talks about the lifecycle of a solution. Everything we create produce emissions because our civilization is built on energy consumption. The best we can do with these solutions is to reduce our emissions. To become net zero or carbon negative, we need to revive the system we destroyed. The system that created a liveable planet for us. Nature with its highly complex and delicate biodiversity. Nature will absorb all the CO2 we pumped.
this. we have to return to nature and be happy again, although a few bits of the best technology wouldn't go a miss
@@crappymeal we don't have to go back to nature. We need to stop destroying it. Bless large parts of the planet with our absence so that it can recover and provide clean air, water, and moderate climate for us.
How about we just get rid of electricity? 3/4 of the worlds population will die. People will live lives free from the internet and die happy and early.
Here in India we are installing a lot of floating solar cells on our canals. Which has an added benefit of reducing evaporation
There are some interesting projects in China where they use PV in combination with agriculture to make deserts green. Projects of >50 km2. The panels stop a little bit of evaporation, which allows plants to grow.
Thank you for making this video
Its good to see the downside of solar power.
There is a philosophy that in order to fix a problem you have to know what the problem is....
Recycled glass saves about 50% energy to produce new less transparent glasses those can be used for making bottle etc. Crushed glasses can be used as a better/stronger alternative than conventional diminishing construction sands.
We will probably have a combination of energy sources. Solar will be one. Wind, nuclear, ocean tides and rivers. Fusion? We will learn better ways of doing things also. We already know some of those. Hemp, bamboo, algae, and other things are coming into play.
Like corporations will allow you lol
Note. Hydrofluoric acid is more than just your normal "toxic". It requires extreme precautions around piping or anything else. It may look like water but it can't just be washed off. The flouride ion readily penetrates to your bones and destroys them.
What about the batteries needed to store the produced energy? I think those should be considered in the calculations as panels by themselves would be too unreliable to replace current energy sources. Solar energy also requires costly specific upgrades to the grid system.
They won't talk about the batteries. It will totally kill their green argument.
@@4000marcdman Or maybe they know it's a meaningless argument when 90% of the parks are directly connected to the grid. Ever wondered why we don't need batteries for fossil fuel energy production? It's because storing it in batteries would be foolish.
Spoken like someone that has no clue what they are talking about. A small amount of users use storage for their cells. Most parks and homes are connected to the grid. So the grid is the battery.
@@tariqaljafari9724 the grid is fossil fuels. So I don't understand how that's any greener?
@@4000marcdman What are you talking about? You mentioned batteries and your claim was that people use batteries to store the energy from the solar panels. I said no, that is not how it works and people use the energy (what they need) the rest is put back in to the grid for someone else to use. How is that not green?
We need to modernise our grids, make them smart and connected to each other across borders. We also need to invest in energy storage (green alternatives are available), mix in some nuclear power and we may reduce the dependency on fossil fuels down to 0.
But people like you are not interested in a real solution. You only present problems and missinformation to keep us in the dark ages. Yikes..
Deuch's Law
1. Problems are inevitable
2. Problems are solvable
3. New solutions bring new problems
But these still require fossil fuels for everything from production to transport to replacements, and then they cause these additional waste problems that using energy sources like natural gas don't cause.
Suggestion for your next episode: How fossil fuels just don't appear in our tankers, cars and pumps.
People seem to forget that fossil fuels need to be extracted, refined and transported. That process alone contributes to billions in environmental damage, death of living animals, organisms, lakes and parts of the oceans, humans. It is also responsible for the huge cost to our societies in the form of medical expenses (diseases directly linked to toxic pollution), clean up measures and measures to fix the damage that nature does thanks to the global warming effect (hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters linked to global warming).
I'm thinking that topic would go against the narrative lol. I would be extremely interested to see however.
Very, very interesting and thanks for sharing. You compared renewables with fossil fuels but not with nuclear energy. I would be interested to see an updated video for 2022 on this topic that takes my suggestion into consideration. Thanks!
The reason they didn't make that comparison is that Nuclear only produces 5.1g of CO2 per kwh!! That is nearly 10 times lower than solar. So it wouldn't be great for their narrative as Germany is removing Nuclear completely, and now with the ware with Ukraine I hope they start understanding their mistake that natural gas isn't the way forward.
@@ShadowebEB 5.1g is completely wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous number? The real number is closer to 66g according to a recent ScienceDirect publication from Muellner et. al. Why would you invest in nuclear instead of renewables? The gas comment also makes no sense. We shouldn't be dependent on russia therefore we should make ourselves depend on Kazakhstan? What?
@@k.m.7533 Google is your friend when you want to search for info, just Google "nuclear co2 per kwh" and you'll see it. You found an obscure link from a "study" (I found what you were talking about) which took 2 numbers, one exaggerated on one side, and the other exaggerated on the other, and he just made an average of both and got a number... Wait that's what you're talking about concrete evidence? What about all the other reports from every other organizations and studies you have everywhere?
Also there are many producers of Uranium in the world, the volume is way smaller than Petrol or Gas, so easier to transport. So your comment makes no sense.
Clear cutting forests to put in solar farms seems bad. This is happening on the road where I live.
Hi Sonia,
Where is this area? We would like to follow up on this story.
Here is Georgia they are taking farmland and converting it to solar farms.
😱
We have the same thing in Norway with wind turbines.
@@DWPlanetA Here's a better question for you - Where is area in developed nations that isn't already dedicated to something that would need to be bulldozed over for solar?
Outside of the occasional rooftop, you are mostly left with national parks, nature reserves, forests and farmland.
Now consider the fact that both solar and wind require massive tracts of land to match the production of fossil fuel reactors and we're left with a massive conondrum. At least if you fully shut out nuclear from the options.
Would like to get a sense on the scale of the panel waste compared to our other waste problems. A typical solar panel lasts about 25 years as opposed to single use plastic or short lived clothing goods. If this falls under the top waste issues, would make sense to target this.
Thank you. Little things will get us to our goal. Not huge leaps.
Our home solar production along with geothermal is killing. Last month we ran our house and two electric cars for $51. Two years ago our e-bill was $450 for the same time period. Our overall break even point is four years (we were burning oil and 20 year old AC). That kind of return will push technology improvements and financial gains.
I know it's possible to design panels to be easier to recycle. Since it wasn't a necessity, not much thought was given to it. It may cost more on the front end but if it cuts the overall cost when the cost of recycling is added to it, is it not worth doing?
I spent a month putting together a report about this for my company (citing Garvin Heath many times) and you just... uploaded a video that could have saved me the trouble 😭
Very good video as always, thank you. Small critique, however, in an age of many people 'educating' themselves through reading headlines, the title of this video appearing in people's feeds would automatically create a viewpoint that solar = bad. We should be aware of the negative environmental impacts of solar, but should also understand that it is by far a better solution than fossil-derived energy.
Problem that some places in world have huge summer/winter difference in solar energy(for example all finland), they had cold winters and fossil fuel are necessarily here at least for heating boilers (all modern fossil fuel plants works as both boilers and electricity generators)
Great video. Could you make a video on new nuclear technologies liks molten salt reactors? A lot of people especially in Germany don't give nuclear a chance but I think some of these new technologies would compliment other renewables beautifully as they do not depend on outside conditions. They are also considered to be extremely safe.
Molten salt is interesting,,Bill Gates is building 1 in Wyomimg! & they are said to be safer? The salt could be gotten from Reverse osmosis!!
Wasn't molten salt the one with no working prototype even built yet? Or am I confusing that
@@jan-lukas The US build an experimental molten salt reactor in the 60s. It was working, but had no breeding capability like the new designed reactors. They had to use enriched U235 instead of the now planned Thorium or natural Uranium. China is experimenting with Thorium MSRs, because they can mine it in the country.
The point being with solar is that it has evolved over time to be cleaner and dramatically less expensive to produce. And there is still a long way to go. The real economy is to ensure all human activity is recycled at the end of its life. Once you build in recycling to any economy you have a very robust way of life which can go on forever.
The problem is the ridiculously high, almost child like level of expectation, going off fossil fuels is not going to be painless or perfect, but it has to be done.
Not just has to be done, it will be done one way or another, either the world finds alternatives and switches early, or the world runs out and is then forced to switch. Fossil fuels are not like all the other minerals for which there are always less economic reserves to be found if needed. Fossil fuel reserves are actually finite because they are biologic in origin. Meanwhile the global demand for more energy will grow infinitely.
How about focusing on nuclear?
It is a known quantity, all aspects of it are well understood and the only issue with it that has no fix is human stupidity.
@@OzixiThrill The problem isn't nuclear it's self. It's that it requires the continuance of an out dated grid structure, large facility's transmitting power 100's of kilometers. This method wasn't Idea or efficient, but was the only way we could do it.
With solar and wind and say flow batterie's for storage, we can make microgrids. Smaller safer more cost effective and reliable.
@@terrytytula For one, I fail to see how the current grid structure is "outdated". It is also by no means a universally accepted idea; Some people want a global grid, rather than micro-grids, for example.
Also, small and micro-reactors also exist, so even in a micro-grid situation, nuclear would work.
@@terrytytula You are misunderstanding something, grids of the future are larger, not smaller. It's to make up for unpredictable supply of renewables, large continent spanning grids are essential. One day perhaps even globe spanning grids, if Finland is low on wind, sun in Spain has to make up for it. Transmission is not as much of a efficiency issue as you think, high voltage DC links are expensive, but incredibly efficient over long distances, few percent losses per 1000km depending on how much you pay for it. The real inefficiency is when the grid is not large enough and you have excess with no load for it, or shortage you have to make up for with extra supply of fossil fuels which can get very pricey if you want extra on short notice. With traditional grids you build as much capacity as you need, where and when you need it, there is nothing outdated about keeping things simple, but it's a luxury you can't have with renewables. You just don't get the same control over supply so you are forced to get clever with controlling consumption, evening the problem out over larger grids. As an absolute last resort maybe even paying for batteries, but that gets unaffordable real quick, it's generally cheaper to just consume your power some other time, extra cost of several hundred times for power coming off batter isn't really workable for most loads. For a hospital or a server room, no price is too high, but most industry must wait for cheaper power. With concessions it's all doable, but it's not going to be cheap or simple, conventional nuclear would be a much more straightforward and robust solution. But well... human stupidity is indeed a very large problem.
As already mentioned in the video a global legislation is needed to tackle all the issues mentioned. No pressure, no change by the industry.
I think its interesting that battery technology was totally glossed over. Lots of carbon foot print issues with those.
Thanks for your comment. We have touched battery technology in the following videos:
"How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries" th-cam.com/video/-vobMl5ldOs/w-d-xo.html
"Can you recycle an old EV battery?" th-cam.com/video/PbOBmnZRpZ4/w-d-xo.html
Let us know what you think of the videos in the comments section 🙂
@@DWPlanetA Thanks Ill check it out
This discussion leaves out the issues with the storage necessary with renewable energy
If you want to keep everything solar, there are heat storage technologies based around inorganic salts, that can power the grid for a few hours after sunset. But you're right, solar needs to be complemented with Nuclear, Hydro, Wind or Tidal to keep the grid ON at all times, under different weather conditions.
2:16 and there you have nuclear power plants with 12 CO2e/kWh, even more green than wind turbines.
And that's the average, which includes lot's of old plants too.
CANDOs are below 4g CO2/KWh, the Swedish fleet are 2.5g CO2/KWh.
SMRs will be even better as they need much less concrete per KWh, which is the largest contributor for the CO2 emission of nuclear.
No other technology can get even close to this numbers.
@@solutionrebellion i mean, when we finally manage to launch the first thermofusion reactor, I think that it'll be the cleanest
but this is still a long way off, so far we have a lot of problems with just launching this type of reactor
The problem is that nuclear energy is so efficient and environmentally friendly. Every big lobby can see it as a threat to it's interests. It doesn't work for big Oil and Gas, big coal or big green. Nuclear energy could provide people with plentiful, reliable and cheap electricity, but that would mean the end of their lucrative businesses. 🙈
The ways to deal with it is, 1: make sure energy to produce comes from renewables. 2: recycle materials 3: come up with better materials. 4: improve lifespan by minimizing the degradationfactor as much as possible. 5: improve efficiency. There are several ways to do this. Stacking solar cells on top of each other will increase efficiency, collecting the lost heat and using it for other applications, such as warming the house or heating water for the warm tap, further increases the efficiency.
I hope in the future we can solve the problem of solar panel waste 👍
Meanwhile it could as easy as install the replacement new panels on top older ones.
Old Solar panels don't suddenly die, they simply fade away, very slowly! They could have a 2nd life as a building wall cladding material, used intact, without damaging them. If these old panels can be 'opened' non-destructively, the glass panels make cheap windows and Skylights in a roof. This glass has a very high strength useful rating because it is 'hail-proof'!!
I invite you DW guys to visit the biggest recycling plant for solar modules in Europe in Frankfurt (Oder) and see how a process works which recycles 95% of the module, especially including the semiconductor material. This part was missing in your clip.
95% do you have any Data to back that up?
Why wasn't the impact on the land addressed? The area the solar farms covered seems to be quite large how much of population demand is provided. LA, NYC, and Las Vegas would still need huge amounts of electricity. I'd imagine it'd take more than a few panels to do it.
Nothing can be completely evil or perfectly fine . Every good thing has an ominous part and every evil thing has positive side.
But we have to choose better things/ways with lesser harmful components for us or the environment.
This is the essence of nature and human life.
agreed, also, like 50g per kilowatt versus 1000g per kilowatt...
That's undeniably a step in the right direction
The simple answer is E-waste storage facilities that stockpiles E-wastes and sorts it for maximum profitability. A company that has the ability to store mass quantities until the demand meets the point of valuable recycling.
I would love to have a few of those recycled solar panels. I bet they produce at least 10% of their original capacity and would work nicely as roof tiles on the barn for 50+ more years.
I was in a local solar park, and there was this cracked and crooked panel thrown in the middle of the field, as if discarded. They told me there was someone walking on it for fun the other day, thinking it's completely broken. We pulled out the multimeter and measured the output voltage (open circuit voltage). The measurement showed 40 Volts, with the theoretical maximum being at 42 Volts. A broken-looking panel ready to be disposed was able to produce 95% of its maximum capacity, without even being properly angled towards the sun.
@@TheCh0senOne Hope you asked if you could take it away for them.
@@fritanke2318 Haha yes, but it's part of the warranty so they had to return it. Besides, it's kind of a bad investment to have one panel, unless you have a very specific use for its DC output.
@@TheCh0senOne 1 160w panel, a car battery, and a cheap 300w inverter saved me $1000 this year so I guess it depends on where you are and what you do. I bought another panel and battery for the saving. The electricity prices went to the roof this autumn so I charge my batteries when the price is low at night and use it for lights, computer and electronic stuff at the evening. I dont get rich but it is enough to get another inverter that can run my freezer next summer. So over time 1 panel can be a good investment.
I believe your estimates are low.!.!... End of useable life is a variable, and domestically used PV can be repaired in modules, not en-mass.!.!.!. It can be planned for with the generation.!.!.!.
Honestly... The recycling cost of everything we make should be included in the purchasing price. That money should then distributed and invested into funds which help recycling industries- and research, depending on current recycling demand and projected recycling need. This is definitely something the EU should implement (and the world of course).
One needs to look at the overall cost/impact of a set of technologies required to meet the customers 24/7 requirement. Therefore the storage/backup systems have to be included in any assessment, economic or environmental.
Yess! Finally! You're the one! I'm so exhausted of hearing about nuclear being expensive compared to renewable while almost nobodies consider in their figures cost and pollution of the necessary continuity solutions.
So many take this out of the equation when it comes to solar and wind power!
@@carl-johannilsson5666 yeah. Just think of that, for Australia (being isolated and a single country it's easy to do simulations) just a 10 % of nuclear in the energy mix would reduce between 20 and 30% the need of storage (it depends on how you balance your strategy: more storage or more overproduction). Now, it's obviously a more complex evaluation in Europe, USA or other areas, yet the same concept applies: why choose the costly and resource-intense way to cover your base load if you can use a major amount of nuclear instead?
@@bellini98-1 It's a really good question! Here in Europe is down to the fact that leftwing and green parties loathe nuclear power. They have some misconception that if you have nuclear power you can easily develop nuclear weapons. Nukes is other hand good to have when China knocks on your door and announces that authoritarian dictatorship is its way haha
@@carl-johannilsson5666 The two major issues with the whole "nuclear weapons argument are:
You can just reuse it as fuel, rather than drop it.
There are power plant designs that don't create weaponisable by-products.
Theres always a drive to point out additional environmental damage from renewables, but the fossile fuel industry has the same issues. For every kg of CO2 equivalent theres additional waste seaping out unused test drill locations that arent propperly capped, theres a lot off energy intensive construction involved that isn't easy to recycle either like the vast quantities off concrete that are needed for a giant petrochemical installation. Our damage to the enviroment is always a really complicated puzzle, not just for renewables. Thats why power is also only just a part off the puzzle and the main issue is out overconsumption as a grand totall
8:26 "So what does all this mean? Well, yes, solar power is not entirely green. But that definitely doesn't mean we should turn our backs on it, its benefits are way too great for that. Instead, we should openly address its problems - and figure out how we can fix them."
Reasonable logic, but the Germans apply it selectively. Otherwise there wouldn't be a nuclear phase out next year.
or Greenpeace
I agree, we shouldn't abandon solar for a reason like that when there's so many other reasons to mock it, like it's inefficiency.
In a circular economy there would be as much thought put into how to separate the materials for reuse as there is into how to manufacture the panels. There needs to be an automated "de-manufacturing" approach that creates a better economical approach.
I do not see misinformation. The ones who condemn this video should check existing scientific literature (valid databases like Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science), and they should remember that a researcher's role is to question, report objective facts, address issues while these are at initial state, not when it's too late. The information here is balanced, it does say the pros and warns about issues that, in fact, are there, it is only encouraging to do better, foreseeing issues to resolve and that will get exponentially worse, based on facts. This is progress. This is doing research, taking into account all aspects and always looking to improve.
What I would have like to know is how much energy is needed to make a solar panel (from mining to the finished panel and after its recycling) comparatively to the real energy produced by a solar panel during its life.
Friendly reminder that a grid full of solar panels requires backup, as solar panels only run at full power during summer months at the middle of the day.
This capacity today is being completely taken over by fast reacting natural gas plants.
Just use batteries you may argue. Or use other storage methods.
Yeah, but that means you also need about 3 to 5 times the amount of solar panels or even more to keep those batteries charged during the winter months. And I don't even know if you could do it on areas where it snows.
You can also transport electricity long distances, ok but factor in the costs of the powerlines too.
If you are interested, I suggest you look up why people like me like nuclear energy so much. It can not only cover our electricity demands on the day, but also on the night and additionally things like our industrial heat demands, truly displacing fuels from the landscape.
Actually they don't - panel efficiency degrades as they heat up. They're more efficient in Spring (in the middle of the day) than in Summer where temperatures are greater than 25°C
@@g00rb4u Well that implies that you have the same amount of solar radiation in the spring and in the summer.
Solar radiation is often not a problem near the equator, but it, when you are far from it, and there is when energy is often needed the most on winter, autumn and spring
Inside the tropics this is often not a problem.
Btw I dont want to bash on solar, they have their place, and we should use them.
But, it will be very hard for them fully replace our grid, alone, and even with the help of wind, hydro and tidal.
Spot on! Solar panels are a great source of energy but they are not "one side fits all" solution. It is clear that in many parts of the world they need to be part of an energy mix, for example solar + wind + nuclear + storage.
Another fact is that by 2050 most of world's population is expected to live in big cities often in high rise buildings. That doesn't go well with the idea of decentralized solar power generation.
In my opinion we are looking for one big nuclear come back!
The answer to the recycling problem is to add the cost to the purchase price as a form of tax that is used as a subsidy to the recycling industry.
Let the technology progress to find new green solutions.
You forgot one thing. How much farm land would a solar array eat up? Does solar work to produce steel casting? Or any castings for that matter. How about just the production of cement, which requires almost 3000⁰f using everything from natural gas to old tires. A lot of questions need to be answered in their entirety. Mostly what I've heard has been the positive. Now how about the true cost. Showing where when and how alternative energy will be used and beneficial.
Does the per kilowatt include energy storage for numerous hours or simply just during operation? Ultimately, the goal is to use solar for all energy need, yes?
Without storage.
Plus wind and hydro and biofuel from waste.
In most talks about renewables, the calculations are without storage and under ideal circumstances; It's the two big catches that you might not notice until you already built the farms... And then suddenly needs something to shore up the deficit while also seeing your carbon footprint rise, rather than drop.
My old solar panels not working anymore but the glass and frame are still intact,So I decided to make these old pv a small table and it looks good and durable....you can try it also.
This analysis is welcome but one should start with stating that ALL energy production devices have upfront carbon costs. Why do we start calculating these for renewables instead of for all?
I'm tired of climate change deniers calculating upfront costs for electric cars but conveniently forgetting to do the same for ICE cars.
First question should be asked who commissioned this video and/or similar videos, research papers etc.
Well, just because it was not mentioned in the video I'll add it here for you. wile solar is around 42-45 GR/kWh nuclear power goes down to 12.
Electric cars run on electricity produced by fossil fuel burning electrical sources. That's the problem.
I'm tired of the blind leading the blind. How come everyone who has an opposing opinion is tarnished with the "climate change deniers" brush? I care about the environment, and if that is climate denial, then I have a problem with the definition. Open your eyes. EV's are great, because they are innovative and go fast, but they are not going to save this planet until you supply them with clean electricity. Renewables covering the earths surface producing unreliable power, is never going to work. Small high-populous countries like Japan can never have enough solar or wind turbines, because there is not enough land space to meet the demand. Countries like Australia have no water for hydro. Let's get the energy issue worked out before we flood the earth with electric cars and toxic batteries that require recharging from coal fired power plants. SMR's are the only answer, but blinded people are scared of the only viable source of clean energy available.
Solar capacity factor in Canada is about 12%, ie in a year 8750 hours, they make the equivalent of full nameplate power for about 1000 hours. In six winter months about 3%. In Arizona they might have a capacity factor of 30%. Is the life expectancy still 25 or 30 years for both? That would make solar up north pretty much dirty power no matter how you cut it, considering most of our power is clean green waterpower.
calculate the cost of recycling and include that with the sales price. Mandate recycling of everything.
Hopefully a circular economy will be successful in the future :)
@@DWPlanetA absolutely. Make the manufacturers of everything made responsible for this, it should have been so from the beginning.
@@boathemian7694 great point, kind of like a crv on glass bottles&cans. 🤔
What about the effects of the land underneath all the panels
The most green. That's the answer. It's the most green of all available in 2021.
Nope since nuclear energy is 100% green
@@rickrozen2341 LOL
@@rickrozen2341 Nuclear is definetly not 100% green. At least not fission. It IS pretty much the cleanest out of all of them, especially if we add the land requirements into consideration, which often lead to renewables needing to displace plantlife to be built.
@@OzixiThrill Nuclear is more green than solar energy and windenergy. If nuclear fission is not green then nothing is green.
@@rickrozen2341 Nothing you've said is correct and it's hilarious.
Liked the take on this. Solar cells might not be entirely green or part of a circular economy yet. But that doesn't mean we should not use solar cells.
Sticking with fossil fuel powered electricity generation would be like sticking with burning wood and not use coal in the 1800s. How then would the two industrial revolutions happen and lead to the production of the device that we are reading this on?
So solar cell powered electricity generation is the way to go, probably for the next hundred years till something new comes up.
It (future tech) is already here... they know that they can't monetize it so there's no way we can be allowed to can have it. Especially self-powered houses, tools and vehicles.
@@JoeGator23 Maybe. But here in our state of Kerala (India) the Govt is offering heavy subsidies for people to buy solar panels that plug into the grid. This is quite fascinating because the sole generator and distributor of electricity in Kerala is that very state owned electricity board. They are also paying money to the people for the electricity they provide to the grid.
From one point it looks like the Govt should not be doing this because they are basically digging their own ditches, but it is happening. May be they will shift their monetisation route from being a producer to a distributor of electricity. I don't know, will have to wait and see.
you intentionally left out the biggest problem: THE BATTERY
That's it!!! at 7:13... That's the answer we are all looking for. Its the absolute truth.
Buy a german module, and the manufacturer need to be RoHS conformant, meaning no hazardous or toxic elements are used,
and the Manufacturing process is ... what a wonder ... fully energized by PV modules. Because it is just economic for the manufacturer
How much net benefit is there to the environment if a gas generating station is replaced by the equivalent capacity in solar panels, assuming that a greater quantity of forested area must be cut down to make room for the panels?
I would love to see a video about how easily recyclable these panels would be if they were designed with that purpose in mind. Seems many things are designed to be thrown away, which most likely drives the recycling cost up.
MB, agreed! Pollution and End of life recycling and recovery costs must be factored into every product we use! This isn’t just green thinking. Even conservatives must recognize that we have to use scarce resources in a way that maximizes resource availability over time!
Nice idea
Yep I have a problem with a shipment that came from Europe of solar panels where 75% of them got damaged. I still have them only because I have some space to put them in, but long term I want to see them get recycled. If I take them to the local recycling centre they will only get sent to land fill. Storage is what we need!!... Maybe a shipping container at the local recycling centre. A shipping container paid by the recycler and placed on land own by the council?
There is always going to be an up front emissions cost for developing renewable energy sources, that's just a simple and unavoidable fact based on the world's overall energy being mainly fossil fuel based for so long. Society will have to undergo a relatively less green transition when switching from depending primarily on fossil fuels to renewable sources. The key is that we need to develop energy grids that are diverse when it comes to the variety of renewable sources that can be harnessed, depending on a country's specific renewable potentials. This way, the negative impacts of any one source (there are literally always externalities with any technology, there will never be a perfectly green technology to generate energy) are mitigated until more sustainable materials and technologies can be implemented into renewable sources. Anyone who thinks that there is a completely green solution to energy generation with few or no polluting effects is delusional. The key is that renewables, like you mentioned, still emit way less carbon into the atmosphere compared to fossil fuel sources and there is also a finite amount of fossil fuels within the earth to be harvested. Of course, there are other aspects of renewable energy source waste and production that pose environmental threats but we as a species will have to live with this fact, and do our best to minimize them. I think the overall negative impacts of staying primarily fossil fuel based greatly outnumber those of renewable sources in their infancy. Still, fossil fuels and nuclear power are a necessary evil to facilitate this transition until infrastructure and technology allows renewables to pick up the slack. There is no overnight solution to suddenly become green when it comes to energy production. It will take decades or longer to transition and technologies will have to undergo many iterations towards becoming more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, environmental pollution is inherent with civilized society and the goal should be to minimize this and renewables are still and will be the best way for us to do this. There will still be a great deal of emissions and other types of pollution generated before we are a near or fully renewable society. Not to mention the fact that developing countries have no alternatives but to harness fossil fuels to be able to exist as a country and generate a working economy, developed countries have to be leaders in promoting and establishing renewable energy grids to offset this. Anyone who discounts renewable sources due the other potential environmental threats aside from carbon emissions simply isn't seeing the bigger picture. Nevertheless, I do think it is important that we understand the potential negative impacts of renewable sources and videos like this are important in educating people about them and bringing these issues into the wider conversation of energy transition to renewable sources.
Going by your logic, nuclear power would be even better than solar.
Didn't read. Ain't nobody got time for that.
@@Mogadypopz nope. Too expensive and too slow.
Just add wind and storage to solar both take 1yr to 18 months to complete at about 1/5 the cost of new nuclear per MW/h of energy over their lifetime.
@@bertthompson4748 currently nuclear is expensive to build because about each reactor is a custom job. Unique or customized production will always cost more. If you could have a standard design nuclear reactor, you could mass produce and lower costs. The delivery of a standard design would be faster and with less hassle for approval. Plus, if you add cost of energy storage to solar, minus subsidies and preferential treatment in the market, nuclear is not too expensive by comparison. For costs, you have to include EVERYTHING in the comparison (including the lifetime of solar panels vs that of a nuclear reactor which can last for maybe three times as long as solar panels).
@@robertlipka9541 nope. In South Korea and China the cost is still much higher then renewables.
Find some data or just stop lying for an energy sourc3
Nobody ever talks about the environmental costs of solar in land size and ground use.
Those fields of solar panels you show through the clip are quite disturbing images. Nobody talks about what happens to the wildlife, the plants and grasses, the water run off and the long term effects and changes to these solar farm areas.
Rooftop Solar makes sense because we all live in houses and it's just using an already installed structure. But solar farms seem somewhat environmentally destructive
As they say “the truth is usually somewhere in the middle”
The truth is also lost in the muddle.
That is exactly what they want you to believe. The truth is far from somewhere in the middle. Far as in lightyears away.
@@49ccMopedWorld It's not going to doom the planet, nor without a lot of work is it our salvation: the truth IS somewhere in the middle.
@@ralphhancock7449 moist in the saddle the least yes.
3:25, fun fact, the ground water in much of Silicon Valley is still contaminated with things like tetrachloride, and the area is home to many "Superfund" cleanup sites due to the very toxic nature of silicon manufacturing. Nasty stuff.
The problem is.. there are no trees around that “climate friendly solar panels “ if they where put on buildings and other standing structures this would make the difference all of my solar panels are mounted on roofs of sheds ect
Yes I am a personal fan of commercial rooftop and parking lot solar.
Sadly it is the least likely to get funded and also approval from local utility monopolies.
Utility companies want to make large grid scale projects so they maintain control and profitability. They do not care of the occasional house gets some solar because they still keep the connection fees, and there is not much potential for over production. But they do care if large buildings get large solar projects because the potential to generate a significant over production, and losing a customer that pays a lot per month for utilities whole only keeping a small connection fee.
But yes, commercial solar moves production to the endpoint, has enough scale to be economic, does not disrupt natural lands and makes buildings more attractive instead of uglier. Easily there is enough commercial land in every city to power the whole city with solar. And combine it with electrified vehicle fleets and industrial machinery for even more benefits.
But it is going to be hard to do on a large scale because the local utility lobby will block it.
It needs a progressive government, progressive utility and a progressive land owner to make it happen.
And it also uses a large area of the landscape. And you probably won't ever be able to store the energy for use at night. It's not a viable alternative yet and it may never be. And it's limited to when the sun shines.
Nuclear power is the ultimate solution.
So refreshing. In the past I would always point out the reason solar panels are the future amid a barrage of misinformed comments. Now all those talking points are clearly written and at the top of the posts! We have a future! I never doubted...well not totally doubted our collective progress into sustainability.
Chemical engineers have been highly successful at eliminating hazardous waste products from production of many items. For solar panels, the aluminum frames can be recycled, and it will be beneficial to recover metal used for interconnects. Glass and silicon will not end up working for real recycling - sand is just too cheap - land filling is probably the way go, although if leaching isn't a significant problem the surface of the panels could probably be used as road aggregate after crushing.
Actually glass is being recycled already in other industries so it would make sense to recycle photovoltaic glass, as regards of cheap resources, both Aluminum and silicium are cheap and abundant elements, however removing the Oxygen from them is very energy intense which is the main cost factor in the production of these material, therefore it would make sense to recycle the Silicium as is already done in case of aluminum. It could either end up as metallurgical Silicium for steel manufacturers or as a source for new solarcells. In a study the International Renewable Energy Agency concluded that producing photovoltaic modules from recycled materials would half the energy demand in production and therefore reduce emissions intensity and price.
Just putting that here to show that landfilling these substances would probably be a waste of potential energy imbedded in the materials.
To be very clear: highly pure silicon is NOT from the sand of beach. It is an energy and CO2 intensive process to obtain purified silicon from very very limited amount of quartz mines on our planet.
@@yunluo2488 According to the United States geological Service Quarz Sand resources compared to demand are nearly endless, quarzsand was also used in glass making for centuries. Now the inherently CO2 emitting part of the process is the reduction of SiO2 to Si. Recycled Si is already reduced. The only part that will involve CO2 emissions is the electricity for the further refining steps, however electricity can also be sourced from renewable sources.
@@paulschmidts5429 The quartz sand for silicon (not SiO2, not glass) production needs very special quality: Oxygen is not an issue but the other impurities such as Boron and metals. All the polysilicon for PV comes from about 5 mines in the world. What you pointed out is a common misunderstanding on the abundance of silicon.
@@yunluo2488 Thats honestly interesting, could you give me a source where I can read more upon it?
Short answer, cleaner air and water in most places, but will increase in others where they are produced.
The negative sides are minuscule but kinda blown outta proportion here. The hazardous material in solar panels is a myth, the only place where hazardous material is found are the high performance solar panels that are used in niches applications such as space tech.
Excellent information to motivate us all towards moving to a renewably powered "circular economy" and that wind and solar PV are key low carbon sources for new electricity. I remember SunPower having the "Cradle to Cradle Certification" for their high efficiency solar PV panels. Is this the pathway and recipe towards achieving our global circular economy?
It's great that people are talking about this and coming up with clean, renewable solutions for manufacturing and disposing of solar panels as they will be our primary source of power in the coming decades and centuries. Wind power is wonderful but limited to only certain areas of high wind resource and away from urban housing but solar is not, it can go virtually anywhere and everywhere.
I think that solar panel recycling should be a public service, like regular recycling. That way, the profit motive is taken out of the equation. Perhaps there can even be an incentive for recycling, or even a mandate with steep penalties like fines for not recycling the panels
Waste management is a rather large and profitable business, it's not public service, at least not a free one.
Everything that a government manages is done inefficient and is filled with corruption.
We need more scientist
We need more funds
We need more efforts
Above all we need more small modulair nuclear reactors
@@rickrozen2341 on top of that still we need funds for developing
@@CoolGirl007 Yep while solar and wind energy essentially run on governmental subsidies nuclear energy already is providing for itself since companies that produce small nuclear reactors such as Rolls Royce and Terrapower receive no funding.
We have enough scientist, but people don't want to listen to them, because they say:
We need more nuclear power plants.
@@solutionrebellion que sera sera, what will be will be
Still no one is talking of the green and fertile land that is used and the cost of loosing it as after 25 years of solar panels u need at least 5-10 years to make the land fertile again
Do you feel the same way about strip mining, clear cut foresting, strip mall development etc.?
One item not mentioned is that solar panels require a lot of space and unfortunately I saw them installed on agricultural land, thus transforming good agricultural land in industrial waste land after their end of life date.
victorradu, that is not necessarily true. Since panels must have max sun exposure for greatest efficiency, most are tilted or even elevated. They also occupy only between 5 -30% of the land they are on, allowing for normal agricultural activity around them. Some even provide added benefits such as shelter for livestock and crops.
Several studies have shown that crops grown under solar panels do better and need less water - so do animals and the moisture from the plants also keeps the panels cooler and allows them to work better in hot climates.
Several universities in the US and the UK have shown that growing wildflowers under solar panels, increases the number of pollinators including bees and the wildflowers themselves do better.
Even the industrial waste problem is being rapidly resolved with some companies promising that this will be a $US 27 billion industry by 2030 and worth $80 billion by 2050, because there are many valuable components which can be recovered.
Newer panels also last up to 70 years, rather than the 25 or so which the earliest ones did.
What about salt water energy. Tried an experiment with copper wire around 2 pvc pipes inside one another held in a flowing salt water from the ocean and produced a current. My pipe was only a foot but produced enough to light an led desk lamp. Consider something larger placed in the ocean current!
I think that once we realise that our economic system is based on cheap fossil fuels, which are still most of our energy sources and more scarce every day, we will realise that all of the processes that were not economically feasible today, might make a lot of sense in a world which aknoledwes limits. I dont see prices going down o that context.. Or at least that is how i see it.
Solar panels live for 20 to 30 plus years not like the convectional energy plants that needs constant stocks of coals (how many mountains need to be unearthed, trees, forests, eco systems lost from mining?) And the large amounts of Co2 in Daily basis, air pollution, water pollution. On the other hand, its not like you need to change your panels monthly or yearly...and (hopefully) maybe that time, after 20 long years, they have already produced technologies to recycle panels efficiently, so i would say Panels are greener.
Okay, but IoT and AI cannot directly help finding the alternatives for the toxic chemicals.
Great video otherwise as always!
A. I. will find the solution, i guarantee you... reducing human population...
@Genie
Chemists can use AI (ML) to discover new compounds
@@o.g.robert4224 oh no...skynet
Solar concentrators also provide heat energy as well as a smaller cell size per energy output (meters-squared/KW-hr).
There’s a negative to everything. However, the positives overall still outweigh the negatives.
Highlighting the negatives when most people aren’t even on board with renewable energy detracts from the main issue. I’m very disappointed in how this information is presented.
The negatives that have not been mentioned is the enormous areas of land needed to produce solar and wind energy. Look at the fields covered with panels as shown in this video, you cannot many grow crops there, not many animals can live there, trees definitely cannot grow there. Solar panels make sense on house roofs, but not when they take over land from agriculture or nature. Plus this video said nothing about the waste from wind power which has its own unique problems.
Yes, putting your head in sand is much more constructive. This usually works out very well...🙄
The best is Nuclear energy.
@@robertlipka9541 sheep and solar panels live quite happily side by side. There's a whole movement of "solar grazing" out there.
“Renewable” energy actually isn’t a viable longterm solution this is why we need to invest in SMD’s. Also journalist are free to cover what they want this isn’t North Korea.
another point to highlight is using up farm lands or clearing forests to create solar farms, which in itself causes ecological and habitat destruction :(
Very informative video & being a EU-citizen, I wasn't surprised to learn that the US & China don't care about the environment nearly as much as the EU.
I am also an EU citizen and have this to tell you. Spain, Austria, and Germany are preparing a series of educational videos which will show their taxpayers how to survive SEVERAL WEEKS without electricity. Answer me this: why are they doing it now? Is it perhaps the case that most renewable energy will never be able to satisfy the growing needs of Europeans once all the mines are closed? Good luck working from home without electricity. Heck, good luck surviving a week without electricity. Even if you don't know German, the visuals are clear: th-cam.com/video/mHWcOQ_7Y-U/w-d-xo.html
@Shelly X I wasn't referring to CO2 emissions, but the requirements for recycling used solar panels by environmental laws in the EU, not to mention many other laws & requirements imposed on companies not existing in either the US or China for protecting the environment.
@@tarmotyyri6733 why are Europeans such self aggrandizing twits most of the time? Or is the Progressive Ones mostly?
Germany shutdown nuclear and built coal plants instead, so EU doesn’t care either. Case closed.
@@fairskies9353 Not until you watch this th-cam.com/video/6zP0L69ielU/w-d-xo.html although I wasn't talking about CO2 emissions, but environmental protection laws & regulations in general.
I really would like to know how many people here are using solar panels for their home and had calculated how much electricity or energy utility charges are they saving. And as per that saving how many years they will need to recover the full installation cost and maintenance costs over that period.
I have solar. The consumption of kw/hrs i take from the generating company has fallen by nearly 50%. I do not use batteries, they are not essential. I only produce power during the day, no storage. My charges have dropped by 48%. Any excess i produce goes to the generating company for which i get paid. The payback period is circa 5 years in my case. Rising energy prices will reduce that. I have reduced carbon emissions by approx 3,280kg since installation. All installations will be different in their payback period. It primarily depends on how "Sun rich" your area is. My maintenance costs are zero. Panel cleaning is the only requirement, and I do that myself.