72
It's worth noting that the actual volumes of non-recyclable material left when we're done with solar panels are tiny compared with the huge ponds of toxic ash left by coal.
Sure, I don't think anyone discussing energy production in good faith would claim that coal is anything other than the absolute worst. It's not exactly a huge achievement to say something is less bad than the most polluting method of energy generation in existence.
It's fair when that's what solar panels are replacing in Australia
Right, but that doesnt mean they're perfect and their flaws shouldnt be discussed, if for no other reason than to ensure it doesnt become a bigger problem in the future.
In addition to the waste problem the article also talks about the world supply of silver being exhausted in ~20 years if solar continues to expand at the expected 5-10x. That sounds like a problem, its probably fixable by shifting to new designs but it needs to be considered and work put into that in order to do so.
so a product with decades long lifetime made almost entirely out of easily and commonly recycled parts like aluminum and glass, vs fuels with lifetimes of a few seconds with zero recyclability, all of the waste is immediately mixed into the air. Fuck off fossil fuel pawns.
What's with the hostility? No one is disputing that solar in Australia is obviously a good choice and far better than fossil fuels. But that doesnt mean the (relatively small) downsides shouldn't be discussed.
What's with the hostility?
Your headline sounds like anti-progressive doomerism, that's what. Who cares whether this ton of waste came from solar panels or other appliances? The talking point should be on how solar has much room for improvememt in regard to recyclability, life expectancy, manufacturing waste reduction etc.
I used to work in the sector, and we saw significant reduction in waste over my tenure due to improved practices and engineering innovations.
Calling solar waste a "crisis" when the solar industry has had a net-positive effect on the planet is disingenuous.
"my" title was the title of the newspaper article (by the Guardian who run a climate crisis section) based on a paper from AUSTRALIAN CENTRE for ADVANCED PHOTOVOLTAICS who are a proper research institute working on creating and improve solar power. This isn't people trying to do down solar power it's people who actually work in the field doing serious research. No one benefits from overselling renewables as perfect, all that's going to lead to is a backlash down the line. I had hoped that this community would be more open to discussion and a bit less culty and filled with toxic positivity as the climate subreddits, I'm sad to see it isn't the case.
No one benefits from overselling renewables as perfect
That's a Straw-Man fallacy. No one's saying it's perfect. It just doesn't matter that it isn't perfect. What matters is that it's one of the few net-positive energy sources in a world full of polluting alternatives. We don't need people pushing the ignorant voters away from renewables- "i HeArD sOlAr MaKeS tOo MuCh TrAsH sO i'M vOtInG rEpUbLiCaN."
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
72 points (81.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5383 readers
366 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS