Photo credit:
specialkrb, Flickr
I'm sorry to bring this up. I'm not really opposed to progress. Nor do I want to slow the shift from dirty twen-cen energy sources like coal and oil to leaner, greener, cleaner alternatives. But solar power has a pollution problem that needs to be solved, and we need to solve it now before it turns into a clean-up problem!
On January 14 the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition reported on the environmental hazards of making solar panels and the toxic waste mess we'll face downstream when it's time to dispose of them. The report (it's a pdf file) lists all kinds of toxic chemicals that manufacturers use to make PhotoVoltaic (PV) panels, from gallium arsenide to silicon tetrachloride to sulfur hexafluoride. You wouldn't want to sprinkle any of these on your kids' breakfast cereal.
Most of these pollutants are common to microchip manufacturing, too. The Toxics Coalition has recommendations for the PV solar industry that will help avoid the costs of a toxic clean-up mess like the microchip companies faced back in the day.
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition recommendations include:
- Reduce and eventually eliminate the use of toxic materials and develop environmentally sustainable practices.
- Ensure that solar PV manufacturers are responsible for the life-cycle impacts of their products.
- Ensure proper testing of new and emerging materials and processes.
- Expand recycling technology and design products for easy recycling.
- Promote high-quality “green jobs” that protect worker health and safety and provide a living wage throughout the global PV industry, including end-of-life recycling.
- Protect community health and safety throughout the global PV industry.
Lofty goals, aren't they? And they bring a number of problems to the surface, problems we may as well face now. Will the added cost of environmental regulations and practices in North America drive solar panel manufacturing offshore? When factories move, the jobs go with them, and so does the pollution problem. The countries where the jobs are relocated are often home to lax environmental regulations and health protections. Do you see why—for now—I'd like to put the brakes on and slow the growth of solar panel production?
How to green your detergent usage
Comments (8)Add a Comment
Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed.
I've just started working in the solar energy industry at Wholesale Solar, Inc. (http://www.wholesalesolar.com), and I take ownership for the fact that the manufacturing process for solar panels needs dialogue like this.
My gut feeling so far is that it's a much, MUCH lower footprint than most other manufacturing processes, largely because the life cycle is so long: At least fifty years, and maybe twice that with the sealed units being made today. We won't know for fifty years.
The heavier metals you mention are used in a new type of panel called Thin Film ...those aren't the ones you see around town, yet.
It's not an excuse, but for now we need to keep up this conversation, and force changes, while realizing that there's nothing better for producing electricity, and I don't know anybody in the U.S. personally who's sworn off using electricity 100%.
Thanks for commenting, Ken. I agree that the conversation should continue. One of the things that concerns me is the disconnect between manufacturing and disposal. Twenty to fifty years is a long time for a product to be in use before it ends its life in a landfill or an incinerator. Tracking products like thin film that may have a bad effect when they enter the waste stream is one of those "somebody ought to" jobs.
We've recently been posting about compact fluorescent bulbs—how to select them and how to dispose of them. I'm sure that kind of follow-up on solar products will happen here too.
I work for an architecture firm and the push has been for alternative energy and recycled or recyclable materials but there has been no discussion of problems with alternative materials or power sources. Thin-film laminate pv has been offered as a more affordable option than the sealed units but they are still difficult to justify. Manufacuturers suggest a reasonable life span of 20 years owing to a loss in efficiency which, when compared with their upfront cost, make them difficult to sell in this area except to those commited to the green movement.
I've barely scratched the surface in my education about the industry, Jeremy. I'm an enthusiast, but not an expert. Here is a YouTube video that seems helpful toward understanding thin-film laminates. What seems compelling is their ease of installation. I'm not sure if 2KW from a barn roof in Topeka, Kansas is good compared to flat panel alternatives, but the video makes me want to learn more.
The video is documented in some detail in this Mother Earth News article. The article links to a number of industry resources and provides some cost info., but none reflect life cycle costs including abatement at the end of the product's useful life.
Please delete this, but I just saw the affliate ad from Google you're running at the top of the page, and it's from a misleading affiliate program, earth4energy. They sell a video on "making your own solar panel" for $90. Does that sound like the kind of ethics you want to project. Look into it, we never turn on the affiliate section of Google adwords because of that.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for pointing this ad out to us. We'll hopefully be able to delete it by later this afternoon.
Rachael
Managing Editor, Super Eco
My company design to use solar panels because of it's a much lower footprint than most other energy channel. We deploy solar panels system for 3 year ago, right it's still work well.
I agree that the conversation should continue. One of the things that concerns me is the disconnect between manufacturing and disposal. Twenty to fifty years is a long time for a product to be in use before it ends its life in a landfill or an incinerator. make solar panel