California went big on rooftop solar. Now that’s a problem for landfills(latimes.com)
latimes.com
California went big on rooftop solar. Now that’s a problem for landfills
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger
32 comments
It may not be the oil industry, what's really going on right now is nuclear is making a comeback. The Renewable energy future may turn out have to be depending on it. Do people pay attention to how much it has cost of the electricity this summer? Without the battery technology there isn't much promise of the solar.
I find it equally suspicious that there’s such a number of pro nuclear posts here, given that nuclear has nothing to do with this. Seems like an astroturf campaign on its own, or at least people with zero insight into market dynamics.
Nuclear has nothing to gain by smearing solar, and in fact benefits from solar, as it very much addresses the shortcomings of other renewables. Nuclear gains a lot by aligning itself as a renewable, and this stance has already been accepted by many people concerned about climate change.
Nuclear has nothing to gain by smearing solar, and in fact benefits from solar, as it very much addresses the shortcomings of other renewables. Nuclear gains a lot by aligning itself as a renewable, and this stance has already been accepted by many people concerned about climate change.
Spot on. I see these things poping up and it does look bad, but we have the remember that the current power system is worse.
willnonya(1)
> Beginning in 2006 [...]. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their typical 25-to-30-year life cycle.
I know this feels like pedantic nitpickery, but 2022 - 2006 = 16 years. That's 53%-64% of the 25-30 year lifecycle. Characterizing that as "nearing the end" feels like manufacturing urgency that doesn't yet exist.
Having said that, we appear to have 9-14 years to get our elected representatives into gear to write some legislation that requires recycling for all this, before the bulk of the early subsidized installs start heading to landfills. That's not forever (especially where government is concerned), but that's definitely quite a bit of runway.
I know this feels like pedantic nitpickery, but 2022 - 2006 = 16 years. That's 53%-64% of the 25-30 year lifecycle. Characterizing that as "nearing the end" feels like manufacturing urgency that doesn't yet exist.
Having said that, we appear to have 9-14 years to get our elected representatives into gear to write some legislation that requires recycling for all this, before the bulk of the early subsidized installs start heading to landfills. That's not forever (especially where government is concerned), but that's definitely quite a bit of runway.
The pessimist in me thinks it will never happen.
That said, I'm in Australia and our recent government change is starting to make major changes in the space of renewables. It gives me a since of optimism about government I haven't seen in a long while. Just maybe we can still get into the right direction even if it isn't a perfect conclusion.
That said, I'm in Australia and our recent government change is starting to make major changes in the space of renewables. It gives me a since of optimism about government I haven't seen in a long while. Just maybe we can still get into the right direction even if it isn't a perfect conclusion.
25-30 years is a pipe dream. Panels manufactured around 2006 are quite inefficient compared with those today, and our need for electricity isn't really going down either.
25y life expectancy is a lie. I've seen it with my own panels which were installed by the former owner. Nobody checks if these things are still working correctly.
In my case after just 4y every panel was subpar And 2 of 12 were simply so bad that the bypasses kicked in. In turn that caused the input voltage to be too low when it was hot and the internal resistance went up, which results in a shutdown inverter.
Really, how often does this happen without people realizing? I've checked with a neighbour, he never looked at it, guess what, same deal!?
In my case after just 4y every panel was subpar And 2 of 12 were simply so bad that the bypasses kicked in. In turn that caused the input voltage to be too low when it was hot and the internal resistance went up, which results in a shutdown inverter.
Really, how often does this happen without people realizing? I've checked with a neighbour, he never looked at it, guess what, same deal!?
It’s also a problem for housing affordability. Even ADUs require solar now.
Making it more expensive to build housing in California at a time like this is a bad move, and I doubt the benefits of solar outweigh it.
Making it more expensive to build housing in California at a time like this is a bad move, and I doubt the benefits of solar outweigh it.
I disagree, not installing solar and heatpumps will increase the energy consumption of the house, potentially for the entire lifetime of the building. Installing them makes it cheaper to live in the building, increases the home value and pays off in years, so really it should be a no brainer. Some countries offer special financing for the costs of energy efficient building, this would be a better option at addressing your concern than removing the requirement.
People may not have the up-front money, though.
Think about it this way: we take on mortgages and car loans and other sorts of debt because we can't afford the full cost of something up front, and accept the tradeoff that, over time, we'll be spending more money than if we had that up-front money.
Same thing applies here. Requiring solar on new homes will just make homes cost more, and will put home ownership out of reach in cases where people were already stretching. Either that, or it'll just increase the problem of people being in too much debt.
If the government wants solar on all new homes, they should be paying for it. I believe in renewables, and in distributed power generation, but forcing people to spend another $20k or whatever to buy a new home is a heavy lift.
Think about it this way: we take on mortgages and car loans and other sorts of debt because we can't afford the full cost of something up front, and accept the tradeoff that, over time, we'll be spending more money than if we had that up-front money.
Same thing applies here. Requiring solar on new homes will just make homes cost more, and will put home ownership out of reach in cases where people were already stretching. Either that, or it'll just increase the problem of people being in too much debt.
If the government wants solar on all new homes, they should be paying for it. I believe in renewables, and in distributed power generation, but forcing people to spend another $20k or whatever to buy a new home is a heavy lift.
Supply/demand argument fallacy: because the price of a home is not driven by the costs of construction. Homes are nothing like normal goods.
Property prices are driven by the amount people can afford to pay on their mortgage, with the free variables being land price and house size.
Housing booms and crashes are only slightly linked to the cost of building a home.
Property prices are driven by the amount people can afford to pay on their mortgage, with the free variables being land price and house size.
Housing booms and crashes are only slightly linked to the cost of building a home.
I think the average cost is about $25k.
Why don't we construct panels that can be repurposed as building panels to build homes after they don't produce electricity?
uncertain what 12ft.io is - it redirects to latimes:
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california...
That said, I have friends with old panels, and they are happily generating electricity and reducing PG&E bills.
So although there might be a problem with older panels, I expect there are also problems with old power plant generators, aged oil tankeer and gas station equipment ending up in landfills too.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california...
That said, I have friends with old panels, and they are happily generating electricity and reducing PG&E bills.
So although there might be a problem with older panels, I expect there are also problems with old power plant generators, aged oil tankeer and gas station equipment ending up in landfills too.
12ft.io is intended to bypass media website paywalls.
The article suggests that the problem is not about California - but the times we live in (health, housing, etc.)
“The industry is supposed to be green,” Vanderhoof said. “But in reality, it’s all about the money.”
“The industry is supposed to be green,” Vanderhoof said. “But in reality, it’s all about the money.”
I'm surprised CA didn't do a recycling program along with all their tax rebates for solar.
Why would you be surprised they focused on the shiny and lucrative and not on the essential and valuable?
It’s almost like the decision makers in government have no idea what they are doing
Thx for posting the 12ft.io link to the content,
Url changed from https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbusi..., which points to this.
Every energy source has consequences. We need to pick the ones that are less bad. Having a pile of waste in landfills seems infinitely better than roasting the whole planet to the point of it being unlivable by humans.