• DrFuggles
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m not saying none of this is true, but at the very least most of this is misleading. We’re figuring out how to recycle old solar panels on an industrial scale: https://youtu.be/FCtEWveySsA

    But progress is a bit slower than expected, mostly also because panels are a lot longer-lived than previously assumed (this is a good thing).

    Yes, panels use rare minerals, but so does basically everything we consume and use nowadays. There’s two answers to that.

    A) does it still make sense climate-wise to use these resources in solar panels? This is what Life Cycle Analyses are for. In general, throughout their life cycle, PV modules help prevent more CO2 emissions than their manufacturing process releases, i.e. they are a net gain (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/1/252). This is similar to EV vehicles, which break even around 60k km driven depending on your electricity generation (if memory serves https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/733112/IPOL_STU(2023)733112_EN.pdf)

    b) is there a way to manufacture PV panels less resource-intensive and maybe even without relying on (Chinese) rare earth minerals as much? Yes there is. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/ISE-Sustainable-PV-Manufacturing-in-Europe.pdf and see also sources above for next-gen differences.

    That being said, for now it’s still economically more attractive (usually) to implement Chinese panels because they’re flooding the market. Still, it’s a net gain as outlined.