# Farewell Clean Power Plan



## peakbagger (Oct 9, 2017)

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/10/09/news/epa-chief-pruitt-to-roll-back-clean-power-plan/

Definitely a sign of the times. Effectively the states that were making attempts to reduce CO2 are penalized for having spent the money proactively and the states who ignored the rules and supported the current administration are rewarded. Pretty depressing that the administration has decided to act as a third world country when it comes to carbon emissions.


----------



## begreen (Oct 9, 2017)

Oil & coal rule the roost for the time being. Money talks, nobody walks.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Oct 9, 2017)

That's too bad, I was kind of interested in watching the green energy revolution unfold. This is quite a setback for peoples health. Here's the part I don't get:



> Pruitt said the agency should not use its authority “to say to you we are going to declare war on any sector of our economy.”



I thought that was the EPA's purpose, to declare war on harmful pollution. Kinda like the DEA declares war on the sector of our economy that provides illegal drugs. And the ATF declares war on the sector of our economy that produces illegal moonshine. And the Antitrust Division declares was on the parts of our economy determined to be anti-competitive. And so forth. Why have a department designed to protect clean air and water if they are not allowed to do their job if it affects part of the economy? I guess the almighty dollar rules this administration.

Meanwhile, at the Federal Office of Fossil Fuels (yes, the industry actually has their own federal department), you can see just how much of  your tax money is being used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry:

https://energy.gov/fe/office-fossil-energy


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 9, 2017)

If solar, etc is as low cost as some articles state, it should have no problem pushing back coal.  I took the quote to mean they will allow solar and such to prove it's worth.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Oct 9, 2017)

I've decided that all this nonsense is going to motivate and unite those of us with a little foresight and consciousness to move forward in the near future. Any coal miner who wants the same life for his offspring, well, what can I say about that? 

Let's just hope that we don't have to live through WW3, and that we don't kill off all the other life on the planet in the meantime.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 10, 2017)

New coal is effectively dead unless the government starts directly subsidizing it. The cost of new plants is just too high and unless its on someone else's dime, the economics don't work out. Issues with coal ash disposal is raising the costs to run plants as few insurance companies are willing to take a risk on long term liabilities associated with coal ash. The near term future is dispatchable power (easy to turn on and turn off) and coal plants sure aren't readily dispatchable. Its highly likely that the rest of the world is going to come up with some sort of carbon tax and I expect that its going to be indirectly applied to US products with high carbon footprints that are exported. Politicians know this but they realize that they can lie to the folks impacted by the transition and get into office in the short term. I think "Nero fiddles while Rome burns" is getting more and more applicable to the current administration's approach.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 10, 2017)

So why worry about it?     On a similar note, I don't think the govt should be subsidizing any energy source.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 10, 2017)

Far better off for country to be proactive than reactive. If the US stays on the leading edge we probably can sell technology and experience to help other countries get up to speed on carbon reduction and we have a seat at the table. If the US buries their head in the sand, we inevitably end up playing catch up to regulations written by others that don't necessarily apply to US issues.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Oct 10, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> So why worry about it?



Lame comment! Who said anything about "worry"? Worrying is not productive. But that doesn't imply you can't take action and be pro-active about making things better.  

Why worry about it?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Oct 10, 2017)

Senior Interior Department whistleblower resigns:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...zinke-interior-dept-leadership-climate-change

Sad what's going on.


----------



## begreen (Oct 10, 2017)

The Onion suggests dropping the E and P and just call them Agency from now on.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Oct 10, 2017)

begreen said:


> The Onion suggests dropping the E and P and just call them Agency from now on.



Or FEPA. Fossil fuel Protection Agency.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 11, 2017)

Meh.  Dave Roberts isn't too worried unless they go after the Endangerment finding....which currently does not appear to be their plan.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/10/16443246/gop-climate-health-care

He actually makes the case that its like Health Care....they are promising a bunch of things that they can't do, as with Health Care, which will bolix them later.  In that the EPA is legally mandated to do certain things....and the CPP repeal (and possible replacement) will fail to do those, and will lose in the courts....in a few years.

As for the CPP....it was never implemented, as it was stopped in the courts from day one.  And yet, the US is on track to meet the CPP's CO2 emission targets for 2030....before 2020!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...ve-2030-emissions-goals-in-2016/#3567cdf318da

Tech is faster than policy.

In other words....CPP is dead!  Long Live CPP!


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 11, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> So why worry about it?     On a similar note, I don't think the govt should be subsidizing any energy source.



More Dave Roberts....uber energy wonk:  Oil subsidies prop up frackers at $50 oil.  Without subsidies, legacy coal is uneconomic today.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies

And these are honest to goodness tax $$ subsidies....not some nebulous 'health benefit' factor estimated by some liberal somewhere.

Call your congresscritter.


----------



## mlappin (Oct 11, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> Far better off for country to be proactive than reactive. If the US stays on the leading edge we probably can sell technology and experience to help other countries get up to speed on carbon reduction and we have a seat at the table. If the US buries their head in the sand, we inevitably end up playing catch up to regulations written by others that don't necessarily apply to US issues.



That only works until certain other countries who don’t honor patents or intellectual property rights steal the technology, reverse engineer it then sell it for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Oct 28, 2017)

mlappin said:


> That only works until certain other countries who don’t honor patents or intellectual property rights steal the technology, reverse engineer it then sell it for pennies on the dollar.


Then to add insult to injury are allowed to import it back into this country and compete with the original inventors .


----------



## Mainewoodchucker (Dec 29, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> More Dave Roberts....uber energy wonk:  Oil subsidies prop up frackers at $50 oil.  Without subsidies, legacy coal is uneconomic today.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies
> 
> ...


 

Always interesting to see people call out subsidies for oil/coal but forget to mention the ones for solar or wind . Maybe comparing subsidies/tax breaks etc between fossil and green would be a good experiment . You have to include the failed projects like Solyndra that drained our pockets for zero return . I think you will find that " green" energy costs we the people much more for return on investment . That also means BOTH ends . Gov money then cost to consumer. 

I firmly believe NO ONE should get subsidies . Coal,oil, win, solar , etc .   Gov should not be involved in any of it . Let each stand or fall on their own merits , affordabiliy , etc etc .


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 30, 2017)

Mainewoodchucker said:


> I firmly believe NO ONE should get subsidies . Coal,oil, win, solar , etc .   Gov should not be involved in any of it . Let each stand or fall on their own merits , affordabiliy , etc etc .


Govt money seems to corrupt everything it touches.  Easy student loans=Sky high tuition. HC subsidies= exorbitant premium increases.  Easy credit subprime money =housing collapse.  Lots of examples where free market solutions do a much better job  ,provide a better product.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 30, 2017)

Boy, boys.  There is an answer: REGULATION.   

On the Renewable Energy subsidy front, the US has had a very light touch....enough subsidies to slowly grow the industry, but they did not lead to a bunch of poorly performing projects done just for the govt butter, nor did they break the bank in any way shape or form.  Even with the losses like Solyndra (necessary, go talk to some venture cap guys sometimes, I have), a huge net public good came from the program.  

The EU and Chinese govts are much more generous, the programs are very expensive to both govts, and the projects have much lower average performance like capacity factor (even normalized to local resource) than US projects.

The US optimum for RE subsidies would likely have been a bit more generous, but coulda-shoula-woulda. We might be competing in manufacturing this tech, as ooposed to merely buying it. The stuff so cheep now its gonna shoot the moon despite whatever the govt does (subsidies are being slowly sunset-ed under a law signed by Obama).

Of course, I would have to concede that the US would not be the nation is it today without its having basically invented oil and been an oil-exporting superpower back when Saudi was an empty pile of sand.  And even the hated coal can be largely credited with the end of slavery in the modern era.  Did those technologies need govt sponsorship and subsidies back in the day and get them....I'm sure.  

Do fossils need massive subsidies today, a century after mass adoption...no way.  That's just straight up corruption...the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies in perpetuity.  Fossil money funding campaigns, super-PACs and think-tanks with cozy paid board positions for retired pols.  If you follow this dirty fossil money....it goes right into the pocket of every global warming denier pol in the govt.


----------



## Mainewoodchucker (Dec 30, 2017)

".the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies "

Neither "party" has clean hands . They are pretty much ALL bought . Or , like Angus King of my state , they push for renewables using state/fed money while having the investment in the very company that will receive the money . 
Fed money for R&D I might not have a problem with . But incentives only help those that can afford to purchase something that most others can't , while those that can't help foot the bill .


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 30, 2017)

Mainewoodchucker said:


> ".the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies "
> 
> Neither "party" has clean hands . They are pretty much ALL bought . Or , like Angus King of my state , they push for renewables using state/fed money while having the investment in the very company that will receive the money .
> Fed money for R&D I might not have a problem with . But incentives only help those that can afford to purchase something that most others can't , while those that can't help foot the bill .




Angus did it twice, first time before he was governor he pushed a statewide energy savings program using his credibility from his TV show on MPBN and then started a business to get the contract to run it (which he then sold out for big bucks), then he used his contact to put in a wind farm in Roxbury Maine despite local objections. He got stopped when he tried it again on a proposed windfarm south of the AT in the Bigelow area as it raised the ire with the Appalachian Trail Conference, national conservation groups and it didnt help that Jonathan Carter lived in the neighborhood. He also was shilling a proposal for an off peak storage rate for windfarms tied to electrically heated storage units but that didnt fly.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 30, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Boy, boys.  There is an answer: REGULATION.
> 
> 
> The EU and Chinese govts are much more generous, the programs are very expensive to both govts, and the projects have much lower average performance like capacity factor (even normalized to local resource) than US projects.
> .


Import duties ,tariffs or fees would solve this, no matter how much OTHER countries subsidize their own industries it can be matched. China does it already ,but for some reason we are so hesitant to do the same. Time to take off the gloves. Any trade war that may result is a win for US and a loss for China so i dont see that going anywhere. We should be doing this irregardless of whats happening in NK.


----------



## P51mustang (Dec 30, 2017)

Rest easy, my brothers....Since many states are simply ignoring the bought and paid for Washington politicians (from both parties) and sidestepping the feds, the clean, renewable energy revolution within America will continue forward, only slightly slower. 

If you consider that California, New York, Oregon, Washington State, etc. are on their own some of the largest economies in the world, and they're investing heavily in the energy revolution, anything Washington DC and the fossil fuel lobby does is ultimately a speed bump. 

Mike Pence and his Koch brother controllers are merely stalling the inevitable.  The only question now is whether the United States as a whole will be a top tier leader in building the equipment to make all this happen or will it be further back in the pack in 5, 10, 20 years.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 30, 2017)

Mainewoodchucker said:


> ".the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies "
> 
> Neither "party" has clean hands . They are pretty much ALL bought . Or , like Angus King of my state , they push for renewables using state/fed money while having the investment in the very company that will receive the money .
> Fed money for R&D I might not have a problem with . But incentives only help those that can afford to purchase something that most others can't , while those that can't help foot the bill .



Not equivalent....count the number of zeros on the payoff, and count how many people are being hurt or killed by the two policies.

And AFAIK, with deficit spending the folks footing the bill haven't been born yet....Hmmm, I wonder if they would pick the wind farm or the coal plant?


----------



## Mainewoodchucker (Dec 30, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Not equivalent....count the number of zeros on the payoff, and count how many people are being hurt or killed by the two policies.
> 
> And AFAIK, with deficit spending the folks footing the bill haven't been born yet....Hmmm, I wonder if they would pick the wind farm or the coal plant?




Ok , I'll bite . How many are killed or hurt by both policies . Actual evidence . Not theories , not conjecture ... actual PROVEN numbers . 

I will throw this in the mix . If you tax a people to provide more money for something that is not efficient , and unless you HAVE money  , you cannot afford , does that harm? If someone making 40k a year that cannot afford 50k in solar panels pays MORE taxes so that the guy making 500k can buy his panels with an incentive , does that not hurt the 50k guy? Does it effect his food/housing/education etc budget? 

My point is , subsidies , no matter WHO gets them is not right . Forcing people to pay by threat of violence for something they wish not to be involved in or would not  benefit from is not something a free people do . Gov has no right to decide winners and losers of what the people want or decide . 

Btw , " Gov butter " is the only reason most renewables even venture to break even . Not including when state or fed REQUIRE you to buy renewable energy . Perhaps you should delve a little more into the actual costs to taxpayers , failures, and limitations  of renewables at this time . Perfect the product , then roll it out . Until then , you use what is proven and reliable . 

Honestly I wish I had the money to drop 50-70k on solar . But I do not , so instead my taxes pay for those that can . Until ANY renewable can compete without a big helping hand we will have to rely on what we know works . I will keep burning wood because THAT is cheaper and renewable . My gasifier will keep running when I need it because IT is renewable and cheaper than gas for my gennie . And guess what , I didn't need any federal dollars for either . People , not gov, will find a new and better energy source . Fed R&D money is as far as I am willing to go . 

Lol , and I am betting the people not born yet will ask why we spent their money on unproven and inefficient tech , racking up losses , just so we could say we tried . And deficit spending? Like shovel ready jobs? Seriously......... use what you have , give non partisan research facilties money to find new ways to provide energy through R&D , and let PEOPLE decide what they want . Unless your anti freedom , you let individuals decide their fate .


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 30, 2017)

Mainewoodchucker said:


> Ok , I'll bite . How many are killed or hurt by both policies . Actual evidence . Not theories , not conjecture ... actual PROVEN numbers .



I suspect that word PROVEN will be the end of us.  Legally?  Scientifically?  Mathematically?  Common sense?

In terms of peer-reviewed studies it is currently accepted that:
--Air pollution from fossil combustion (CO, NOx, etc) is a major cause of heart disease.
--Air pollution particulates from fossils and biomass lead to respiratory disease, asthma, etc.
--Gasoline vapors (mostly benzene) were a major cause of cancer.

Estimates of the number of humans killed by air pollution, based upon the above evidence, are in the 5-10 million people/year range.

It is also hypothesized that air pollution particulates, such as from diesel engines, lead to dementia and Alzheimers, but further study is needed.

It is also accepted that:
--Methane and CO2 associated with fossil energy are greenhouse gases that together largely account for the observed global warming over the last few decades.
--Fossil CO2 is causing ocean acidification.

These effects are causing major disturbances to marine and terrestrial ecosystems, that are projected to become much worse after 2050 at current fossil usage rates.

As for renewable energy...you should be glad that the US's subsidies were and are so small. Steep subsidies overseas (EU, China, Japan) have driven the learning curve on wind and solar, driving down the prices of both to the point that they are profitable in the US without subsidies.  These will be the solution to the public health and climate problems above.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 31, 2017)

just curious, have noticed more of these type of articles showing up. starting to look like for everything you gain there is a cost?http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/22/...-turbine-blade-disposal/#sthash.SZTKOgei.dpbs

any thoughts are we moving so fast we are creating another mess?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Dec 31, 2017)

Re: creating bigger messes... That is the pattern of human development.

But it obviously doesn't have to be that way.  Making disposal of waste into landfills more costly would solve all sorts of problems.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 31, 2017)

No tricks zone.com seem so be a selective anti GW site so best taken with a large block of salt. The turbine blades are not made with particularly toxic materials. Not much more than a lot of consumer products. Far more inert than the toxics generated by fossil production. I expect with some thought blade sections could be re-purposed for structural elements. It comes down to the businessman is going to dispose of them at his least cost. If its costs less to landfill and there are no laws against it they will do it. 

I have seen other studies on the solar panel waste and its a mixed story. The manufacturing waste for silicone can be quite toxic unless fairly expensive post processing is done. One of the reasons there was a shortage of silicone several years ago was that building plants that didnt generate toxic waste were incredibly expensive, the Chinese basically built new plants without the expensive post processing and dumped the toxic waste in the environment, basically driving any responsible companies out of business. There was a solar technology that used cadmium in panels but thankfully they are no longer produced. The solder based grids on the pretty much standard silicon panels can be removed with proven technology and the remaining broken silicon and glass can be either reprocessed or can be blended in with road asphalt. I believe the Germans require full life cycle custody of PV panels as well as other durables. The system works until someone figures out that the quick buck is ship it to a third world country and let them take the environmental hit. Even if China cleans up their act there is always someone willing to trash their environment http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/10/world/a-pacific-island-nation-is-stripped-of-everything.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 31, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Re: creating bigger messes... That is the pattern of human development.
> But it obviously doesn't have to be that way.  Making disposal of waste into landfills more costly would solve all sorts of problems.


I agree ! Its amazing how much can be recycled.  If you make an tiny effort. Humans are one species that definitely foul their own nest ,BIG TIME .   I  see no benefit to policies promoting  population growth which leads all sorts of problems (that pile up) that are not being addressed.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 31, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> No tricks zone.com seem so be a selective anti GW site so best taken with a large block of salt. The turbine blades are not made with particularly toxic materials. Not much more than a lot of consumer products. Far more inert than the toxics generated by fossil production. I expect with some thought blade sections could be re-purposed for structural elements. It comes down to the businessman is going to dispose of them at his least cost. If its costs less to landfill and there are no laws against it they will do it.
> 
> I have seen other studies on the solar panel waste and its a mixed story. The manufacturing waste for silicone can be quite toxic unless fairly expensive post processing is done. One of the reasons there was a shortage of silicone several years ago was that building plants that didnt generate toxic waste were incredibly expensive, the Chinese basically built new plants without the expensive post processing and dumped the toxic waste in the environment, basically driving any responsible companies out of business. There was a solar technology that used cadmium in panels but thankfully they are no longer produced. The solder based grids on the pretty much standard silicon panels can be removed with proven technology and the remaining broken silicon and glass can be either reprocessed or can be blended in with road asphalt. I believe the Germans require full life cycle custody of PV panels as well as other durables. The system works until someone figures out that the quick buck is ship it to a third world country and let them take the environmental hit. Even if China cleans up their act there is always someone willing to trash their environment http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/10/world/a-pacific-island-nation-is-stripped-of-everything.html


so enviro prog is also in the same camp when they say this?
In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhale

as you point out about Europe, but Calif>?
Neither does California, a world leader in deploying solar panels. Only Europe requires solar panel makers to collect and dispose of solar waste at the end of their lives.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 31, 2017)

Generally its up to government to pass laws to prevent the lack of responsible recycling. Unfortunately of late the big rush is to deregulate.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 31, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> Generally its up to government to pass laws to prevent the lack of responsible recycling. Unfortunately of late the big rush is to deregulate.


California isn't all about gov't? I get it .


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 31, 2017)

Doesnt make a lot of sense for CA to pass a recycling law as it makes them uncompetitive with other states. Far better to pass a national standard. Of course PV panels generally dont wear out unless they were built with defects, the performance usually just degrades. Many of the original consumer panels twenty plus years old have exhibited far less degradation than expected. My suspicion is that older panels will just get salvaged for sale to less prosperous countries. The original Arco Carizzo quad lams ended up being sold to the public for reuse and was the basis for many an off the grid homesteader. When they do come up for resale they usually still have a buyer. I keep an eye out for specific surplus panels and there is a ready market for them unless they are fundamentally defective. (The PITA is the cost and hassle to ship small numbers). 

I expect the reuse issue is going to pop up in Mass. Many of the solar arrays that have cropped up to grab the lucrative SRECs are on land owned by someone else. The contract usually assume the arrays are worthless in 20 years (usually prior to the second inverter change out) and the array gets dumped back on the land owner. There still probably is residual value to the array but the investor has already written it off and doesnt want residual value as it messes up the accounting. I know the developers are pushing cash poor towns and land trusts to put up arrays on vacant land but the smart one realize that in 20 years they may end up with a worthless asset that costs a lot of money to either rehab or rip out. The hassle is PV is still evolving and I expect it will continue. The new NEC revision for high voltage commercial arrays has just made the majority of commercial fields an obsolete design. They will still put out power but  when it comes to refit they will either need substantial reconfiguration if possible or double the number of inverters required compared to arrays designed to the new standards.  

The tough side of reselling older panels is that there is a fine line between selling them for reuse versus selling them for scrap value. Much of the E- waste gets shipped offshore under the guise of productive reuse when in reality its getting sold for scrap value. I expect if the US passed mandatory recycling, this back door would need to be scrutinized. I suspect more than a few German cradle to grave products have ended up offshore in the third world.

It will be interesting to see the fate of the Tesla Solar roofs, they too will degrade in performance and at some point I expect they wont be worth upgrading. Will the owners just abandon the generation  and leave them in place or will them replace them with the next generation and leave a pile of scrap tiles to be dealt with by someone in the future. Unlike standard modules they appear to be less easy to recycle as a PV array. 

Some old panels do slip through the cracks, Sun Electronics was giving away pallets of odd ball panels earlier this year for the cost of shipping and I expect someone paid them to take them off their hands. Hopefully the new owners have found a use for them but expect some will end up at the local dump when folks figure out their limitations (low wattage and low efficiency with short lifespans due to chemistry used). .


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 31, 2017)

so when you see and read this.https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/ca-and-western-states/renewables-portfolio-standard#.WklqnvCnHIU, waste is no problem. the rest of the usa should pay for it? then the clean up after ? of course nothing to clean up, they last forever? your quote"Of course PV panels generally dont wear out unless they were built with defects, the performance usually just degrades. " sign me up! what a waste of time the two articles i posted  were.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2018)

Doug MacIVER said:


> just curious, have noticed more of these type of articles showing up. starting to look like for everything you gain there is a cost?http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis
> 
> http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/22/...-turbine-blade-disposal/#sthash.SZTKOgei.dpbs



I am all in favor of a cradle to grave recycling program where manufacturers are responsible for recycling and disposal after service.  It often just take small design changes to facilitate disassembly into recyclable components, so it is good to have that engineered into it from the beginning. We teach our engineering students about this in school today as best practice.

That said, the first article was non sensical....comparing the volume of spent nuclear fuel rods to the volume of solar panels.  There is obviously a much larger mass/volume of material at a nuclear plant than just the fuel rods...its not like all of that stuff can last forever and doesn't need to be dismantled and disposed of (much of it as non-recycleable low or medium-medium level rad waste).  Give me a break.

Most of the mass of solar panels is glass and the metal frames and supports used to hold them in place.  The supports can be re-used after the panels degrade, and the glass and metal in the solar panel are completely and trivially recyclable.  The silicon and conductor mass in the panels is surprisingly low....having been reduced intentionally during the price reduction process b/c the silicon is expensive to make per volume.  Does this site state the mass of silicon in the panels....or the 100x larger mass of glass and metal supports?  The situation here is much better than e-waste, where the parts are highly integrated....PV panels are just a bonded sandwich.  The use of a potting agent that was soluble with a non-toxic solvent (like acetone or methanol) would make it trivially easy to disassemble and clean the different materials for recycling.

The second site was worse....just listing a bunch of scary concerns about the material (fiberglass) and big numbers for the amount of material.  So, a million tons is a pile that would cover a football field.  So the worldwide wind industry would cover 43 football fields per year, or fewer if you piled it higher?  After a century you would have one little mountain of chopped fiberglass for the entire global wind industry.  Sounds pretty sustainable to me. The author says it might take a long time to break down (its fiberglass, duh) and also that it might produce methane in a landfill (LOL).  The article also starts with a 4 year old number (why not use a more recent one) and states the wind fraction in primary energy terms, which inflates the fossil contribution by 2-3X or more, rewarding the built-in thermodynamic and other losses associated with fossil combustion, but NOT renewable power.

The coal method in current use produces many mountains of ash as a solid byproduct, I am too lazy to compare, but it seems that any decent single coal plant produces its own hefty pile.  Imagine how much toxic ash that is for 1000s of plants running a century!  And of course we turn it into bricks and build elementary schools out of it.  Will we make bricks and schools out of chopped wind turbine blades...why not?



Doug MacIVER said:


> any thoughts are we moving so fast we are creating another mess?



I would argue that with every generation of technology, the energy service and human value goes up immensely while the eco impact goes down.  Could we power our civilization of today with biomass?  What would be the eco devastation if we tried?  Many historical civilizations that flowered literally had to chop down every tree before the curtain fell.  So fossils are a lower eco-footprint tha biomass (compared to historical unsustainable practice) and there is not enough sustainable biomass to do the job.  Fossils burned clean would be great for the environment if there were enough to keep the lights on for more than a century or so and if it weren't for all that CO2. 

The amount of (trivially unrecycleable) PV and fiberglass waste being described here is tiny (and a landfillable solid) compared to the decimation from coal mining, oil spills, gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere for 100 generations, ash waste, dementia-inducing atmospheric microparticles, etc.  So, give it a break.  Renewable energy sources like wind and PV are affordable and sustainable for centuries using current practice, with minimal eco impact, which pales in comparison to the current approach.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 1, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> I am all in favor of a cradle to grave recycling program where manufacturers are responsible for recycling and disposal after service.  It often just take small design changes to facilitate disassembly into recyclable components, so it is good to have that engineered into it from the beginning. We teach our engineering students about this in school today as best practice.
> 
> That said, the first article was non sensical....comparing the volume of spent nuclear fuel rods to the volume of solar panels.  There is obviously a much larger mass/volume of material at a nuclear plant than just the fuel rods...its not like all of that stuff can last forever and doesn't need to be dismantled and disposed of (much of it as non-recycleable low or medium-medium level rad waste).  Give me a break.
> 
> ...



A always a lot of sensible thought in your writing, so as they say at a crime scene," nothing to see here, move along." Happy New Year


----------

