[notacop31337]

Whilst I understand that in reality the costs will always win out, I think only addressing the cost aspect is a strange way of tackling the issue given that cheap energy has gotten us where we are.

Not to mention that you're comparing costs unfairly, given the costs of nuclear include the costs of processing and storage of waste output, and nuclear is the only energy source in which we control all outputs and have dedicated and well engineering processes for dealing with those outputs.

I think that people are being completely unrealistic regarding the cleanliness of solar and wind, currently we bury the blades and we just turf the panels, both of which are hardware that needs to be upgraded. The heavy metals in panels do not break down at all. Which is funny given everyones focus on the radioactivity of nuclear waste, which even though takes a long time to completely stop being toxic, does actually stop being toxic.

I think there's a happy middle ground, and we need a good mix of sources, but people are comparing on features that they want to compare on, and ignoring others.

[tsjackson]

I work in the solar industry, and very few large projects are turfing solar panels anymore. There are at least three companies that will usually bid against each other to purchase used/broken solar panels for recycling/reclaiming materials.

One of the early issues with recycling companies scaling is that solar modules don't break very often, so there hasn't been enough volume to get the industry off the ground. Solar modules are generally good for 10-40 years, so we're just starting to get the first generation of decommissioned plants (which by the way, are generally being repowered with more efficient modules).

Same with wind turbines. In any case, outside of the valuable heavy metals, landfills really aren't that huge of a problem, despite consumer focus. Decommissioned landfills are already a hot commodity among solar developers in the Northeast for instance because they're great, relatively flat, centrally located land that you can build a solar farm on. So as long as we're succeeding at reclaiming heavy metals, the waste generation component is pretty trivial. They're really just part of the cycle.

Finally, the decommissioning cost of solar plants is usually bonded in with a utility PPA to be borne by the project company, just like with nuclear, so it is indeed a fair comparison.

I agree regarding our regulatory environment for nuclear being counterproductive (it's counterproductive for wind and solar too, though to a lesser extent). However, even in positive regulatory environments such as France, Nuclear costs 3-5 times as much to build on a $/MWh basis and takes much longer to site, permit and construct. There may be a small role for base-loading nuclear in certain areas that have poor renewable resources, but it otherwise rarely makes sense, regulatory issues aside.

[notacop31337]

Cheers for the great comment mate! I replied to you initially and I am still learning about this very vast topic, I try not to take a partisan approach to this stuff as it is obviously important, always trying to update my understanding and I do change my position as I learn new stuff.

It's interesting to hear that the recycling processes have changed, how recent of a change is this? I took my viewpoint from what seemed to be a overwhelming amount of (what I consider to be non-biased) resources, around the panels "being" recyclable, but not actually being recycled. And I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of toxic waste given the entire purpose of this thing is to clean up our energy system etc.

I also wasn't aware of the decommissioning being bonded, cheers for that.

Do you think there's a difference between (what I assume for you is) the US and other countries progression along the lifecycle of solar? I feel like in Australia where I am, a lot of the articles I'm seeing are bringing up that what you've mentioned as solved problems, don't seem to be here. I will admit though that we are fairly useless being an economy that derives so much from coal exports.

Yeah so the pricing thing I do understand, but I also just think it's important to continue nuclear as an option anyway for future improvements and general management of brain drain.

Cheers for being chill, I find topics so divisive these days, I never mean to come across and ignorant of other opinions and I try to engage and not just be a "this is my tribe and I'll die on this hill", this problem is too important for it to be a "I'd rather be right" type deal.

[tsjackson]

Thanks for checking me on my U.S.-centrism and your comment as well! For the record, I think Australia's market is a bit younger even though it's already a bit larger as a percentage of power consumed than the U.S.'s thanks to some amazing solar resources in the desert. I'm fairly certain that all of this gets much easier for everyone at scale - it's just a matter of waiting it out until there are enough modules ready to recycle to generate regular revenue for recyclers, so it's likely just a waiting game.

[jfengel]

Out of curiosity... for utility-scale solar, do they tend to dismount the old panels, or just leave them in place for whatever small fraction of their original generating capability they still provide?

I imagine that they'd eventually run out of land to put them on, but from what I've seen, utility-scale solar often sits in places with a fair bit of room for expansion.

[tsjackson]

Modules degrade in production really slowly (<1% per year) and are often used for 40 years. They're generally replaced quicly if they break due to manufacturing defects or impact damage (hail, tree branches etc.). A lot of the recycling of solar panels is for panels that are a decade or two old but in perfectly good condition. What's happening is that new modules have increased 30-40% in efficiency over the same time frame that the old modules have decreased by 10-15%. So its cost effective to upgrade them in certain cases - generally where the utility will allow it.

The other factor here is that many agreements between a solar power and a utility that buys the power only have 20 year terms. Generally, there's a strong incentive to renegotiate at the end of the term, but frankly, that renegotiation is kind of a mess in practice. It depends on the policies of the state, the utility's interests, the ISO market, etc. as to how that ends up working. Every solar farm is working in at least five overlapping regulatory environments - local, state, utility/retailer domain, the ISO or regional grid, and the federal regulatory environment. Decentralization is nice in theory, but definitely makes it difficult to scale the widespread change that's required right now.

[forgetfreeman]

The notion that turbine blades are not and cannot be recycled is a bit behind the times. Carbon Rivers is scaling up their turbine blade recycling capacity as we speak.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-make...

EOL turbine blades have also been used in several architectural projects as everything from a concrete reinforcing agent to actual structural components.

Solar panels are currently still problematic, however there is huge industry spend on recycling R&D. Are you prepared to bet the farm that recycling tech won't run down the problem in less time than it would take to permit and construct a nuclear power plant given the 5 years it takes to permit one and 7-10 years it takes to construct?

[amarant]

If we're gonna talk of stuff in the pipeline, don't forget that nuclear Gen 3 reactors can actually reuse current waste and reduce it by up to 90%.

Currently those reactors only exist as experimental reactors, so it's fair discounting them. Same as it's fair to consider the waste generated by wind since the vast majority of blades end up in landfills. Even though on theory they needn't.

[igorkraw]

Difference one being that the wind turbines can start producing electricity and remove carbon emissions within months, while building a new reactor happens within years.

Difference two being that after those gen3 reactors are done you still have 10% of waste which can be used to wipe out cities and ecosystems, while after you are done recycling turbine blades you have slag and (if properly neutralised) chemically inert goo

[Schroedingersat]

Except those recycling technologies exist at scale and are prohibitively expensive.

This is where PWRs are after 60 years of maturing the technology and there are many low hanging fruit to be picked because there have not been large quantities of silicon panels for more than a few years.

Those Gen 3 reactors are still steam engines, and it's questionable whether steam engines can compete even if the heat source is free.

[uup]

Burying blades is worse than burying nuclear waste?

[notacop31337]

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but funnily enough, based on the current methods, yes.

That's not to say that the blades are more dangerous than the nuclear waste, just that the nuclear waste has many years of waste management engineering behind it, due to its danger. So there are defined processes of management that are well tested, well designed and well implemented.

Processes for blades currently are just bury them in landfill, which causes a bunch of unmitigated issues.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...

The idea that we "just bury" nuclear waste in the same way a dog buries a bone, is kinda funny, but very far from reality.

This also doesn't even touch on nuclear waste recycling, which is enormously beneficial.

[cycomanic]

So you're saying there is years engineering experience behind nuclear waste management but burying wind turbine blades is somehow completely uncharted territory? Tell me how many landfills/regular waste processing plants (or are wind turbines fundamentally different?) exist compared to existing long term nuclear wast storage facilities? Do you think no engineers are involved in designing landfills? If you think the waste from wind turbines are a problem, what about the carbon fibres from all the other things (cars, planes, bikes...) that produce orders of magnitude more waste.

Same goes for solar cells, the recycling process is similar (but easier) than most regular electronics and if you think nuclear power plants don't require heavy metals in their construction, boy have I some news for you about what is in your laptop/desktop.

[forgetfreeman]

You might want to update your research on the state of play of turbine blade disposal. There are several companies with active recycling programs in place and scaling as we speak that do everything from recycling the blades into perfectly reusable fiberglass and fuel materials to converting them into building materials.

As far as disposal of nuclear waste goes, yeah there's a ton of engineering involved because the stuff is just that big a pain in the ass to deal with for any length of time. Given half-lives typically range between 30 years and 5 times the length of recorded human history and that the rule of thumb for "safe" levels of emission are 7 half-lives we're talking about borderline geologic time frames before certain types of waste meet anyone's definition of safe. We could also spend a moment here reviewing all of the incidents in the last 40 years where source material has managed to jump a fence and ended up crapping up an entire village or neighborhood. All of that is to say that anyone peddling the notion that storage of radioactive waste is a solved problem either has an agenda and no ethics or is grotesquely uninformed.

[largepeepee]

All I am reading is just how influential the nuclear lobby groups up if they can make these stupid comparisons and get away with it.

[mypalmike]

I'll give you this: nuclear proponents are really dedicated to twisting the facts to fit the narrative. "Actually, yes, large fan blades in landfills are worse than nuclear waste." Good stuff.

It looks less silly when you acknowledge the problems while explaining how they are outweighed by the benefits.

[towaway15463]

Here’s an enlightening calculation to do: total volume of fuel used by nuclear power plants over 100 years providing enough energy for the world vs total volume of turbine blades doing the same. Feel free to be generous with your lifetime estimates for turbines, the results will still be shocking. You can also repeat the calculation for any other fuel source or power generation method and be equally impressed.

[Schroedingersat]

The silver and copper in silicon panels is extremely valuable for recycling and is economically positive and CdTe panels are obsolete. CdTe panels are recyclable, and you would be most welcome to help pass a mandate that they get recycled -- the added cost would be a rounding error on total system cost. The silicon is also recyclable at energy-positive rates (although gathering it is not economically positive at the moment).

Windmill blades are inert, downcyclable and smaller in mass per joule than low grade nuclear waste.

[robotresearcher]

Uranium-238 decays into lead. No longer radioactive, but still toxic.