[engineer_22]

That sounds like a reasonable investment I appreciate you walking me through it, thanks.

I'm in New York state, power here is still relatively cheap, $0.2/kwh delivered, low solar insolation angle and snow cover during highest demand months should strongly disincentize solar here. Some homeowners took the plunge when rebates and incentives were at their peak but those are starting to phase out.

We're still seeing a high rate of industrial solar being placed in ag zones. New York has some of the most fertile soil in the country, and supplies significant ag resources to the northeast. cSi cells are liable to leach lead into ag soil and watersheds, and solid waste disposal are looming problems without regulatory structure in New York. I'm afraid that in my home state we're going to see a net negative impact from solar.

The state is now pushing local municipalities to site grid scale BESS systems. This works because storage doesn't need to be close to demand, so they're being pushed into poor rural communities. The problem is local fire departments are undertrained and under equipped to deal with emergencies at BESS sites. It's inevitable we'll see an uncontained fire in upstate New York and the consequences will be difficult to manage.

This all may sound like gripe. But I'm genuinely curious about the economics of solar because at the end of the day it's the determining factor in the cost benefit analysis.

[horsawlarway]

Peer reviewed studies show leaching is not apparent (https://journals.ub.uni-koeln.de/index.php/JNRD/article/view...)

Modern production no longer includes lead (lead free solder).

For comparison... a single tank of leaded gasoline could hold more lead (1.1g/gallon) than a solar panel and unlike solar panels where the lead is insoluble and stable... burning the gasoline aerosolized the lead. So does burning coal (another significant source of lead contamination...).

Basically - I'd worry a hell of a lot more about lead pipes, lead paint, lead coal ash, and lead av gas before I worried about lead in panels. Lead solder is used in a wide variety of products still, but it's usually not considered a contamination risk.

---

Look - all forms of power generation have risks and downsides. Solar does outstandingly well compared to basically everything else we've got. It also happens to be cheaper to deploy, and it's still getting cheaper.

If I were rural and had to pick between an ESS system with LFP batteries and a coal plant... I'd pick the batteries EVERY DAMN TIME. Hell - I'd probably pick an LFP ESS system over a new golf course in terms of my own safety...

[engineer_22]

By the way I'm not a pilot, painter, or plumber, and there are zero coal fired power plants in New York. But I do eat food.

You might also eat food.

If so, you should consider what policies protect your food from contamination.

[horsawlarway]

Yes, today there are zero coal plants (although one that uses it as an alternative generation means still).

Funny that we've managed that over the last ~10 years... it's almost like some other power sources are magically replacing the harm that they'd do?

because there were plenty of them ~2010, I'm aware of at least 8, I'll list them

- Samuel A. Carlson Electric Generating Station (still uses coal as alternate fuel today)

- Fort Drum (converted from coal in 2013)

- Kodak Park (converted from coal in 2018)

- Westover 8 (coal, retired in 2011)

- Hickling Power Station (coal, retired in 2000, so I didn't count this as one of the 8)

- Cayuga 1, 2, IC1, and IC2 (coal, retired in 2019)

- Dunkirk Generating Station (coal, retired 2016)

- Huntley Generating Station (coal, retired 2016)

- Somerset (coal, retired 2020)

Almost like... installing alternative power means we can remove really, really nasty sources? And hey, NY isn't as strong a contender for solar as it is wind. But the economics of wind are a lot harder in more places, and solar is still gaining ground (47% decrease in installation costs measured in NY over the last decade).

And I'm aware a lot of this is a shift to natural gas, it's cheap and flexible, so we're bridging old plants to ng as we ramp up alternatives.

Maybe you should consider what it is you're looking for in policies instead?

[engineer_22]

Solar didn't replace the coal because solar isn't productive in winter when demand is highest.

>And I'm aware a lot of this is a shift to natural gas

Woops, there it is

>Maybe you should consider what it is you're looking for in policies instead?

I'm looking for truth in advertising. Solar has been adopted largely for political reasons, without duly recognizing the full cost.

Batteries are being pushed into NY now to shift solar power from day to night, and from sunny days to cloudy days, a cost not accounted in the original sales pitch. Liquid phase batteries containing toxic chemicals and track record of fires - being pushed into poor communities than can't afford to properly deal with the issues.

But even batteries won't fix the real problem - solar is seasonal, and it produces power during the summer, and in New York the summers are warm and pleasant. But in the winter, when it's cold and dark, solar power drops out, and there's nothing you can do to fix that.

Now the goal post is shifting again, and the search is on for a site to build a nuke plant along the shore of Lake Ontario - far from the strong NIMBY environmental groups of NYC

[engineer_22]

Frankly, the US EPA has established there is no safe level of lead exposure. Lead is bioaccumulative. To be placing lead containing materials in prime ag land should be considered seriously and with a sober mind.

I spoke to a colleague today who works closely with rural communities on emerging issues like industrial solar. He says he is recommending his clients to require baseline soil testing and annual soil testing to confirm hazardous materials are not being released to the environment. He said his clients have not seen elevated lead levels, but the concern is warranted. He also recommends 30 year decommissioning bonds be established prior to construction and $50,000 highway bonds for damage to road surface. Bottom line, serious people are requiring serious commitments from solar developers.

[horsawlarway]

Look - I agree with you that concern is appropriate.

I disagree strongly with you when you start making claims like

> cSi cells are liable to leach lead into ag soil and watersheds, and solid waste disposal are looming problems without regulatory structure in New York. I'm afraid that in my home state we're going to see a net negative impact from solar.

I think you're no longer making a real argument based on facts and data at this point, you're making an emotional appeal that supports your existing bias. You're taking any negative, exhaustively focusing on it with exclusion of facts about alternative power generation means, and then declaring solar bad.

But I think the blunt reality is that basically every other form of power generation we have has negatives that outweigh those of solar (often by fairly incredible margins when we look at generation costs alongside those negative externalities).

So if you really think that moving batteries once for installation is more harmful to road surfaces than a never ending stream of fuel tankers that weigh up near 100k lbs... or that solar is worse than fracking for natural gas, or pollution from coal, or the environmental destruction and waterway damage from hydro... Well, then we don't agree. Period.

And sadly for you... solar has the benefit of being much cheaper to install and maintain. So the economics mean it's coming.

[engineer_22]

Solar's not cheaper, it's subsidized by the government to appear cheaper.

The EROI on solar is abysmal. That's physics - not politics.