Recycling renewables : a price too high?

[@banksarenotyourfriends]

I see it's becoming more and more common to see legislation that makes Solar PV manufacturers pay to clean up their mess once their products are worn out, but fossil fuel providers aren't expected to foot the bill for removing any Carbon from the atmosphere - policies like that just act like subsidies for the fossil fuel industry if they're not applied across the board. Perhaps we should be adding the cost of Carbon Sequestration and Storage onto the cost of coal, oil and gas when we make side-by-side comparisons of the cost per TWh...

[@rogerreimer6787]

Fossil fuels get taxed no subsides or don't you know that and you need lots of fossil fuel to build and recycle solar and wind eg, 240,000 tons of C02 for a small 80 meter wind turbine.

[@loungelizard836]

@@rogerreimer6787 where are you getting your numbers Rodger? From Fox News?

[@macmcleod1188]

@@loungelizard836 they completely ignore the two trillion dollar cost of the Gulf War along with the 4,000 lives lost to keep the oil flowing. They also ignore the National Security costs of running warships to protect oil fields. And they ignore the special accounting rules for coal companies that are not available to any other business. And limits to liability when they have a disaster or make a lot of people sick. All of these are huge subsidies. However, it is still true that we need to get a leash on renewable Industries before they get as powerful and is abusive as the fossil fuel companies. We need to be careful and not cut them off at the knees but we also need to build in protection against abuse from the start because it's going to be slowly eroded and removed as renewable Companies Growing Power. On the flip side, what I'm saying is really a bit dumb and the bigger context that everything goes to hell in the near future. We blow through the 2 degree limit in 2026. There's no way we don't blow through the 3 degree limit by 2050. That means we are almost certainly going to exceed the 4-degree limit by 2100. And people don't realize what a catastrophe that really is yet. A few solar panels in landfills that are submerged under 50 feet of water file nation states with nuclear weapons go to war and literally billions of refugees flee uninhabitable bands around the equator are not going to make much of a difference. The carbon that they may have reduced will be much more significance than their presence in the landfill.

[@seriousmaran9414]

@@rogerreimer6787 oil companies get huge subsidies, some if them get more in subsidies than they pay in tax. Coal is similar but now getting past the point of uneconomic, which is why the American mines are closing down. There will be plenty of power from renewables to recycle the solar panels.

[@theloniousm4337]

@@seriousmaran9414 "oil companies get huge subsidies, some if them get more in subsidies than they pay in tax" LOL....if only saying it made it true, what a wonderful world it would be.

[@ReinhardSchuster]

When my Grandfather bought a PV Modul in 1980 guess he did not expact to work longer than he lives so 39 years later it still works...

[@nicosteffen364]

At the same efficency?

[@alan2102X]

@@nicosteffen364 No doubt NOT at the same efficiency, but so what? That story is typical. Solar panels last MUCH longer than originally anticipated. This video is scaremongering bullshit by a guy who has no suggested alternative.

[@nicosteffen364]

@@alan2102X you are right, i mean if it still works good enough, why replacing it? its the same with other things, car batteries last longer than expected, solar panels last longer, aso, its always the same game, take the worst case and make it look like thats the average to support conservative positions!

[@bishbosh7728]

Yup got some that are 35 years old and yeah it no longer provides 3.5 amps only 3 but still perfectly fine for my use. I have 10 of them on a little shed for lighting and a water pump.

[@AtlasReburdened]

Most of the first experimental silicon solar cells are still functional. They degrade down to 70-80% efficiency over the first 20-30 years and basically settle there, losing efficiency very slowly past that point. Basically if you need 100W from the panel forever, you should install: 100 / 0.7 = ~142 So 140-150W installed now should guarantee 100W provided until you're not around to care.

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

"You can't get yourself out of a problem when facing it with the same attitude that got you into it in the first place" Our economy is based on the recycling of money, not resources. When things were hard to build, we made it to last so we didn't have to make as many. That resulted in less resource use.

[@tylerdurden3722]

We vote with our money when we buy cheap crap that's borderline disposable.

[@garethbaus5471]

@Luke Monsensey the most recent example of a grid failing due to cold weather was primarily the result of gas plant failing in low temperatures and an inadequate supply of natural gas with solar and wind both losing a lower percentage of their generation capacity, so that definitely hasn't been the case historically. In addition to this wind energy costs roughly 1/3 what natural gas costs to produce and solar is roughly on par with the cost of natural gas per unit energy meaning that at best natura gas is currently on par with a mixed renewable grid when it comes to cost and reliability.

[@garethbaus5471]

@Luke Monsensey current wind energy prices are down to 2 cents per kwh even factoring in that they run at reduced capacity most of the time, and the cost of transmitting electricity is both inherent to all grid sources of electricity, and not a significant factor when each turbine averages out to supplying the equivalent amount of generation to that consumed by a few hundred or sometimes even a couple thousand homes. The entire energy sector including natural gas production is so heavily subsidized that the amount of government assistance wind farms receive doesn't exeed the amount natural gas stations typically receive enough to skew the data significantly. As for any natural gas being consumed to make wind turbines it is pretty safe to assume that the amount of natural gas needed to produce otherwise even your 15 cents/kwh home price would be a tad bit low.

[@garethbaus5471]

@Luke Monsensey have you looked at the profitability of extracting natural gas from deposited in the US? There are people who start natural company's sell the gas at a loss exaggerate the amount of gas they have and then promptly sell the company to investees before it goes bankrupt.

[@garethbaus5471]

@Luke Monsensey just looked up the cost of unsubsidized wind energy, it is between 2.5 and 5.4 cents per kwh depending on the particulars of the installation.

[@shaunhall1838]

The more we talk about these emerging technologies the better equipped we will be in using them. Your channel, along with others are adding to the discussion. Keep on keeping on! ❤️

[@goatlady7761]

Just purchased 20 csun 250w panels for $300 approximately 7 years old,they can be used off-grid.

[@juergensommer4709]

Locally or online ? Seems like a good deal.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Since most failures of PV panels are intermittent or broken connections between cells, we should mandate indicators be manufactured into them for where to drill to access each cell and each line of cells so that new interconnects can be installed and resealed with epoxies. These things should be repairable, since they actually last for a century or more at some substantial fraction of original power!! Better, have individual cells be backed and sealed individually so that they are replaceable.

[@garethbaus5471]

Good point.

[@AnalystPrime]

Good video. It always astonishes me that people keep claiming recycling is a problem when businesses are already waiting for the chance to make money off this untapped resource. Anyone who says that PV panels or windmills cannot be or won't be recycled is spreading lies, anyone who actually thinks that is too stupid to understand what they are saying. Unlike oil rigs and old coal plants, panels are not leaking anything harmful and the only potentially problematic material in windmills is the tiny amount of oil and antifreeze in it. The concrete foundations can be left in the ground just like people leave every other concrete foundation that is not bothering anyone, only lobbyists paid by fossil fuel industry would make it a special problem; if they actually are in the way of some other project, explosives and jackhammers won't bother any neighbors as windmills tend to be built miles from anyone's home. Attempts to make recycling a big problem are just smokescreen trying to hide the fact that fossil fuel industry has spent a century polluting the land without even trying to clean up their messes.

[@philreilly6959]

As with all of your videos, this was very thought-provoking. Another excellent watch. I watched it in early July and you said at the end that you were hoping to soon reach 10,000 subscribers. Congratulations on reaching 21,000 in a short time. It's testament to the excellent work you are doing! Phil

[@kokopelli314]

The 4th "R" is Repair

[@piotrd.4850]

Which is hardly possible, much less ALLOWED these days.

[@gill7087]

How difficult is it to recycle a current fossil fuel (coal) power plant at the end of its life. The concrete, steel, plastics, aluminium, composites and copper are quite difficult to recycle and many used asbestos in the lagging of pipes for steam production and other toxic materials as well as the contamination of surrounding areas of land through oxides of nitrogen, coal dust and water contamination via sulphides. Then there is nuclear which takes up to 25 years to decommission completely and find places for the spent fuel rods as well as the nuclear waste and irradiated infrastructure. By comparison, renewable energy infrastructure recycling is a walk in the park.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Gill. Thanks for your comments. Your points are all 100% valid. I would never try to pretend that fossil fuels are anything other than a terrible idea, and that nuclear also has some very obvious downsides. In fact I would hope that this would be a given, in the context of the channel. I really just wanted to raise the caveat that as we (quite rightly) accelerate towards renewable technologies as quickly as we possibly can so that we can end the scourge of fossil fuels, we must also be mindful of doing so in as responsible a way as possible. I appreciate your feedback though. Many thanks. All the best. Dave

[@Kiyarose3999]

gill7087 Absolutely! Anyway the point is we HAVE to stop using fossil fuels, and Nuclear is not an option. As Einstein said ‘’Splitting Atoms is a hell of a way to boil water’’

[@Poxenium]

Green energy generators are basically home appliances, as they contain mostly the same materials as vacuum cleaners, fridges, light sports cars...etc... We don't have to invent new technologies for their recycling.

[@leerman22]

Environmental Progress found that solar produces about 300 times as much waste in it's lifecycle than nuclear. environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis There's no real reason to decommission a operating nuclear plant other than market forces, containment isn't good enough, the reactor vessel has aged too much (neutron degradation) which can be replaced, or the state just wants it gone. Nuclear waste is a far more densified energy waste and it "can" be recycled just like we "can" recycle solar panels. Solar panel manufacturing produces waste byproducts that aren't IN the panel itself so storage of solar waste is an issue now, and that must be stored forever just like nuclear waste except not nearly as dense. Or you can be China and not care you are poisoning your own people, kinda what the video doesn't want us to do.

[@zolikoff]

These things don't really need recycling, as there is plenty of space for power plants. Things like solar are different - the real estate used by a solar farm is valuable space to rebuild a new solar farm. A nuclear power plant never even needs to be decommissioned. Once the reactor reaches end of life you might plop in a new reactor and continue operation. The steel used for the reactor vessel is quite straightforward to recycle. Concrete is less easy, you need to pour some new containment base most likely. But the volumes of material in question are much lower than with solar panels, so it's easily worth it if solar panel recycling is worth it.

[@NAUM1]

"Will we ever learn?" That was the best. Was hoping the wood turbines developed in Europe would be covered.

[@gregorybaker2860]

Funny thing about those 30 years, Those panels will still produce 70% of their rate capacity at that point. At 50 Year 50% of their capacity. They don't just stop working.

[@tcmtech7515]

Theoretically yes, but in reality life loves to beat things up and destroy them long before that 30 - 50 year lifespan has gotten close to being fulfilled. Also add in the hard reality that the vast majority of said items are built as cheaply as possible, not as durable as possible. I used to be into home wind power big time and went through literally dozens of blade sets rated for 20 year service lives that didn't make it more than a few months in real world applications due to design flaws, manufacturing defects or nature just kicking the shit out them in some way they could not survive. Sad fact of reality was my "energy saving ' wind power cost me vastly more than off the gird power ever did by a huge multi magnitude of order on the cost per KWH measurement.

[@John-gm8ty]

@@tcmtech7515 that was simply lack of thought though. I've not seen decent quality solar panels not last a year.

[@tcmtech7515]

@@John-gm8ty Where did I say anything about solar panels not lasting a year? What I was saying about solar panels is that thinking they will still be functional 30 - 50 years out is unrealistic. The typical materials they are built from are not long service life by any means and never have been. Especially when placed outdoors and exposed to nature in all forms. Heavy industrial equipment made of solid steel and aluminum has a hard time making it 30 years with out major service and solar panels are lightweight aluminum and or plastic and glass plus far more fragile semi conductor materials that make up the actual parts that do the work of making electricity. Materials all well known to not last indefinitely outdoors.

[@jimhood1202]

@@tcmtech7515 hi there. Just thought I'd chip in with my two cents. I bought solar panels for my boat back in the mid 90s. They were super expensive (many times current prices). They have spent their entire life in pretty harsh conditions for the most part at sea under tropical skies. They still work, yes not as efficient as they were but show no signs of falling apart. I believe the question will be at what age does it make more sense to replace the slowly declining panel with a new one. Its likely to be when the footprint it occupies becomes valuable enough. Look to Japan for the lead in this?

[@tcmtech7515]

@@jimhood1202 Yes you are right. high end well made panels have a long service life. But that's not what the vast majority of people will install. Also when scaled up to the volumes needed to power a nation the cost per capita to the population becomes impossible to handle in any realistic timelines. Poor example but. Years ago a buddy of mine bought very nice low mileage pickup then to make it easy to pay for got the lowest payment longest payback time loan he could get. 10 years into his crazy 15 year loan the pickup was worn out and still not remotely close to being paid off. Realistic time to point of payback on a investment VS realistic service life is huge issue in this topic and too many refuse to do the math using realistic real world numbers.

[@anydaynow01]

I like how the plastics are just "evaporated" in the recycling program, language suggesting they just magically disappear. I'm all about recycling and PVs but they need a better solution than just incinerating the plastics and releasing chemical plumes into the atmosphere.

[@antaresmc4407]

They are thermostable plastics there isnt much else to do. Im more worried about the small amount of highly toxic dopants thst are not currently recyclable

[@fullhour856]

The best way to watch those videos on x1.5 speed. Thank you for bringing pros and cons. Love your channel

[@seriousmaran9414]

With turbines the older ones might be removed but there will probably be a replacement turbine. That will be bigger but on the same location allowing the base to be reused.

[@tomkelly8827]

Well perhaps a bigger turbine could be placed on the foundation after it is made bigger to support a larger turbine

[@totokfr]

Don't worry . End of life solar panels will go completely unnoticed under the tons of plastic straws , wet wipes and plastic bottled to sell us luxury water .

[@mikepepler]

The thing that gets me is that 'recycling' rarely reuses a product at the same grade. In this video, the most obvious example was the wind turbine blades that are shredded and used in cement - not to make more turbine blades. Likewise the cement will be used in a building, and when that's demolished it could be reused as the foundations of a road. After that, it's probably not going to be used again. So there's no complete 'circular economy', and if we keep having economic growth then resource use will climb indefinitely.

[@aaronkendziorek7719]

The circular recycling symbol is the most circular aspect of recycling.

[@bclev1953]

Endless growth in a closed system doesn't work in any case but regardless of whether solar panels or wind turbines are recycled they consume nothing but sunshine and wind and produce no waste or greenhouse gases other than that made in their production an eventual disposal. That seems like a BIG win to me.

[@mikepepler]

@@bclev1953 sure, I like renewable energy too. I just don't like it when people think endless economic growth can continue if we use renewable energy and a (magical) circular economy.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Mike. Yeah, it's annoying isn't it. But it is at least a start. And I imagine that there'll be more innovative ways to recycle these things as the entrepreneurs get stuck into the industry and dollar signs start flashing before their eyes. I think we have to accept that as long as we have a market driven economy (which may change, of course, if the worst case climate scenarios do actually come to pass) then climate solutions will necessarily be rooted in prising money out of rich people's hands to do good things instead of the shitty things that many of them currently do today. And of course we need governments to force through that agenda too.

[@mikepepler]

@@JustHaveaThink that's definitely a valid viewpoint, though I think the alternative - that if we keep a completely free market economy that will in fact bring the worst case scenario about - is possibly more likely. Either way, pressure on government to face up to the situation and tell the truth is a good start, and maybe Extinction Rebellion will make some progress on this point mid April...

[@geraldliesmaki9150]

The problem with traditional solar and wind farms is the clutter and immense space the occupy.

[@xyzsame4081]

Solar will be the main energy source of the future - and it is called "roofs" "facades" and "deserts" installation for a reason. As for windmills - I see the problems - maybe the kites turn out to be a solution. (see Enerkite).

[@GETJUSTICE4U]

I have a 50 year old light powered calculator and it still works as well as the first day I used it.

[@drescherjm]

I believe the issue is that if you had such calculator sitting on your hot roof facing the sun it would not work for 50 years.

[@GETJUSTICE4U]

@@drescherjm I used it indoors all of the time. I never had a roof top office nor would I want one in the UK. Colorado perhaps the UK, not an appealing idea.

[@icewind117]

Thanks for the previous reply. Don't know how I missed this video.

[@MTB_Rider_96]

Great video - Thanks! Now we need to compare the End Of Life disposal and recycling of the massive equipment need to bring fossil fuels to market. The fossil fuel supply chain includes Massive trucks, ships and trains. The amount of rubber alone is staggering.

[@sunspot42]

Don’t forget the refineries, storage facilities, pipelines, gas stations and on and on and on. All of that stuff wears out and has to be replaced.

[@zodiacfml]

Yes and No. No issues with recycling but collection. They have to be properly collected for recycling to be viable. My solution is for cities to create warehouses for used solar panels. They will be stored there until transferred to a recycling facility, in another city or country

[@meerkathero6032]

Take back stations with an own warehouse are not required. Usually we prepare one pallet (around 30 PV modules) full with defect PV modules and send the pallet to the recycling facility or we wait until we have 20 pallets full with defect PV modules and fill a truck with it. The second option requires an area sized 3 parking spaces, outside (we never considered to store it inside a warehouse). Every PV module wholesaler can do that.

[@TomHarrisonJr]

Great reporting on this topic. I have been trying to think of the various ways that we'll find the shortcomings of PV/Wind over time, not because I want to sow fear or doubt -- whatever we do will be better than business-as-usual -- and recycling is an interesting angle. It would be very nice if we could modularize/standardize these installations, as this could allow us to take a solar field, for example, and replace just the panels, or turbines and replace just the blades, or gears, for example. I wonder if any research has been done on how a 10x or 100x increase in these renewables will impact ecology, for example interferences with surface winds, or reduction of earth heating from solar.

[@Billblom]

Here, the university of NC (and some Chinese scientists) studied what happens when a solar farm gets abandoned... Typically at the end of governmental subsidies, the companies vanish, and acres of solar panels are left for hail and random ballistic items punch holes in the solar panels... The problem: Heavy metals are leached out of the panels, and contaminate the land in a major way.. The farm that leased out the acreage is left contaminated with lead, zinc, and an assortment of other heavys like Arsenic. The land is not usable for growing crops even after the panels are removed.... Not good...

[@philtimmons722]

This is nonsense. There are no "Heavy Metals" in Silicon Solar PV. And most hail just bounces off panels, as the angle of mounting tends to deflect an impact. Solar PV is typically much stronger and hail resistant than typical roofing. The typical production Service Life is beyond the 25 year standard commercial warranty -- so they are not abandoned. They even have profitable recycle value. Where do you make this stuff from?

[@Billblom]

@@philtimmons722 The metals used were measured in the soil after the solar farm was abandoned... the farm next door has NONE of those heavy metals... The only difference was the presence of several acres of solar panels. The solution is of course, IMMEDIATE decommissioning the moment that the solar array is decommissioned... and recycling of the materials. Unfortunately, the only way to have that happen is to demand a large bond up front...and the ONLY reason that the various small companies are getting into solar is for the state and federal subsidies that pay for the entire farm... (There is a 2 year old farm near me that has output purchased by Duke Progress.... They are concerned that the farm might get abandoned at the end of next year because the huge subsidies are going away at that point... And simply throwing up acres of purse silicon without the dopants won't get you any power... I trust the university here.. they are working to get the bonds required, but the power companies and solar farm companies are not interested...Raising prices would not be good for business. Meanwhile, the state has decided to ban wind turbines within 100 miles of the shore line.. Reason: military jets and 300-400-500 foot tall structures in the middle of the Atlantic don't mix well, and the group at the shore don't want them because of noise and visual pollution.

[@philtimmons722]

@@Billblom -- where specifically is this "abandoned" Solar Farm? btw, the ITC (investment tax credits) for Solar are based on the Construction Costs -- not operations. So the money is not like a Cash Flow thing that might "go away." Silicon Solar PV dopants are typically from the "lite" side of things -- from the Periodic Table -- Group V (e.g. Phosphorous) Group III (e.g. Boron) -- here is a fairly simple site about it, if you would care to learn? www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/pn-junctions/doping

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Billblom. I am taking it that you are referring to China specifically? If so, then you've picked a country that has more contradictions in it's economic, political, social, and energy policies than perhaps anywhere else in the world. The issues you mention above are highly sensationalist and do not afflict other major areas of the planet in a significant way. China will improve as time goes on. It will wean itself eventually off the filthy coal it burns today, but the world must be vigilant and ensure that once China becomes the world's largest economy and leading superpower, it is not allowed to ride roughshod over it's own citizens in the way that it does today, or over other nations with overbearing economic bullying, which I fear may be the possibility.

[@GeoFry3]

Glass, aluminum, solder, wire, silicone solar cells, silicone adhesive. Similar things for wind turbines. No more difficult than say a car or aircraft which are readily recycled. Easy peasy.

[@philtimmons722]

of course. This "problem" is hyped nonsense.

[@sheilachambers6671]

It's only "easy" when you have boat loads of CHEAP HIGH DENSITY ENERGY, it's very difficult if all you have is low density, irratic, weak energy which is what "renewables" produce. Solar panels are great for small applications like radios, watches, some energy efficent homes in favorable locations, lighting for remote areas etc but they cannot support our high energy, high consumption civilization & even more important, they produce NONE of the essential raw materials we now need. So it's back to the "caves" but with a solar panels providing some light inside the darker recesses of the cave when the suns out, but without batteries, they won't be of much use at night.

[@GeoFry3]

@@sheilachambers6671 you are correct we do need dense energy storage. Solar and wind are more than adequate to pump water when they are available and can easily store massive amounts behind damn to be used in base load high power applications. As far as small scale it is trivial to use solar to power a modern American home. Currently it is not ideal to retrofit old home with it, but silly not to include it on new construction.

[@sheilachambers6671]

@@GeoFry3 That would depend upon where that new home is located, there are areas where it would just be an added expense to have solar panels on roofs that get little if any sunlight. Homes in areas within a forest, shaded by taller buildings, in areas that get too much fog, rain or snow & solar panels add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of that home. Areas of the SW, the far south west, central states & some eastern states can benefit from solar. Where I live, we get too much rain & fog for solar to be useful, we get 80" of rain here & when it's not pouring rain, it's foggy. This is also a low income area & we have no solar panel dealers anywhere near us. Solar just cannot solve our energy problems or our upcoming shortage of liquid, high density energy fuels for agriculture, long haul trucks or ships. As I have mentioned before, all these so called "renewables" wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for energy dense fossil RESOURCES & energy dense fossil fuels. Our agricultural system is also tightly tied to OIL as are the genetically modified food plants now dependent upon chemical fertilizers produced from natural gas & oil. We cannot replace DECLINING RESOURCES with a RESOURCE DEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY! I think we are being mislead on the capabilities of "renewables" to keep BAU functioning because they can't. wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/ www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable/ sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/solar-devices-industrial-infrastructure.html energyskeptic.com/2016/hall-and-lambert-eroi-of-different-fuels-and-the-implications-for-society/ dgrnewsservice.org/civilization/ecocide/extraction/kim-hill-whats-wrong-with-renewable-energy/ www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/330446/ten-reasons-intermittent-renewables-wind-and-solar-pv-are-problem oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germanys-Renewable-Energy-Problems-Serve-as-a-Warning-to-the-UK.html www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/335806/germany-shows-renewable-energy-has-failed-and-other-strange-ideas cleantechnica.com/2018/11/22/peak-oil-drastic-oil-shortages-imminent-says-iea/ www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/goldman-sachs-there-will-be-an-oil-shortage-in-the-2020s.html As Dr James Hansen said: "Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." bravenewclimate.com/201...

[@shantaloft]

of origThe 30 year life spans is 80% of original capacity not truly “end of life”. They should passed down to less demanding installs.. Here in Canada we had an Ontario based company recycling panels. They no support from pro oil governments. They got support in Germany and they are now the

[@phishfearme2]

for windmills, I didn't her anything about extending the design life of the blades - either during initial desgn/construction or towards the end of design life. nuc plants - much more complex - have all extended life well past the 40 year design life of the major components

[@anydaynow01]

And the used fuel and replaced components are so few because of the power density they are stored on sight.

[@bobr.6312]

I live in Central Illinois. We have many wind farms here...enough to produce more power than we use...So it goes to the grid...and is used in other places. There was a big dust up about the blades and how they are impossible to do anything with ....But, that was 'yesterday'...today is different...They are now able to use the blades again....Let the market settle and things will work out...Solar panels, I can't say, but I imagine soon the same thing will happen...a use or reuse will be found.

[@yoavshati]

Just a smal thing: in Dutch, "oo" like in the word "hoop" or "Vanderhoof" is pronounced like the "o" in the English word "hope"

[@waltermcphee3787]

I cannot see how PV panel recycling can be profitable when there is difficulty recycling waste we produce now.

[@AleksandrVasilenko93]

“15 Billion for raw materials recovered by 2050” That seems like a small figure to me. How much does a facility like that cost to make? How much energy does it use to run? What is the ROI? Are the materials price competitive compared to the non-recycled materials?

[@Alexander-og3fj]

Wait and see if Veolia is successful

[@timsyoutubechannel9798]

Interesting video. Even though 30 years seems a reasonable lifespan for wind turbines and solar panels, it would be interesting to see what the scope might be for refurbishment. For example, it seems unlikely that the gearbox, blades and tower of a wind turbine will wear out at the same time. Likewise, the casing of a solar panel may be more likely to wear than the PV panel or vice verse. Also, it's likely that future designs of these items will have better lifespans and the rate of performance improvement will decrease. In other words, they'll last longer and be less likely to be superceded.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Tim Tam. Yes I agree 100%. I did think about this avenue of development but I couldn't find any decent info to suggest it's being looked at with any conviction just at the moment. I'm sure that, now the light bulb appears to have come on above the heads of the renewable energy hardware manufacturers, they will start thinking about much more intelligent and sustainable / re-useable materials and elements in the initial fabrication of these units. Here's hoping, anyway! Thanks for your support. All the best. Dave

[@garethbaus5471]

Since for solar panels that 25 to 30 year number is for a predicted loss of only roughly 20% of a panels capacity there is nothing to say we can't continue to use them for 40 to 60 years especially since the cost to keep using them as almost non existent as long as they still produce some power.

[@refugeg271]

There are loads of uses for old panels. Sun screens for hot sun, shutters over windows etc.

[@aaronbounds1336]

I bet the costs of end-of-life for solar and wind pale in comparison to nuclear, which can't be interacted directly with for thousands of generations after it's useful life. Great job humanity.

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

Thanks for this. Very good article though the article misses out the reuse of wind turbine foundations, the grid connections that are already in place and the salvage value of the neodimium and other components. As said, below, only heard of fibreglass being recycled into cement. The Washington State proposal is a good one but they should look at the recyclability of duff panels as there will almost certainly be some that fail quality testing and assurance (this would seem a fairly obvious strategy and it is not clear form the article). That would better inform whether costs need to be raised and prevent the imposition of unnecessary costs on the industry. Companies that are forward looking should put pressure on those that are not pulling their weight and inform best practice and higher legislative standards. Once again thanks for a thought provoking article.

[@flyby2300]

What are duff panels?

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

@@flyby2300 'duff', ie not working, fails testing / reworking.

[@xyzsame4081]

I do not think neodym is used anymore for windmills. too expensive, most producers did not use it anymore (or never have used it). And the was years ago.

[@robinhood4640]

I would have thought that solar panels could be used as a building material without the need for breaking them down. They have constant dimensions and are still resistant. There are many applications that could use them as they are.

[@realeyesrealizereallies6828]

The big problem, now, for renewable energy, is the destruction to the environment caused by mining the resources needed to build solar, etc....And it is a massive problem....It's not just the climate catastrophe, it's also the ecological destruction and the biological annihilation....Those three issues are combining and feeding off each other to produce a "perfect storm", that is destroying the systems that support life on earth, where it will end is uncertain, but we will end up, exactly where we are headed...."Societies collective madness, is what we call sanity".--RD Laing

[@JustHaveaThink]

Always worth hearing your point of view sir. And it's one that should not be taken lightly. My understanding from researching this particular topic is that there is a very keen awareness of the raw materials problem and great deal of R&D is going on to find alternative materials that might be less harmful and impactful at extraction. Whether they succeed or not is, of course, yet to be seen. All the best . Dave

[@ricksmall5240]

The main material for solar cells is silicon, silicon is acquired from silicon dioxide (quartz), the earth's crust is composed of 90% silicate minerals. Gold miners throw quartz away. The doping materials to create n/p status are combinations of copper/ phosphorus. Then glass which again is quartz based, aluminum for framing. The more solar is applied to independent systems, alot of material will be saved. Ie cottage owners using photovoltaic systems will displace the resources for gas powered generators Solarized vehicles will replace the resources for personal gas guzzling machines and the massive infrastructure that supports them.

[@realeyesrealizereallies6828]

@@ricksmall5240 I'm referring to rare earth metals, which are used in the electronics...And the damage to the environment from the mining process..I'm well aware of every aspect of solar, since I install it for a living (part time)...Anything that enables a consumer based throw away society, is a death sentence for the planet's life support systems.Fifty percent of emissions from vehicles, occur in the manufacturing process. Mass production- mass consumption equals mass destruction. I wish I was still in the phase of enlightenment, where there existed answers to these issues...There are no answers, other than preparing, for life after collapse...if your not there yet, mark my words, you will be....

[@philtimmons722]

@@realeyesrealizereallies6828 -- There are ZERO "Rare Earth(s)" required for Silicon Solar PV. Why create make-believe problems?

[@realeyesrealizereallies6828]

@@philtimmons722 Are you hjgh....just google rare earth metals, solar panels, electronics and batteries......Don't take anyone's word for anything.....

[@tomkelly8827]

Yes, it is good to think about our waste and how to manage it well so that we will require less new material to be removed from the earth. I think it is to compare apples to apples though. So for nuclear, what will happen with the waste from the mining, refining, reactors, spent fuel, contaminated grounds, etc. For oil, what happens with old wells, old pipelines, tankers, refineries, fuel trucks, gas stations, aircrafts, ships, trucks, heavy machinery, human moving vehicles, etc. For natural gas, propane, hydro, geothermal and other energy production facilities, what will happen to the waste from those endeavours. Recycling seems like a good call to me. reducing too.

[@chuckkottke]

I think the solar panels could last 60 years or more if more attention is paid to more durable coatings, better connections as the solder joints and wires fail from movement via heat/cold cycling, according to the sellers at the energy fair. Maybe Rolls Royce could provide some insights for lasting durability?

[@HebrewHammerArmsCo]

They all go to landfill in contaminated area . The cost of recycling is greater then the purchase price. hence we find thousands of panels dumped in bush land

[@aaronvallejo8220]

We need to have a "cradle to cradle" circular economy. SunPower is the only solar PV panel manufacturer that is currently "cradle to cradle" certified. As we design our technology to be cradle to cradle they can flow into the nutrients cycles without waste and pollution.

[@Aaron16211]

Good video. Great topic. You are correct manufacturer's can be designing clean chemistry, clean disassembly and remanufacturing into all of their industrial products including renewables. This is called the "circular economy" where waste equals food. Cradle to Cradle Certification provides the commercial framework for this "design for disassembly" production transition from linear to circular. SunPower solar PV manufacturer is already Cradle to Cradle Certified with clean chemistry, clean disassembly and remanufacturing. Good video. Thank you.

[@paulwoods1950]

Hi Dave I'd like to comment about recycling things like solar panels. My answer is to re purpose, my entire farm is a run off second hand 8 year old panels I still have over 10 kwh in storage in my shed with 5kw on the roof, they have lost no measurable performance, mostly due to their former life being used at trade shows for demonstration purposes. When thes panels start to noticeably degrade they will be used as shed class and animal shelters. I envisage soon I will use them as sun shades for garden beds lower evaporation rates in soil. No need to smash and burn, these items are incredibly robust structural components if cleverly assembled, Paul Woods Australian sustainability professional and practitioner.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Paul. Many thanks for your great feedback. You are an example to all of us, and in fact your ideas may well prompt a follow up video to highlight these constructive counter points. I realised after I made this video - which was really meant to be a bit of reminder to our society to take care with the consideration of the after life of all these new green technologies - that it actually came across more like a criticism of the technology and a suggestion that we should not be going down the sustainable technology road at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a staunch advocate for renewables and their role in weaning us off fossil fuels for good. I'm very grateful for your contribution and I will make a note of the solutions you have come up with in your own circumstances. All the best. Dave

[@paulwoods1950]

@@JustHaveaThink I will try to put together a short video, if you think it would add value , Paul

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Paul. That'd be amazing if you get the chance. I'd love to use real world examples in the follow up :-)

[@murraygrigg]

You also have the issue of replacing the retired wind and solar after 20-30 years. This is replacing about 2.5 pct of the world power assuming this is 75 pct of solar abs wind. Since batteries only last 5-10 years we also have disposal of batteries to deal with. Battery may evolve from the lithium battery and we may have hydrogen and fuel cells but regardless batteries of any type are not forever!

[@ronaldronald8819]

Thank you so much :) I found this to be a positive report in the overall depressing way in which climate change challenge is being addressed. Things seem to be gaining momentum. Public opinion is changing. To deny climate change is more and more being seen as being equal to saying i am an irresponsible idiot.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Ronald. Thanks for your feedback. I think you're right. There really is no significant debate anywhere in the world, with the notable exceptions of the administrations in the USA, Russia and Australia. There is definitely a growing momentum and change in public opinion. If technology can be allowed to move quickly enough then we may just mitigate some of the worst impacts that our changing climate is already delivering on a daily basis. But our leaders need to get on with it!

[@kevinroberts781]

It wouldn't surprise me if most solar panels still work well enough to use up to or after 100 years from the born date. We are just getting started with solar really. I'm working on devices that can be direct wire to solar, no charge controller no batteries, and do the same things that your grid power does. No need for the extra cost of all the extra hardware. Solar will save us tons when it comes to trash.

[@davidtaylor7174]

What do you use at night?

[@kevinroberts781]

@@davidtaylor7174 Depending on the application, nothing. A few things need some type of battery but what we are working on will cut your battery needs by 80-85%.

[@richardowens9061]

Remember, solar panels are not the only way to harvest solar energy! Reflective parabolic solar collection systems that use long metal reflective troughs to focus solar energy on black metal tubes through which a high temperature coolant is circulated. The heat harvested by the fluid is then used to vaporize water to run steam turbines. There is virtually no waste in this process and 100% of the materials used to implement the system are recyclable! The reflective troughs need only be kept clean to maintain efficiency. The steam generated in the system can also be condensed back into water to be used over and over, thereby dramatically reducing water usage!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Richard. Many thanks for your comment. I like the sound of that system!! I suspect it may well make its way into a programme in the not too distant future. Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

[@ramblerandy2397]

A really clear and illuminating video. Excellent, as always. I have to admit that I did some basic reading on recycling of solar and wind power components a few years back, and satisfied myself that the problem in Europe was being properly sorted out. And promptly stopped thinking about it. Therefore, the specific thought didn't strike me that this wouldn't be the case elsewhere in the world. Let's just say that, to my mind, there are specific places where 'doing the right thing by the environment' is not high on the list of priorities. So I either have my concerns confirmed or end up surprised. As to recycling it is the case, more often than not, that the recycled material ends up down the grade slope. And anyway, at the moment it is still often simply cheaper to mine for new. That won't always be the case. I didn't know about turbine blade recycling, but a quick thought suggested that they might be ground up to an appropriate size and used as a filler material. So it proved. That end material could be continually used and reused as and when there is more requirement for base material [which is always!]. Personally, I think Wind and Solar power both have bright futures. Tidal power needs to come on a pace, [worth a video, Dave?] as there is huge untapped resource there and it largely lives in the shadow of other renewables. I don't include fragile estuaries in that thought. But if we wanted to slow a specific case of sea cliff erosion, for example, we could place a bobbing duckbill type and turbine barrier a short distance off a vulnerable coastline to suck up some of the destructive power. It's a recurring thought I get. But how much does one interfere with the coastal environment? Even old sea defences often shift the problems elsewhere. OK, I've rambled enough. Thanks for the thought provoke! 👍

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Andy. Great feedback. Much appreciated as always. You're dead right about tidal power - it's on my draft schedule list for about 7 weeks from now (although fast changing world events do tend to bugger up my best laid program schedule plans on a regular basis!) - I will definitely be looking closely at tidal soon though - I've seen quite a few very encouraging articles about how much more advanced the tidal turbine technologies have become in recent years, and of course the energy in our waterways and oceans is immense. Have a great week. All the best. Dave

[@factnotfiction5915]

In several threads, people are asking why you just 'cannot refurbish the turbine' so I am making a general post on that issue. Of course, the turbines and panels receive regular maintenance, and stuff that can be repaired is. However, think about the wind turbine overall: The tower seems imposing, but after several years it has undergone * constant vibration from being whipped back and forth by the wind * 1000s of thaw-freeze cycles * foundation settling It is not a wonder that the tower concrete may be cracked and weakened - as a WindCo exec, are you going to risk putting 10s of millions of USD (a new nacelle and blades) on top of a tower with maybe just 0-5-10 years more life? The nacelle is damaged - you decide to replace the nacelle, but will you put the old, pitted, heavier, less-aerodynamic blades back on, knowing they will need more frequent maintenance? Or, (assuming your vendor still makes them) will you replace the 3 blades with newer, clean, lighter, and design-spec-aerodynamic blades? (again, millions of USD per nacelle replacement). A single blade is damaged - you *cannot replace the 1 blade* - because the new one will probably be lighter (vendor improving construction techniques), but it most certainly will be smooth and design-spec-aerodynamic (vs the 2 other old, pitted and less-aerodynamic blades) - and so the turbine will be unbalanced, leading to higher stresses and lower lifetimes - *so you must replace all 3 blades*. (again, millions of USD per replacements). Can you reuse the 2 extra blades? - You need to spend millions of USD to store them and catalog them (turbine model, mass, degree of damage). You then find a match where one of these extra blades might be sent as a replacement to a turbine. However, as a WindCo exec are you going to send a full crew, full equipment, full scheduling rotation to put on a blade which still will not quite match and knowing they will need more frequent maintenance? Or, with the same crew, equipment, and a little bit of extra time you can replace all 3 blades with a brand new set which reduces your total maintenance and raises your energy output? So instead of storing and cataloging the older blades you dump them. If these items cannot be maintained on-site they are fully replaced, their useful life (as part of a wind turbine) is over.

[@unclepete100]

Looking forward to your video on Nuclear power

[@9squares]

Me too. Containing nuclear plants to the extent that they don't melt down once the infrastructure can no longer keep them cool should be of upmost priority and far outweighs the issue of obsolete solar panels. It may be the single largest responsibility we could take for the planet before our untimely departure.

[@lawrencetaylor4101]

@@9squares Correct, there are 1500 nuclear plants with about 0 with a good plan for decommissioning, especially a rapid decommission in an emergency.

[@lawrencetaylor4101]

@@9squares Correct, there are 1500 nuclear plants with about 0 with a good plan for decommissioning, especially a rapid decommission in an emergency.

[@macmcleod1188]

@@lawrencetaylor4101 Oh they have a plan. Take the money and walk away leaving surcharges on the consumers who weren't born when the plant was built. When private insurance companies will insure decomissioning costs, then we'll know they are closer to reality. And that doesn't even *touch* the nearly 1 Trillion dollars for Fukishima (and there is one plant in Florida which has the same problem-- it's backup diesel generators are 7 feet lower than observed hurricane storm surges. But it's "too expensive" to raise them 10 feet.) Most of that trillion dollar cost is now being backstopped by the government (i.e. the citizens) which means reduced benefits, military, roads, etc.

[@billcawthorne3114]

I am a solar PV user in the US. Depend on it all year for my total electric house with pool, Nissan Leaf with two ICE vehicles, and air conditioning. I am curious as to what parts are not rebuildable on a large wind turbine? Certainly the foundation, tower structure, generator, prop hub, and a few smaller parts can be refurbished. Perhaps there is room for a business model creating tens of thousands of jobs!

[@hitreset0291]

And what does the end of life of a coal-fired power station look like??? How much of them are recycled?

[@dnboro]

Well the coal is recycled back to coal... but this might take a few million years or more.

[@GreatUncleBuck]

If the original manufacturer responsible to dispose according law goes bust who will be to blame for the cleanup of their products?

[@ChrisBrengel]

Ever since I watched "Panet of the Humans" by Michael Moore I've wondered about this. There is a lot of problems with this movie, but it was useful for me to have this issue pointed out.

[@treefarm3288]

I retired some old solar panels recently, due to roof space and efficiency. Upon evaluation I found although one, after 27 years was only producing 45% of the nominal rate, another was still putting out 75%. I consider that good, as the original guarantee was only for ten years. I will not be dumping them, but will find a lower level use.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hey Treefarm. Thanks for your comments. That is indeed extremely encouraging. I'm quite sure the figures I was referencing were very much 'worst case scenario'. A healthy second life market for renewables would be a far better solution for our future :-) All the best. Dave

[@philtimmons722]

@@JustHaveaThink -- the New Commercial warranties for PERC (top of the line, internally reflective Silicon) are up to about 90% production at 25 years.

[@moriscnam]

This video is very valuable and informative. The idea of recycling solar panels could be a good start for some entrepreneurs. Good job.

[@h2opower]

Good topic as looking forwards is what we must start getting use to doing as we go about cleaning up the messes we have made around the world.

[@fredflintstoner596]

Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view!" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"

[@Luis-vx1tx]

The same is true for smartphones, the Rare Earth Minerals in smartphone waste is valued in the billions

[@bakaba9477]

This is beautiful. Thanks for making the video :)

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Dan. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave :-)

[@ravener96]

Another benefit of modern nuclear like MSRs. Its super compact, and whats there is mostly recyclable.

[@ariesred777]

No one talks about the loss of wildlife in this case birds.A couple thousand wind turbines ramped up hundreds of thousands of turbines reaching the sky.And battery waste from solar power.We need fossil fuel to manufacture batteries.Same as going vegan.If everyone went vegan how do we supply clean organic greens for everyone on the planet with climate change increasing temps.Water scarcity,rivers have become toxic and many disappeared.What happens to all the cows and farming animals virtually "overnight"?There is a growing addiction to meat in industrial economies including China.

[@xyzsame4081]

Solar will be the main energy source anyway (availability). But have a look at kites (Enerkite), if that works out it would be a small-is-beautiful wind based energy production that works everywhere (with more caple / metal rope you get the precious height where the winds are constant and stronger). No need to plaster windmills on every hill.

[@meurtri9312]

all companies should be made responsible for the recyclability of their products. pollution has cost and they should be made to pay it.

[@destinbenade7055]

It looks like we will never learn. What does the vast land clearing for solar do to earth warming???

[@pauldjerassi620]

Surely the towers and the blades can be reused with the generator part being re engineered ,a light house lasts for 100s of years set in very hostile waters ,so whats going wrong with to days thinking,i have a 45ft TV aerial that's up since the late 70s and its still up .

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Paul. I must admit I agree with you. I was hoping to have a bit of a web chat with Franceso Micelli (the Civil Engineer that I mentioned in the video) to ask him these extra questions. He was happy to contribute but we just didn't quite manage to hook it up in time for the final edit - I'm hoping to get that discussion in the can in the next few weeks and I'll find a way to put it into a future video.

[@pauldjerassi620]

Thank you your videos are always thought provoking ,and hopefully will make industry sit up and take notice.

[@goddardwb]

Proper planning incorporates orderly de-commissioning of any energy field operation. The cost is proportioned into the costs of operation. see CA geothermal permitting as an example.

[@carlojones8610]

This channel well informed and conventional wisdom abounds. But technology lock in biases is strong. These big tech will never produce a system where they don't get to keep the people paying them. The tech that frees house and businesses from the grid is simple self powered generators that use local human power to reload springs. and pulley to make electricity. Pedal a few times to watch television, cook and keep the fridge cold.

[@harrison298]

So to summarize: 1. Solar PV: Veolia in France is already paving the way for large scale PV recycling, with a proven path to recover ~90% of the materials. Anything that isn't reusable is non-toxic and can be used as raw material for whatever you see fit. 2. Wind turbines: It's just a bunch of steel, concrete, and glass fiber. As stated in the video, the only thing worth worrying about in the slightest is the glass fiber, and glass-fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) has been around since the 60's. Concrete combined with high-strength composites is probably going to be one of the most important modern materials for building huge buildings, superhighways, etc. I don't think demand for the stuff will be a problem. To me, this doesn't seem to be an issue. I don't think we need to start slowing down growth of renewables for ANY reason, especially not for a fear that we might not be able to think of a use for the raw materials. The bigger problem right now is that everyone gets complacent when they see that another couple gigawatts were installed in their country, when we need to be talking about terawatts.

[@JustHaveaThink]

I agree entirely. I just wanted to raise it as a caveat, but I would never suggest slowing down the progress of renewables. In fact there have been so many great ideas about recycling renewables from subscribers that I will be doing another programme later inthe year as a counter balance to this one. Cheers. Dave

[@harrison298]

@@JustHaveaThink Ha, thanks for replying. Rereading my first comment, I just realized that I sounded quite crabby. Thanks for the research that you're doing -- I think your channel is starting a lot of great discussions. Best of luck to you!

[@dwheeld1664]

You say that the plastics evaporate. Things don't just disappear, they have to go somewhere. It's like when I was a child, I asked where the smoke from a chimney goes and was told that at just dissipates. We now know it doesn't just dissipate!!! So, where DOES the plastics go????

[@Kiyarose3999]

We have to encourage decentralised renewables by using small 100% renewable companies. Also we chuck away thousands of motors in our electrical devices and appliances every day, which could and should be used to make domestic wind etc generators. I have collected motors from scrapped hoover-mowers, microwave cookers and even DVD/CD players. That I’m using to make a few different renewable energy generators. LA should be running courses with hands on learning how to use these motors etc from recycling depots. Also there’s other lower tech solar generators that I think are better, such as Solar collectors that use a curved troth mirror to heat a fluid in a pipe. Also some places are installing turbines in mains water pipes which provide constant local energy.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Kyarose. You are an inspiration! I'm reminded of the guy in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Its almost a lost philosophy - what my parents and grandparents called 'make do and mend' during the second world war. I think there is a resurgence of this mind set though. I certainly hope so. All power to your elbow my friend :-)

[@Kiyarose3999]

Just Have a Think Thanks v much for those kind words, and the reminder of a distant memory of ‘Zen and the art of motorbike maintenance’, I used to be a biker in the 80’s had an old 54 Matchless G80s( 500 single).

[@itsrachelfish]

Wow, talking about only having 10,000 subs at the end of the video. How far you've come! XD

[@accessaryman]

heres some food for thought, we had a huge problem with asbestos , and due to the lung illness abestostosis, we made the product illegal to use in modern construction and manufacturing, the problem with fiberglass is it is a glass fiber and when left to decompose it breaks down in a similar fashion as asbestos, once it get airborne we will have the same lung disorders, we have strict laws how we now dispose of asbestos, but from what ive seen when they bury the blade and other fiberglass part the just dig a pit and over fill leaving them to the elements, to decompose, when the laws change the cost of disposal of fiberglass will become as expensive as it is with asbestos, double wrapping, specialized people and designated areas which intern becomes a bio hazard waist lands , never to be used for human uses again, just the sheer size of them even once cut into smaller section, that is a huge amount of land space lost, you can only put so many additive into concrete before it isn't concrete, concrete wear done and releases particles so that alone nulinvoids the fibers being used for that purpose, food for thought

[@eev24eshmolikali]

Hoping for New Energy Technologies to be released as well, as present day renewables are quite expensive and, as you say, when they have lived out their life-span they have to be disposed of. I am not naïve enough to believe that there is no hope for the release of the New Energy Technologies.

[@lyonkerry92]

Nuclear power is the way forward while we're working on fusion power. There is a thick book of problems with renewables and not to mention that there is a reason why fossil fuel companies love them to lol

[@domenicocor1185]

they don't actually love them investing generally around less than1%, but i agree that we should rethink nuclear

[@Beery1962]

7:27 Making concrete out of old solar panels is not "recycling". It's just finding a new method of disposal. Afterwards, you still need to make new solar panels, and you need to find more raw materials. This is the opposite of recycling..

[@jameswalker590]

Recycle: To put or pass through a cycle again; reuse in a cycle. intransitive verb To extract useful materials from (garbage or waste). Using some of the contents of a solar panel in concrete would indeed be recycling. When you recycle other things, they may not be used for the same exact purpose, but are used again for SOMETHING rather than being thrown in a landfill.

[@Funkywallot]

I have a question that bothered me a long time : In what year in the lifespan of a wind turbines life does it brake even regarding its own cost to manufacture (Including setting it up and the entire cost of maintenance over a 30 years period) and when its producing "free energy" 5 years ? 10 years ? Update : I found som answers : Return on investment or ROI for a typical wind turbine 4.47% anually . Break Even Point 22,38 years. I found several other examples that are in the same ballpark. And numbers look even worse if you count in the co2 footprint and the energy needed to manufacture the materials. Without governmental subsidies (Taxpayers money) . Not even the cost of dismantling and recycling costs are included when the turbine can not be serviced any longer.No private company or entrepreneur would have undertaken such a low return of investment on their own. One could safely assume that wind and solar are heavily depending on national government subsidies , and a double loss for the consumer who has to pay inevitable rising tax of energy/kwh to the government

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Funkywallot. You mean break even? From a financial point of view? It's a good question. I'm hoping to discuss the topic in more detail with Francesco Micelli (the Civil Engineer I mentioned in the video) I will ask him this as well. Many thanks All the best Dave

[@minnesconsinprepping7856]

Yes.

[@minnesconsinprepping7856]

And they already are.

[@magiclee9482]

i so much love your Channel! informative and scientific based!

[@iihoipoiii]

i wouldnt call it an achillis heel really. solar panels contain enough valueable materials that recycling them is profitable so i dont really worry ebout them and the massive size of windturbines also make it a valueable source of metal even if some materials (fiberglass plastics) might not make a profit the profit of the more valueable resources can compensate that

[@fss1704]

They are made of glass, just like all of the sand on the desert, and take millions of years to dissolve, it's a renewable resource in my opinion

[@nicosteffen364]

100x100km of solarpanels near the equator are enough to power the world, well someyears ago!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Nico. Yep I think that's a similar figure to one that Elon Musk used quite recently.

[@nicosteffen364]

@@JustHaveaThink this number came from desertec and was meantioned many years ago! Solar panels in the sahara desert to power europe andvthe calculated how much would be enough to power the world.

[@keithrodan7763]

You're leaving out the cost and environmental expense of building the transmission infrastructure to distribute the power from the panels at the equator. (not effective).

[@seshachary5580]

Thank you regards

[@nicosteffen364]

Well in germany we could stop 20% of energyproduction, just needs storages! 600TWh/year needed, 800TWh/year produced, 200TWh are given away almost for free!

[@xyzsame4081]

See my comment under the thread of +tcm - the speech of Dr. Eike Weber is under the channel of Universität Karlsruhe - Solarenergie als zentrale Säule einer enerneuerbaren Energieversorgung. Highly interesting. STORAGE and batteries are the next fronitiers - we can rely on it that there will be the same _economy of scale effect regarding research results and price drops_ Like with solar panels, airbags, electronics, computers, mobile phones, smartphones, the internet, digital cameras, animation in films, ... If stationary * batteries get only 20 % cheaper (and that can be next year, in 1 or 2 years) it will be another important breakthrough. * easier to solve the technological challenges than with car batteries: weight, fast charging, density is not that much of an issue - so it is possible the breakthrough for cars will take a little longer. Plus the other STORAGE solutions (power2gas, power2hydro, Brine4power, artificial photosynthesis, ..) But now even the car manufacturers have woken up, they cannot prevent the new technology anymore - but they could completely fall behind. And every installation of solar (be it in Germany or sunny Australia) can profit from better performing, or cheaper batteries (or a longer life cycle. So even though the governments somewhat dragged their feet regarding battery and storage research (the lobbyists realized that solving STORAGE would mean a breakthrough to the point where energy providers simply cannot compete, and German car manufacturers do not like the SIMPLE technology of an electric motor) - now other ! companies see the biz opportunity if they could sell (more) batteries to those who already have an installation or those who are on the fence. Currently the costs for a _stored_ kWh is 14 - 16 cents per kWH, maybe a little less now, but I looked up quality Lithium batteries (with an estimate for a realistic liefetime erring on the short term, they usually perform longer although it can be with lower storage capacity, they do not go to zero or "break" after 10 or 12 years). Not all kWh must be stored, some are consumed right away (or sold to the grid, including the electricity that is exported to other countries for litte revenue). Businesses have a demand profile that aligns well with production of solar energy. Households need more in the morning, evening, and during night, which means buying more from the grid - or more batteries. So average yearly production costs 7 cent per kWh (in Germany, less in sunny areas) + hopefully soon 12 - 14 cents for a part of those kWh. Normal tariffs in Germany: Costs for businesses 20 cents per kWh, consumers I think more in the range of 26 - 29 cents per kWh. Of course there are the fix costs for being on the grid, fees for self consumed electricity if you have more than a modest home installation .....

[@suryateja2272]

Better energy storage technologies will make renewables more attractive, can.do with less energy. End of life disposal problems should be studied and global standard.methods should be put in place.

[@spy2778]

Solar roof tiles. Not some rich boys California project, but cheap, easy to install & recyclable roof tiles. They need not produce much, but cumulatively they would meet or exceed our needs, & could feed back into the grid. It’s micro, not macro generation that I think is the solution. Once again, it all boils down to willpower.

[@wwilll]

Some steel and composites are definitely easier to deal with than nuclear waste.

[@williamthesling1201]

"Let's wait until we definitely have a massive problem, and then start to think about weather we should implement a solution." Sounds like a fairly good approach. I say fairly good, because it's not quite as depicted, but it's close. Why address a problem if it doesn't exist? If it is going to exist, then some forward thinking entrepreneur will devise a solution/business to address it. However, he will wait until the problem is nearly imminent, timing his solution to be the first to market, when the "market" arrives. If he is too soon, he risks investing capital into business that will largely sit idle for a period of time (losing money). During that time, a superior technology may be developed and his investment could be totally lost. If he waits too long, he risks others beating him to market. It's a classic way investment happens. So... "will we ever learn ?" is an interesting question. Who are we talking about? I like the idea of letting someone else risk his money to time this well. If he is right he makes money and may get rich. If he is wrong, he loses his money (not mine or the taxpayers). This is the motivation of getting it right (an important concept in a free market). If this guy is so concerned about the problem, maybe he is right. So... let him invest his own money into such endeavors and get rich. If he thinks he knows what needs to be done and when, he should have no problem doing so. In fact he should embrace the opportunity.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi William. Many thanks your comments. All perfectly fair commentary. I guess what I was attempting to put across in the presentation, perhaps with a little theatrical licence, is that the commentary of a bureaucrat is already quite clearly at odds with the ambition and actions of the very type of entrepreneur you refer to in your text - i.e. the Recycle Project in the US, which seeks to emulate the already very useful Cycle project here in the UK and across Europe. I appreciate you taking the time to compile a good constructive critique though (not everyone bothers to do that). All the best. Dave

[@xyzsame4081]

If you can fix it with DESIGN and during manufacturing it will always be cheaper than fixing it later. (Like make devices easier to repair - that must be a deign requirement, things do not turn out that way by themselves. or design and build them so that one component can be easily replaced. Think about what parts are likely to fail first - and if that cannot be changed by improving quality (at reasonable costs) - is there a way to make it easier to repair later ? The opposite of what is going on with PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE. That is also intentional ! design.Making sure that devices will break reliably after warranty time and then some. and that they are hard to repair, even if that on principle would be easy. Of course sloppy design and cheap manufacturing can also result naturally in inferior durability - but it can be helped. By manufacturers who want to sell seemingly cheaper devices - every few years (typical: cheap washing machines. Prices have halved. So has the time for the first major repair. Adn a quality machine did warrant a repair. Now with the typical pump problem after 5 o 6 years consumers wonder if they would be better off buying a new onw. Durability and that the device is easy to repair or to take apart does require intent and engineering skills and experience.

[@gg3675]

I think the regulations in Europe requiring firms to factor in the cost of recycling are very reasonable. This logic should be applied we beyond the energy sector, though. Why isn't this law for phones, computers, televisions, hell even plastic bottles?

[@grahamrdyer6322]

Well from my understanding solar and wind recycling is possible where as the other radioactive forms of generating electric power are not, so to my mind its a no brainer, keep using solar and wind until that is we can use fusion.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Graham, Funnily enough I've just made a very similar point to another viewer. I agree 100% with your analysis :-)

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@JustHaveaThink @Graham R Dyer - You are ignoring the relative scales and cycle times in your analysis. 1st - A 1GW (power capacity) wind *farm* (not a single turbine) uses about 8x more stuff than a 1GW (power capacity) NPP; and has a capacity factor 1/3rd as much - so effectively it uses about 24x more stuff to produce the same energy (i.e. GWh, not GW). ('stuff' - steel, concrete, etc each have different multiples, so copper might be 12x and concrete 6x - but this is just back of the envelope - you would have to look up each component and etc; I believe 8x is steel; this older study puts it as ~10x) www.nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/constructing-lot-of-nuclear-power.html 2nd - the wind farm has a lifetime of about 30y; the NPP has a lifetime of about 60y + 30y decommissioning = 90y - so you can recycle the wind farm 3x in that period. 3rd - however, only the reactor vessel and primary coolant piping and pumps are heavily contaminated - a few thousand tons out of the total plant size of several million tons. Although, the spent fuel (HLW) needs storage for 300 y (with reprocessing), the MLW of the reactor+piping doesn't need quite that long, I have put down 30y for decommissioning, because it is easily handled by workers at that point - however, only a few 100s-1000s of tons left - easily less than the un-recyclable wind farm tonnage. Note it is _eventually_ recyclable, maybe another 50 years, diluted with fresh material, it can be reused with a background level of radiation. So, over the 90 year period: * the wind farm uses 24x more 'stuff' ** pays the carbon cost of 3x (every 30 y) recycling = 72 'units' carbon cost ** has several 1000 tons un-recycled items * the NPP uses 1x 'stuff' ** pays the carbon cost of 1x (every 90 y) = 1 'units' carbon cost ** has a few 1000 tons un-recycled items

[@KbB-kz9qp]

Sounds impressive, but I have the feeling that Regarding PV and wind farm scrap, we will probably just pay the Chinese to haul it away, and they will just dump it in the Mariana Trench on their way from California to Beijing ...

[@dlwatib]

No, it doesn't really make any sense to invest in major recycling facilities for products that are not yet at end of life (and may far outlive their planned obsolescence). As you so ably document, it's not that hard a problem to solve when the time comes, but until then it's just a waste of resources to invest in recycling plants and equipment for which there is no steady stream of product to recycle. Germany is not to be commended for their wind energy. It's upset the power grid all across Europe and costs the German people huge extra costs for their power. First they paid subsidies for the renewables to be installed. Now they have to pay the grids of other countries to take their excess power, then pay again when the wind isn't blowing and they don't have enough power, then pay again to subsidize coal fired power plants to stand by as back up.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Which is why the continentally distributed smart grid will be a welcome addition to the mix. Then energy can be shared more equitably across Europe.

[@stephenmason5827]

How much pollution, fossil fuels and energy use does it take to recycle all this stuff? The stuff that doesn't end up in landfill. Just going round in circles while all the time making things worse for the biosphere Looks like we are going to desperately cling on to big industry and global economy until we destroy everything

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Stephen. I take your point. But while we have a market economy, what you describe above is indeed how things will get done. There are alternatives like complete global economic system change, global societal revolution etc. etc. but they quite chaotic and difficult to manage. They may well be even more terminal than the issue you highlight. The future, unsurprisingly, is extremely uncertain.

[@MarcoNierop]

Who says they gonna use fossil fuels to do the recycling? They can use electricity produced with wind and solar, and if hight temps are required they can burn hydrogen, which is produced using clean electricity. By the time this gets of the ground all vehicles, buldozers, trucks etc., also run on electricity

[@piopapae2724]

@@MarcoNierop ALL? Yeah, when I look outside, Utopia is just around the corner! Can't wait for tomorrow! -.-

[@MarcoNierop]

@@piopapae2724search on KZbin: Tony Seba Clean Energy And Transportation Disruption... Watch the complete lecture (about an hour). Then come back and let me know what you think.. It changed my mind mind, so why not yours.

[@MrPDawes]

Could use a Solar furnace. This is way simpler and doesn't contain toxic waste as you just use mirrors to focus the energy onto a small point. There are several around the world. Recycling will be required to ensure reuse of the rare materials used for the next generation of products.

[@hyphen2612]

This issue always results in a worse off situation when politicians and corporations get together to make policies that favor "more environmentally friendly" products. The result is car upholsteries that disintegrate in a few years and crap shoes that need to be replaced every couple of years. When they do the same with PV panels, we'd get crappy "low carbon footprint" panels that barely lasts 15 years.

[@pulesjet]

The only people making money are the people who install and Create these Wind and Solar Farms. Year after year these farms lay fallow falling to disrepair and disparage eventually destine for the recycle piles. Just a few short years after the Subsidies and Tax Breaks dry up they are ditched and curb-sided. Deemed NON VIABLE in the profit world. One little talked about factor with these wonderful systems never brought up is the exorbitantly expensive maintenance and up keep cost. List of wind farms in the United States - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_wind_farms_in_the_United_States This is a list of large wind farms in the United States. There is currently one operational offshore ... largest farms in its state with a generating capacity of at least 120 MW. Part of the Biglow Canyon Wind Farm, with a turbine under construction. Your being had.

[@martincotterill823]

Great video

[@RichRich1955]

Renewables are perfect to help with continued, seemingly endless and assumed sustainable growth.

[@sheilachambers6671]

There is no such thing as "sustainable growth" on a finite PLANET! Please go back to school & learn about LIMITS TO GROWTH!

[@Brian-bp5pe]

Any thoughts on what will be done with all the new high-performance batteries when their useful service life is finished?

[@treasurehunter3744]

I'm sure that, like we've done with lead in batteries, Lithium will be recycled very completely.

[@garethbaus5471]

Probably recycling the materials are fairly high value and they are in a fairly high grade form so it would be very probable that an incetizized recycling system similar to lead acid batteries will form within the next 20 to 30 years.

[@JohnSwihart]

Nuclear Power is the answer.

[@andytomm1]

If you think longer term: earth resources are finite, indivdual consumption and energy use growing therefore population growth wil have to be capped, by education and law first. Afterwards it will fall naturally in the conviction that the species can survive without being large in number, just by the application of science and technology. Neuroscience will play a fundamental role in the process.

[@djbrettell]

Very interesting and informative as ever. Will the lifetime of solar and turbines increase over time, through the use of different materials, production processes and newer/different technology I wonder.

[@MarcoNierop]

Point is that technology doesnt stop progressing so wind turbines keep on getting larger One larger turbine is cheaper to build and maintain than 4 smaller ones and generates more power for less money, so the smaller ones are getting decomissioned sooner as they do not generate enough profit anymore and be replaced by ever increasing in size wind turbines. Same for solar panels, with these panels the efficiency is increasing so for less space more energy is generated so more profit per square meter, so probably also solar panels get replaced sooner then really required.. A solar panel may generate up to 80% of its original capacity after 40-50 years. But if after 20 years or so the panels/turbines are replaced with much better ones and near 100% of the removed panels/turbines is recycled, that is not bad at all! More power from the same weight in materials... sounds good to me!

[@djbrettell]

All good points. I think that I read about new solar cell technology being tested that is far more efficient that current solar cells. Hopefully over time technology will allow for greater renewable energy capture for less cost, carbon and physical footprint.

[@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse]

This was an excellent video, and the comments were just as good.....lots of food for thought. Personally we are going solar (with batteries) since where I live there is no net metering yet, at least formally. Just figuring the expenditure.....$$ . My first thoughts on the material were, are we even going to be around in 30 years? Once I settled into watching, renewables are what I support. Renewable energy-while up front there are environmental costs, once producing energy there are much lower costs (environmentally) than fossil fuels and nuclear. I do feel that people will mistakenly view renewable energy as an opportunity for more economic growth, however, and that is simply not sustainable. I also liked the discussion revolving around recycling since the topic is in the (online) news so much due to China not taking the recycling of the US, currently. At this point, I see no reason NOT to go on with technology development, since humans will out techno themselves anyway until we cease to exist. It simply doesn’t appear that as a species we have much time to completely change the world economic systems away from capitalism (that is on steroids) in search of the reversal to runaway climate change. As is always the case, technology will get more sophisticated and compelling until the opportunity ceases to develop, build, and grow ever more and more. Since I have no timeline on extinction I support efforts to lessen the impact of fossils, although I do not hold out much hope that we haven’t crossed the tipping point of irreversible catastrophic climate change. Thanks for the detailed analysis.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Sandie. Great to hear from you. I agree that our money crazed civilisations are far from ideal and have totally lost perspective on what's really important, but in making these videos over the last twelve months or so, I have had to reluctantly accept that the market driven capitalist system is highly likely to be in place for the foreseeable future (not 100% guaranteed, but highly likely), so I have generally found myself having to promote the idea of using the rich people's money to get these environmental technologies up and running - and the only way to motivate those people to dig into their pockets is to offer the glittering prize of a fat profit at the end of a few years of investment. I wish it were otherwise, but sadly "C'est la vie", as they say across the channel from me. Hope you're well. All the best. Dave

[@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse]

Just Have a Think I love it! Let’s use the rich peoples 💰 For me there is nothing better than learning from other perspectives.....yours is one!!!💚

[@hahahuhu9828]

doubt it. Though there is directive, it doesn't mean they are going to do the recycling part