Last November, Japan’s Environment Ministry issued a stark warning: the amount of solar panel waste Japan produces every year will rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040, and the nation has no plan for safely disposing of it.
Neither does California, a world leader in deploying solar panels. Only Europe requires solar panel makers to collect and dispose of solar waste at the end of their lives.
All of which begs the question: just how big of a problem is solar waste?
Environmental Progress investigated the problem to see how the problem compared to the much more high-profile issue of nuclear waste.
We found:There is, however, a distinct difference between the properties of the nuclear waste and the solar panel waste. The radioactivity of fresh waste from a reactor is intense, and it can be deadly to spend even a few minutes near unshielded waste. The toxic properties of the metals and plastics in solar waste won't jump out to kill you. The intense radiation fades after a few years, and the waste can be handled with some reasonable precautions.
The study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants and the solar panels themselves, which contain similar heavy metals and toxins as other electronics, such as computers and smartphones.
- Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
- If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
- In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
I'm a supporter of nuclear power but making an assertion like this without this qualification is misleading at best.
However, it is useful to help point out that nuclear power produces the best steady source of power with the least environmental footprint.
Wombat-socho chimes in with "Late Night With Rule 5 Monday: All-American Catgirl".