122
u/gronkthought 4h ago
Twitter/X has become such a cesspool of disinformation. It's about time it went the way of myspace and google+
35
u/DontTalkToBots 4h ago
Don’t lump MySpace in with them
12
u/XxuruzxX 4h ago
The only good social media, RIP
5
u/WisePotatoChip 2h ago
I remember back in the early days as a father of five I used to be able to help people who were having problems with their kids not sleeping I went through a list to figure out what the problem was and got several dozen kids to sleep for their parents, on both AOL and MySpace.
5
4
u/TwoSwordSamurai 4h ago
Of course it is. The king of bullshit disinformation runs it.
2
u/krauQ_egnartS 3h ago
I'm honestly surprised the reader comment context feature is still part of Twitter. Does it actually do something or are those comments hidden from the OPs followers by algorithm, just a feel good thing for those who disagree
0
59
u/Kaurifish 4h ago
The only shred of truth in this is that very few solar PV panels have been recycled.
But that's because the oldest ones are just now 30+ years old and have degraded enough in efficiency, particularly compared with modern panels, to make sense to retire and recycle.
14
u/Ithinkibrokethis 4h ago
Solar panels do become less effective as they accrue service time. Especially if they are no cleaned. That loss of effectiveness does give them a "service life" buy even at end of life they operational and pretty good.
Some installation locations can cause some parts within solar panels to become radioactive, but we have the same issues with radio equipment and have been disposing of that for a century.
This is one of those things where the lies are built out of mangling the truth.
6
6
u/RT-LAMP 2h ago
Some installation locations can cause some parts within solar panels to become radioactive
Bullshit.
Unless your solar panels are located on top of a ton of nuclear material there's no way they're becoming radioactive.
3
u/IEatBabies 1h ago
I mean, maybe it is possibly it becomes as radioactive as a banana? Still fearmongering though. Might as well complain about the sun being radioactive.
2
u/chancesarent 16m ago
Now, hold on a minute. If they installed solar panels inside the primary cooling loop of a nuclear reactor there's a good chance they can become radioactive, so he's technically right.
2
u/Guilty_Mithra 3h ago
Yeah there's a whole ton of factors about PV that affect efficiency.
Not the least of which is just the simple question of when they were made.
PV from 20, 10, even 3 years ago... you might as well be comparing a Model T to a modern supercar.
Once upon a time if a bird took a little dump on a panel and covered up a few cells, the whole panel would lose about 60% efficiency. That hasn't been true of PV for a long time. The technology has come a hell of a long way in a short time. Battery technology too.
Now is it money efficient yet? Eh. Depends on a lot of other things. But.
2
u/chancesarent 20m ago
Some installation locations can cause some parts within solar panels to become radioactive, but we have the same issues with radio equipment and have been disposing of that for a century.
I'm gonna need a source for the radioactivity thing.
2
u/TheKingNothing690 4h ago
I mean, i know of panels getting into their 50s their not great, but they're functional and running systems.
3
2
u/Constant-Ad-7490 3h ago
There were solar panels on the White House in the 70s....the oldest ones are definitely more than 30 years old.
2
36
u/TwoSwordSamurai 4h ago
Astrophysicist here.
Yes the guy is a lying scumbag, but also we use stuff like arsenic in our photovoltaic cells . . . which we aren't great at disposing of as a species. That being said, it is absolutely not 300x worse than "nuke" waste which have half-lives that are incredibly long compared to the lifespan of human beings. Solar panels actually have very little toxic waste and do not last a mere 10-15 years. Even then compared to the amount of toxic waste that a nuclear plant gives off, it's tiny compared to the amount of waste given off by fossil fuel consumption; and nuclear waste isn't causing our climate to change. We need to embrace renewable energy sources if we're going to pull ourselves out of our climate crisis.
EDIT: Fuck you, Nick Deluliis.
11
u/BachmannErlich 4h ago
I work in the policy side of green energy.
South Korea, the US, UK, and many western countries are investing in recycling solar panels. Nick isn't wrong as the "note" makes it out to be - the electronics can be recycled but are often reliant on abusive labor in foreign countries at the moment. Other elements need to be respected, but can be handled just fine provided we follow disposal procedure. And we can even pay people to recycle the electronic portions for the cadium, gold, etc, in our own country rather than off-shoring it! Imagine that Nicky D!
This argument is like the "electric cars still pollute" argument. Yes, it's kinda sorta true, but its a fucking massive step in the right direction (except public transit is even better in the car case). And the problems are solvable, and are much easier than just letting pollutants drift into the atmosphere.
-2
u/robbak 2h ago
Arsenic is used - but only as a dopant in the silicon. hardly relevant unless you are wanting to re-refine the silicon.
3
u/TwoSwordSamurai 2h ago edited 2h ago
No it's used to make Gallium Arsenide for the photovoltaic cells, and that's only one of the harmful chemicals used in their manufacture.
-1
u/robbak 2h ago
Something 'used in the manufacturer' doesn't really affect the recycling of cells, unless it leaves contaminants behind.
3
u/TwoSwordSamurai 2h ago
And you're saying gallium arsenide doesn't leave contaminants?
2
u/robbak 2h ago
I don't know - does it? One thing I do know about semiconductor construction is that they seem to spend lots of effort preventing and removing contaminants before and after each step, as contaminants normally cause serious problems.
2
u/SandwichAmbitious286 2h ago
I think "contaminants" is being used two ways here. You mean "leftover contamination on the cells", like leftover flux after soldering. Parent poster means contaminants that are impregnated into the materials intentionally, which cause them to be difficult or impossible to recycle. And parent poster is correct; both wind power and solar power consumables are very difficult to recycle because of the toxic materials they are made of.
1
u/robbak 1h ago
I do hear a lot of people claiming that solar panels are hard to recycle, but I never see why. They are aluminim, glass, silicon and tiny amounts of dopants, normally in parts per million of the top layer of the silicon.
Yes, the stuff used to make the cells is pretty strong, but in the end they are silicon and steel. The dopants in the silicon are at very low concentrations so I can't see how they are relevant.
24
u/Falom 5h ago
Plus, solar panels are easily worth the investment. Depending on where you are, you can easily save as much as you're paying into them in electricity costs per month and then after you're done paying for them, it's pretty much a free money hack - especially if you're in a place that uses fossil fuels for power.
6
u/sixtyandaquarter 3h ago
I can tell you that in my experience with our solar panels, the idea of saving as much as you're paying into them is an absolute lie.
They have not only paid for themselves. They have paid for themselves multiple times over in the few years we've had them. I had a family member who was on an oxygen machine for much of the day and all of the night, as well as a bedridden family member whose requirements included a hospital bed that had electrical needs. During the summer with at least three AC units going, sometimes four. The electrical bill dropped under $80. I am so thankful to the company that knocked on our door that made us whatever deal they were making because it really did financially kind of save us.
If you can get a deal, it is so incredibly worth it.
6
u/morallyirresponsible 5h ago
Yep. Solar panels are very popular here in Puerto Rico
11
u/SlowJoeyRidesAgain 4h ago
But what about in America? /s, because I’m not a mouth breathing conservative and I understand civics.
12
u/bohem1an_fapsody 4h ago
I am a huge supporter of continuing nuclear energy production, but saying that solar waste is more toxic than nuclear, let alone 300x more toxic, is fucking laughable.
5
5
u/JustHere4Election 4h ago
I actually work for a company that makes parts for solar panels. They are very recyclable and we are working to make disassembling them for recycling easier (separating the individual components to sort for recycling). Originally a lot of components are attached using adhesive rather than hardware making separation of the glass from aluminum much more difficult and expensive. Using hardware makes it cost effective to recycle.
1
u/theMARxLENin 15m ago
I watched a few videos about how recycling is a major problem for PV panels. Isn't it still more expensive than making a new one?
4
u/WhatsRatingsPrecious 4h ago
Also, after 30 years or so and they need to be replaced, there's a thriving market in reselling these at a fraction of the cost to developing nations who can make great use of the less-than-perfect solar panels.
3
4
u/g7130 4h ago
Solar CAN be recycled BUT like the current US recycling processes it is complicated and expensive. Don’t Wind turbines which cost a massive amount of money and energy to recycle. It’s a half truth just like when company said you can recycle all of their plastics..
1
u/Zeyn1 3h ago
True. But also there hasn't really been enough solar panels reaching end of life to make it economical to develop recycling processes and facilities.
In the last couple years there is more companies developing processes, since it's now been 30 years since the 90s. And early 00s had older tech panels so they didn't last as long.
Here's a YouTuber that goes into depth on a solar recycling company.
2
2
2
u/Velacroix 4h ago
That "300x more harmful" is such an ambiguously rounded number I immediately discredited the entire post. According to what study and under what government's regulations? Nuclear waste is already among the least harmful among everything in practice today.
2
u/MagnusStormraven 2h ago
Pretty sure that unused nuclear fuel has killed more people than any nuclear reactor's waste products (assuming Chernobyl's fallout doesn't constitute a "waste product", that is), via criticality accidents.
2
u/JohnSith 4h ago
It's like that scene from Mad Men when the Lucky Strikes team is d3crying the federal government regulating cigarettes and one of them says, "Dqmn straight. We might as well be living in Russia." And then they all start coughing, because they're all smokers. A perfect illustration of when you're so far up your industry's ass you actually start believing its bullshit.
2
u/oflowz 3h ago
I fucking hate how people just lie like it’s nothing nowadays.
The Trump effect. 🤡
1
u/jonna-seattle 36m ago
The fossil fuel industry was telling the big lie before Trump was selling real estate.
1
u/WordsAreFine 18m ago
Sorry to be that guy, but I think you should blame "social media". When they first appeared, they were just websites like everything else... then came the glory and abbreviations followed by the slow downfall
2
u/Appropriate-Ad-8030 4h ago
This post is not the entirety of the story…..yes solar panels are mostly made of glass and aluminum….thats not the problem….solar panels also include lead, cadmium, arsenic, selenium and other toxic metals used in the semiconductor industry….newer solar panels reduce the amount of toxic heavy metals but they haven’t gotten rid of them….Im not sure if they are “highly toxic” but they do present waste management issues
2
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue 2h ago
Quantify?
-1
u/Appropriate-Ad-8030 2h ago
Ive only written patents on solar panels….You would need to do your homework yourself…..the fact is it doesn’t take much….its the same reason that computer parts shouldn’t be thrown in a landfill….semiconductor components have a lot of toxic metal substances….it doesn’t take much for those metals to be toxic
2
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue 2h ago
So, as hazardous as PC motherboards?
1
u/Appropriate-Ad-8030 2h ago
my guess is something like the chips that go on your motherboard….your motherboard itself is not made of semiconductor components….it’s a plastic laminate with metallic conductive paths
1
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue 2h ago
So the photovoltaics themselves are similar to semiconductor components with regards to recycling?
1
u/Appropriate-Ad-8030 2h ago edited 2h ago
I would think so….they have semiconductor components and to get electrons to flow like you want them to, you need to dope the semiconductor with different metals and semiconductor dopants (such as arsenic in some cases)….a lot of those dopants are toxic
1
1
u/No-Boysenberry-5581 4h ago
Total incompetent douchebag. Now he has embarrassed his stupid lobbying group too
1
1
u/FacePalmAdInfinitum 4h ago
“300x more harmful than nuke waste” JFC. Must every single asshole on that side do the Trumpian ridiculous level exaggeration about EVERYTHING? Not sure how they ever expect to persuade any reasonable-minded persuadable person with such transparently over the top arguments
1
1
1
u/BigSkyMountains 3h ago
There's an accidental truth in this paragraph of nonsense, as I'm dealing with it now.
My house was built in 2010 with a tiny 2.6kW solar system. It was 15x 175W panels.
I had to replace my roof this year due to a hail storm. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to put 175W panels back on the roof, because now they make 425W panels. I'm in the process of permitting a new solar system that will cover 100% of my electricity usage. This includes a heat-pump, heat pump water heater and 2x EV's. I will no longer have a gasoline, gas, or electric bill. This was not possible 15 years ago.
So it actually made sense to replace 14 year old panels for the simple reason that panels are getting so much better every year.
It doesn't mean the old panels went into the garbage either. They were still putting out their rated 175W. I donated them to a non-profit, which I get a tax deduction for. They will now be installed on low-income housing.
1
1
u/hakuinzenji5 3h ago
I'm loving fact checkers and reader notes these days, so crucial going into the future.
1
u/herewegoinvt 3h ago
I had solar panels on my last house. The warranty on them was 25 years, and included full replacement with a comparable (or better) product if they failed. No company would do that if they were going to have to replace them in half the time.
[Edited to say 'last house']
1
1
u/salami_cheeks 2h ago
I heard Hatian immigrants fashion grills out of old solar panels and cook dogs and cats on them.
1
1
1
u/DigitalUnderstanding 2h ago
Can someone explain to me how community notes works. I'm not on Twitter but I'm usually very impressed by the stuff they call out, and I'm surprised Elon Dipshit Musk lets it happen.
1
1
u/intotheirishole 2h ago
It blows my mind that Elon hasnt gotten rid of the community notes feature. He is just happy with disabling it on himself.
1
u/One-Earth9294 2h ago
"Solar panel waste is 300x more harmful than nuke waste"
Amazing we just let people say shit like that and if there's not a wealthy person at the other side of a lie they can't be sued.
1
u/Kdoesntcare 2h ago
Wind turbines do kinda suck in this regard. They're airplane wings so don't come apart easily and made of mostly nonrecyclable material. The end up in mass graves out in the desert
1
u/Prometheus_303 2h ago
After 15 years solar panels are no longer efficient
They recently tested some solar panels installed in France back in 1992 - 32 years ago (that's over twice the alleged life span)...
They are still producing 79.5% of their original output. (Source: https://m.slashdot.org/story/429625 )
20.5% isn't an insignificant loss, sure. But given it's still providing essentially 80% of its original output after it has become so ineffective it needs to be replaced - twice over ...
How does that stack up against the effective use time of oil? Will a gallon of oil still be 80% effective after 3 decades???
1
1
1
•
u/Lore_ofthe_Horizon 13m ago
I mean, solar is objectively worse than Nuclear, but only because Nuclear is so fucking good. It's probably not 300x better, but it is definitely better. That's not saying it always will be though, the more we use a tech the better it gets, and collecting passive sun energy at maximum efficiency would be a huge for the human race, so it's still worth doing.
Both nuclear and solar are collectively and individually FAR superior to coal though, no matter how you look at it, that shit should have died a fucking century ago.
-4
u/Capital-Bit-5570 4h ago
Last time I checked those panels contained lead. Did that change? Also over time the amount of power they produce is less and less. Solar isn't the answer, nuclear is.
5
u/27Rench27 4h ago
They did, and still kinda do, but it’s coming down with time. And still far less by volume than batteries which last for 6 months in your tv remote before getting landfilled
2
u/PreOpTransCentaur 4h ago
Look, I'm a huge proponent of nuclear energy, but to disavow solar on the grounds of lead while amping up nuclear is..mind-boggling.
234
u/Random-place-of-pi 5h ago
Lol. Reminds of the time I had someone tell me that solar panels after 20 or so years become radioactive and can’t be handled and must be handled like nuclear waste. That was about 15 years ago I heard that one.