• chgxvjh [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    This is bordering on miss information. It’s a tiny fraction of resources compared to what we are currently extracting to produce energy and discarded solar panels are pretty safe (unless it’s American solar panels that sometimes contain heavy metals like cadmium).

    And the neoliberal answer to solar panels being economically non-recycleable is to increase the cost to putting them in landfills until they are economically recyclable. Even if it’s just grinding them into dust to use as a filler in concrete or something.

    edit, some rough calculations:

    20kg of solar panels produce about as much electricity as 5 tons of coal.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Nothing I said is bordering on “miss information”. It’s all true.

      If we were serious about “net zero” we’d be all in on nuclear. It’s the only way to it.

      • Nacarbac [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Sure, but we’re not doing net zero, and never were. It’s an Ideal that dominates in the media only to undermine the actual work of adaptation, since it cannot and will not be attempted under capitalism - it’d be easier to ask the devil to lay off on the brimstone. Like fusion, when net zero 2025 passed, they just start talking about net zero by 2030.

        Somewhat decentralised and resilient solar energy infrastructure is far more valuable for surviving extreme climate change and global excitements than a nuclear power infrastructure that won’t exist without decades of struggle. And the former can be attempted by individuals and small communities even with our malicious and incapable governments - small-scale community nuclear isn’t even a dream.

        Focusing on nuclear energy is ultimately passive, it’ll always be a decades-long project, first to overcome the hostile regulations and corruption blocking it, and then to just get it done - and it can only be done by corporations or governments, who we must trust to actually do it. Solar/renewables are active, alive, they can be done now even imperfectly, by small groups.

        The only single solution is every single solution - nuclear, solar, communism, wind, ecological adaptation, yadda yadda.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Sure, but we’re not doing net zero, and never were.

          Ummm that’s literally what most countries and governments are specifically saying is their goal.

          Solar/renewables are active, alive, they can be done now even imperfectly, by small groups.

          No they can’t lol. You need giant corporations manufacturing them lol.

          • Nacarbac [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Edit: didn’t see they were banned

            Ummm that’s literally what most countries and governments are specifically saying is their goal.

            Have you heard of lying? It’s so hot right now.

            No they can’t lol. You need giant corporations manufacturing them lol.

            “Should I bother to close that line of response? Nah.”

            Many such cases.

            Open system, closed loop, accessibility, control, influence: these are all words. Pretend I added some filler.

      • egg1918 [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Nuclear plants require mining and non-renewable materials to make, and are economically non-recyclable, meaning they end up in landfill.

      • WafflesTasteGood [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        Saying the panels would end up in landfills is absolutely misinformation.

        Like 95% of a solar panel is glass, aluminum, or silicon. I terms of recycling, those are some of the most recyclable materials.

        If your goal is net zero than solar and batteries is it because its theoretically possible to reach a point where all new panels and batteries are produced from materials recycled out of old panels and batteries.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Saying the panels would end up in landfills is absolutely misinformation.

          It absolutely isn’t, because that’s literally where they already end up.

          Like 95% of a solar panel is glass, aluminum, or silicon. I terms of recycling, those are some of the most recyclable materials.

          Fantastic! They still end up in landfill though, because like I said, economically it’s not viable to recycle them. It costs more money to recycle a solar panel than it does to buy a new one.

          its theoretically possible to reach a point where all new panels and batteries are produced from materials recycled out of old panels and batteries.

          It’s definitely not, even theoretically. Batteries definitely aren’t infinitely recyclable.

          If your goal is net zero than solar and batteries is it

          Nope, the only real way to go net zero is nuclear.