Solar and wind myths and falsehoods (part 2)

That the production of solar panels is harmful to the environment is an exaggeration. The small environmental impact of the manufacture of solar panels is more than offset by the environmental benefits of their use. Solar panel manufacturers are bound by the same environmental laws and regulations as any other industry. 

Problems with disposing of solar panels and wind turbines when they are no longer useful are valid concerns. Solar panels will never fill Victorian landfill sites to overflowing simply because they are not accepted by the sites in the first place. By law, they must be taken to e-waste drop-off points for recycling.  While about 90% of the materials in panels can be recycled, it is a difficult and costly process. The towers, gearboxes and generators of wind turbines are made of recyclable metals. The blades and the nacelles are made of composites and cannot at present be recycled. There is a European company converting turbine nacelles into tiny houses. The recycling of solar panels and the wind turbines remain areas of active research. The decommissioning of fossil fueled power stations produces far more waste and can be difficult due to the historical use of asbestos in their construction. Coal fired power stations  produce fly ash over the whole of their use, which is often used in agriculture as a soil additive. Studies have shown the fly ash contains significantly higher levels of heavy metals than soil samples from under solar panels. Nuclear power stations are even more difficult to decommission with the long-term containment of radioactive materials being of particular concern. 

Solar panels will release heavy metals in the event of a wildfire. It has been found that by the time the heat breaks down the panels, the glass has melted and will encapsulate nearly all of the toxic materials (e.g. over 99.9% of cadmium).

There is an element of NIMBY (not in my back yard) surrounding solar and wind farms, largely because they change the appearance of the landscape. It must be pointed out that landscapes do change. Over the last 250 or so years we have seen vast tracts of land cleared, then planted with wheat and oats, and later with canola. We have seen land become green and lush with the coming of irrigation and then turn back again with the rising of the water table and the shortfall of water for irrigation. Along the range at Colbinabbin, vineyards have come and gone and have come again. The appearance of paddocks filled with solar panels and hilltop ridges lined with wind turbines can be seen as two more changes to the ever-changing landscape.

At present the only other working solution for generating power is to go nuclear. With our reserves of uranium this has some merit but do we really want or need to take up the nuclear option, especially when we can be developing safer alternatives?

Today it is easy to put claims on the internet or onto social media where they gain enough traction to be regarded as facts. The Law School of Columbia University investigated claims surrounding solar and wind generation and debunked 33 of them as unfounded and false. It is important not to accept claims without first fact-checking them.

In many respects we are seeing a repeat of the controversy that surrounded the erection of mobile phone towers in the 1990s. We look back now, wondering what all the fuss was about and shake our heads at the purported hazards attributed to the towers. Will people look back in thirty years and wonder at the current fuss surrounding solar and wind farms?

And what has all this got to do with endangered species? Climate change is shaping-up to be a big driver of extinctions. Much of the climate change is due to our use of fossil fuels. While it is too late to prevent climate change, we can soften its impact by converting to green energy and hopefully save many species from going over the brink.