By Lyndon Griffin, Morrison County Record
The Dec. 11, 2018, Morrison County Board meeting produced very interesting discussion concerning one agenda item. Board members were focused on solar farm deconstruction (decommissioning) costs at the end of a 30-year land lease. Proposed financial protection was centered on a $50,000 bond for the first 15 years, followed by a $300,000 bond for the final 15 years.
Thus, the solar farm company had committed to bond premium costs, backed by future assets. Then the Board wisely requested a $300,000 cash escrow fund instead. Amazingly, the solar farm representative immediately agreed to the cash in advance. Many in attendance were stunned.
This is the tip of a solar industry iceberg. Let’s examine what lies beneath.
Solar panel surfaces are large because sunlight is both dilute and diffuse, requiring large solar collectors. So disposing of the panels is a big project. While panels can be projected to have a 30-year life, many have shorter life spans due to rain, hail, severe storms, environmental regulation or shortened land lease renegotiation. Whatever the timeline, the panels must be properly disposed of.
Solar energy may be termed “clean” energy, but the solar panels themselves are not. Approximately 90 percent of most modules are made of glass, which often cannot be recycled due to impurities. These impurities include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates we now have 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste in the world, with 78 million tons projected in 30 years.
Sadly, this waste is destined for landfills. The Electric Power Research Institute does not recommend solar panels be sent to landfills as the toxic material may leach into the soil. So do other alternatives reasonably exist?
Read full column in the Morrison County Record
Related Articles:
- More solar panels mean more waste and there’s no easy solution (The Verge) – Oct. 25, 2018
- It’s time to plan for solar panel recycling in the United States (Solar Power World) – Apr. 2, 2018
Opinion: The Phony Numbers Behind California’s Solar Mandate
By Steve Sexton, The Wall Street Journal
California’s energy regulators effectively cooked the books to justify their recent command that all homes built in the Golden State after 2020 be equipped with solar panels. Far from a boon to homeowners, the costs to builders and home buyers will likely far exceed the benefits to the state.
The California Energy Commission, which approved the rule as part of new energy-efficiency regulations, didn’t conduct an objective, independent investigation of the policy’s effects. Instead it relied on economic analysis from the consultancy that proposed the policy, Energy and Environmental Economics Inc. Its study concluded that home buyers get a 100% investment return—paying $40 more in monthly mortgage costs but saving $80 a month on electricity. If it’s such a good deal, why aren’t home buyers clamoring for more panels already? Most new homes aren’t built with solar panels today, even though the state is saturated by solar marketing.
The Energy Commission is too optimistic about the cost of panels. It assumes the cost was $2.93 a watt in 2016 and will decline 17% by 2020. Yet comprehensive analysis of panel costs by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated the average cost of installed panels to be $4.50 a watt for the 2- to 4-kilowatt systems the policy mandates. That is $4,000 more than regulators claim for a 2.6-kilowatt model system in the central part of the state, where 20% of new homes are expected to be built. Berkeley Lab further estimates that costs fell a mere 1% between 2015 and 2016, far short of the 4% average annual decline the regulators predict.
Now consider the alleged savings on energy bills. The commission’s analysis assumes California will maintain its net energy-metering policy, which effectively subsidizes electricity produced by a rooftop solar panel…
Read full op-ed in the Wall Street Journal