I've been reading some ill-informed, stupid "forwards" by people claiming that solar energy is bad for the environment. I am in the mood for a rant today, so here goes:
1. "Solar panels consume more energy than they make". Before 1990, some solar panels consumed more energy to be manufactured than they produced in their "useful life". This energy consumed, included the energy required to mine and refine the materials such as polysilicon and silver that go into solar panel production. A lot of these panels were specialised panels such as those that go on to space stations.
Today most solar panels break even in one to four years! And their useful life is 20 to 25 years. Within the first year of operation, a solar panel would have generated more electricity that was consumed to create it. If you think your solar panel will take 20 years to pay back its carbon footprint, you are living in the 80s.
2. "Solar panels lead to toxic waste". OK, lots of points here. a) solar panels are way way less toxic than regular electronics - even headphones and remote controls that people so frequently throw away (source: I manufacture electronics for a living). b) the government of India, like most governments in the world, mandates that manufactures compulsorily recycle all e-waste they product. It is up to the consumer to return their used electronics to the producer. The producer is also required to collect and recycle a certain amount of electronics every year through their own initiatives. It isn't perfect, but the system actually works well. (source: I own a company that is required to recycle e-waste and we do it all the time).
So if your solar panel is ending up in the landfill with the trace amounts of heavy metals it might have in it, that is entirely on you. Recycle it responsibly - you already paid for the recycling when you bought it.
3. "Solar panels have a limited life". There is no end of life of solar panels. They just become "weak"; they don't die. When you replace your solar panels after 20-25 years of use, it is because you want more powerful solar panels on your roof. But that panel still works, and most likely in a country like India, it will end up on the rooftop of a poor family in a village somewhere, where it will keep making small amounts of electricity for many more decades.
"Operating" a panel costs effort - mostly to keep the panel clean. Most middle class Indian households depend on external labour to upkeep their panels. That is why at some point we would replace our old panels with new shiny ones. But a poor family can maintain its panels on its own, and can therefore eek electricity out of "weak" panels for a long time using the free labour of its family members.
4. "The right answer is to consume less". I am someone who can quote E. F. Schumacher from memory, yet I disagree. Less is not always the right answer. We should be consuming more and more energy for purposes like healthcare and education. Even reducing unnecessary toil in the household using machines is a good thing to do. Let us stop romanticising domestic labour and chores - only those who are willingly blind to the caste, class and gender imbalance baked into domestic work would do that. Even climate control using electricity is a good thing. Blindly saying ACs are bad doesn't help. Indian summers are hot and keeping indoors cool helps improve productivity and health. Indian winters are bloody cold in a lot of places and electricity is a great alternative to fireplaces.
Next rant will be about how EVs are bad for the environment. Some people are shills for the oil industry and don't even realise it.
1. "Solar panels consume more energy than they make". Before 1990, some solar panels consumed more energy to be manufactured than they produced in their "useful life". This energy consumed, included the energy required to mine and refine the materials such as polysilicon and silver that go into solar panel production. A lot of these panels were specialised panels such as those that go on to space stations.
Today most solar panels break even in one to four years! And their useful life is 20 to 25 years. Within the first year of operation, a solar panel would have generated more electricity that was consumed to create it. If you think your solar panel will take 20 years to pay back its carbon footprint, you are living in the 80s.
2. "Solar panels lead to toxic waste". OK, lots of points here. a) solar panels are way way less toxic than regular electronics - even headphones and remote controls that people so frequently throw away (source: I manufacture electronics for a living). b) the government of India, like most governments in the world, mandates that manufactures compulsorily recycle all e-waste they product. It is up to the consumer to return their used electronics to the producer. The producer is also required to collect and recycle a certain amount of electronics every year through their own initiatives. It isn't perfect, but the system actually works well. (source: I own a company that is required to recycle e-waste and we do it all the time).
So if your solar panel is ending up in the landfill with the trace amounts of heavy metals it might have in it, that is entirely on you. Recycle it responsibly - you already paid for the recycling when you bought it.
3. "Solar panels have a limited life". There is no end of life of solar panels. They just become "weak"; they don't die. When you replace your solar panels after 20-25 years of use, it is because you want more powerful solar panels on your roof. But that panel still works, and most likely in a country like India, it will end up on the rooftop of a poor family in a village somewhere, where it will keep making small amounts of electricity for many more decades.
"Operating" a panel costs effort - mostly to keep the panel clean. Most middle class Indian households depend on external labour to upkeep their panels. That is why at some point we would replace our old panels with new shiny ones. But a poor family can maintain its panels on its own, and can therefore eek electricity out of "weak" panels for a long time using the free labour of its family members.
4. "The right answer is to consume less". I am someone who can quote E. F. Schumacher from memory, yet I disagree. Less is not always the right answer. We should be consuming more and more energy for purposes like healthcare and education. Even reducing unnecessary toil in the household using machines is a good thing to do. Let us stop romanticising domestic labour and chores - only those who are willingly blind to the caste, class and gender imbalance baked into domestic work would do that. Even climate control using electricity is a good thing. Blindly saying ACs are bad doesn't help. Indian summers are hot and keeping indoors cool helps improve productivity and health. Indian winters are bloody cold in a lot of places and electricity is a great alternative to fireplaces.
Next rant will be about how EVs are bad for the environment. Some people are shills for the oil industry and don't even realise it.