"Герой окружающей среды" о проблеме мусора.

[solar-front.livejournal.com]

нашел jemison.

- "Фотовольтаика вредит окружающей среде больше АЭС".


(фото dpa, Julian Stratenschulte - уничтожение старых электроприборов).


Как сообщил Environmental Progress:  мусор связанный с производством солнечных панелей на 300 раз больше засоряет окружающую среду чем при мусор при производстве электроэнергии АЭС.

Посчитали эксперты замечательно: "если сложить мусор для производства одинаковой энергии на футбольном поле (ну как же иначе? - этож ФРГ) то в случае фотовольтаики высота столба с два эвереста, а в случае АЭС- как пизанская башня."


Коротко об "эксперте" (между прочим на него ссылаются уважаемые издания):

"Майкл Шелленбергер, основатель EP, называющий себя как "экомодернист", сторонник атомной энергетики. Активист был удостоен звания «Герой окружающей среды» (Time в 2008 году) несмотря на критику со стороны других экологов, таких как бывший глава Greenpeace Джон Пассакантандо или Карл Поуп, бывший глава Сьерра-клуба. Они назвали сие несправедливым и наглым."

Если интересно: потребление материалов для различных источников энергии.

Comments

[solar-front.livejournal.com]

Первый же комментарий по ссылке...
I am a strong advocate of nuclear power and spent my whole career in one or another aspect of management, handling, and processing of nuclear materials. I believe the nuclear waste problem to be entirely manageable. But I think the study referenced here misrepresents the situations relative to waste production from nuclear power production versus solar-voltaic (SP) power production. The metric used in the study, mass of waste of various types combined does not capture the distinctions properly.

First, the study includes steel as the largest component of solar panel waste. However, virtually all of the steel in solar panel waste can be profitably recycled. (Recycled steel is nearly the sole feed material for the entire U.S. steel industry.) So steel is non-waste waste.

The next highest waste category for solar electricity is cement (not concrete). Granted that solar panels have to be anchored in the field in large array installations, it seems to me that these anchoring systems could be reused, and might not be waste at all. To the extent the material is waste, the amount seems surprisingly large. I would like to see the underlying mass calculation. Furthermore, this material is what I would describe as very low-toxicity waste, which I will call "waste," to distinguish it from other, higher-toxicity wastes.

The next highest volume of solar activity waste is glass, which I would include in the "waste" category.

Together, the non-waste waste and "waste" account for 90% or more of the total waste from SP production. The remaining 10%, identified as "other," we can conservatively assume to be toxic waste, which I will call WASTE.

Nuclear power produces large quantities of low-level-radioactive waste, which for our purposes might be qualitatively compared to what I called WASTE, even though it likely presents a substantially more severe toxicity management problem that the WASTE from SP. This WASTE from nuclear power is not included in the study, a substantial omission.

The nuclear power waste of primary interest is spent fuel. Its toxicity is many, many orders of magnitude higher than the toxicity of wastes from SP. Call it W*A*S*T*E!!! But its manageability can be and has been evaluated separately, demonstrated in theory, and to a considerable extent, demonstrated in practice. Misleading comparisons between solar PV wastes and nuclear wastes should be avoided.