The glow of “green benefits” – both environmentally and economically – from solar energy fades after photovoltaic (PV) solar panel components wear out.
That’s the position of some Texans opposed to solar projects planned in their counties. One major issue for them is panel components, which have a lifespan of 30 years. Many solar farms are nearing that limit. Discarded elements could total 80 million metric tons by 2050 – and there is no current standard method to sort valuable components while safely disposing of potentially dangerous ones.
David Dunagan, a Van Zandt County resident fighting a proposed solar farm in the county, said he is unconvinced photovoltaic (PV) solar panel components will be properly cared for when their use is ended.
David Dunagan
| Submitted
According to the website Save Van Zandt County, locals want to protect “agriculturally productive land from being stripped and destroyed by Big Solar energy companies looking to make a quick buck from your tax dollars. Then leaving county taxpayers with the mess to clean up.”
It says Pattern Energy and Pattern Development, based in California but owned by Canadians, is operating Old Jackson Solar LLC with an eye on placing more than 450,000 solar panels on more than 1,200 acres for a large solar project.
Dunagan and his wife, Lori, left Dallas in 2017 and moved to Whitton expecting to find a relaxed form of life. But when the solar project was announced, they learned they would be surrounded by solar panels as well as razor wire to protect it, along with other sounds and sights associated with such a massive project.
The project has its supporters, since landowners would be paid $450 per acre for 40 years, compared to the $15 per acre price now for grazing land.
It also would pour millions in tax revenue into the coffers of Van Zandt County and the Canton Independent School District. Opponents are still leery.
“Pattern is promising City of Canton officials and Van Zandt County officials big money once the industrial plant is built, but they are hiding the final site plans, refusing to produce any contracts stating they will clean up any damage, and hiding under a shell company so that if this project fails, they can shut down the shell company and leave Van Zandt County residents with millions of dollars in cleanup,” the Save Van Zandt County website states. “Every promise they made in their single presentation in January 2019 they have broken or failed to follow through.
It also notes the people behind Pattern Energy failed in two earlier incarnations.
Dunagan said health issues should be at the forefront of the discussion.
“There are ways to recycle those components, but most of the U.S. does not mandate recycling unlike the U.K. and some other countries,” he told the Lone Star Standard. “So, the bulk of these panels have and will continue to go into landfills.”
Some of the materials are dangerous, Dunagan notes.
“These panels contain heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, silver, etc.,” he said.
That doesn’t seem very “green” to him.
“First, there is the production of the panels themselves,” Dunagan said. “It requires a tremendous amount of energy just to produce solar panels, thus cancelling out the supposed ‘benefits’ of the power they produce. Additionally, many of the byproducts of the manufacturing process creates additional toxic chemicals.
“Second, many industrial solar facilities today are being built on active agricultural land and also require the clearing of thousands of acres of trees that are beneficial to naturally cleansing the atmosphere,” he said. “In building a facility, they are actually destroying what they claim they are saving.”
Dunagan has researched the issue carefully. He makes a detailed case on why the seemingly innocuous energy source poses a very real danger.
“Third, when pressed about the chemicals in these panels, industrial solar companies will state that any harmful chemicals in a panel are scant,” he said. “However, if you take that small amount per panel and multiple that by the 300,000 to 3,000,000 panels per facility — that amount becomes substantial. Whether through leeching, which has been proven, or damage to panels as has been seen from hailstorms, tornadoes, or hurricanes, these chemicals end up in the soil and into watersheds.”
Dunagan pointed to a study by Dr. David H. Nguyan that details the potential harm.
“Inhalation of CFCs affects the central nervous system, according to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Sciences,” Nguyan wrote. “The result is intoxication similar to that produced by alcohol, including lightheadedness, headaches, tremors and convulsions. Inhalation of CFCs can also disturb the heart rhythm, which can lead to death. Exposure to large amount of CFCs could potentially cause asphyxiation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
People also can be at risk from ingestion or skin contact. It can cause skin irritation, or dermatitis, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or other upsets to the digestive tract. It has not been shown to be carcinogenic through contact, but a cancer risk is mentioned by researchers.
Still, solar power is rising in Texas, with 5% of the state’s energy expected to come from solar farms in 2021, up from 1% in 2018. Solar projects are underway in almost a third of the state’s 254 counties. As the oil and gas industry suffers, solar is slowly gaining on it, following in the same path as wind did a few years ago.
A farmer’s concerns
Robert Fleming, who operates the large Fleming Grain and Cattle LLC farming operation in central Texas, is concerned that solar power projects will harm the land and leave an expensive cleanup behind decades later.
Fleming, who raises corn and wheat and has a cow-calf operation in four counties, has spoken with solar and wind power developers several times.
“I’ve had meetings with them and I’ve listened,” he told Lone Star Standard. “But there are so many red flags. It just throws up so many red flags.”
Fleming is concerned about the loss of productive soil as well as habitat for wildlife and birds. But there seems to be no clear plan to dispose of solar panel components once their use has ended.
“It’s just a big wrench in the toolbox, so to speak,” he said.
Fleming is among a group of local residents battling a proposed solar power development, Big Elm Solar, in Bell County.
The 35,000-square-foot project has received, by a 4-0 vote, approval from the Bell County Commissioners Court.
The developers are seeking a tax abatement agreement of about $186 million to help fund improvements for the solar panel-based project located about 30 miles south of Waco.
Big Elm Solar has teamed with High Road Clean Energy of Austin and Apex Energy of Virginia did the project.
Like Dunagan, solar energy and its risks has become a passion for Fleming.
“I eat, dream and sleep it,” he said.
Researcher: More good than bad
Garvin Heath of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said disposing of the solar panels and associated items is an issue now but the positive attributes still outweigh the negative.
Health specializes in sustainability science and is the lead author of “Research and development priorities for silicon photovoltaic module recycling supporting a circular economy.”
Co-written with Timothy Silverman, Michael Kempe, Michael Deceglie, and Teresa Barnes of NREL, and Tim Remo and Hao Cui, who formerly worked at the lab, the report was published in the journal Nature Energy.
“We recommend research and development to reduce recycling costs and environmental impacts compared to disposal while maximizing material recovery,” the report states. “We suggest that the recovery of high-value silicon is more advantageous than the recovery of intact silicon wafers. This approach requires the identification of contaminants and the design of purification processes for recovered silicon.
“The environmental and economic impacts of recycling practices should be explored with techno–economic analyses and life-cycle assessments to optimize solutions and minimize trade-offs. As photovoltaic technology advances rapidly, it is important for the recycling industry to plan adaptable recycling infrastructure.”
Heath said it’s incumbent on proponents of emerging energy forces to be proper stewards of the industry and find a way to dispose of the parts once their use has ended. There are methods now, but they need improvement.
“Yes, there are ways but they are not profitable for the recycler and therefore cost the final owner of the module and the recycling solutions can’t yet recover all materials in the module,” Heath told the Lone Star Standard.
He said while some of the materials are toxic, the risk to humans is minimal.
“That depends on the module, but yes, there is usually a material that is classified as toxic,” Heath said. “However, the better question is whether there is risk from the toxic materials. I think you will find informative a series of three reports on different exposure scenarios for PV modules.
“Part 1 we looked at PV exposed to fire; Part 2 was on broken modules left in the field. The third is probably of most interest to you — modules disposed in landfills. Even under worst-case conditions – actually illegal in the U.S. – human health risk from the highest prioritized toxic material is not estimated to result in risk higher than regulatory thresholds.”
He said the waste associated with solar components should not detract from the “green” value of solar energy.
“It’s an area to work on, but it does not negate the environmental benefits of PV compared to incumbent fossil-based generation technologies,” Heath said.
He pointed to a greenhouse gas emissions comparison from NREL to make the case.
“The data showed that life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from technologies powered by renewable resources are generally less than from those powered by fossil fuel-based resources,” it states. “The central tendencies of all renewable technologies are between 400 and 1,000 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated lower than their fossil-fueled counterparts without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).”
Heath also downplayed the costs of recycling.
“PV manufacturers already offer PV modules with recycling included, so no cost is necessarily added,” he said.
