- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
‘Lucky we’re with Albo’
The utensil up that is the east coast energy market
- Thread starter Kwality
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yet again youve made a claim and havnt referenced it.but this is the issue.........a quick google and you can find loads of facts about the huge issue which is the 7 million tonnes of solar panel waste going into landfill each year. Further this is growing exponentially.
We also know the waste is toxic and carcinogenic.
We also know much of the most dangerous chemicals are in crystalline form locked up with the glass and will leach into waterways and the water table if dumped in land fill.
YET believers so want to believe, they are easily mislead, despite KNOWING the facts.
in terms of support
Solar panel waste: where are we heading?
Product stewardship for solar panel waste is coming, but where is Australia heading and what role could local governments play?www.corrs.com.au
Unfortunately, a concerning proportion of solar panel waste ends up in landfill, amounting to 6 to 7 million tonnes annually. With the significant uptake in solar over the past decade, and an average lifespan for a panel of 21 years, the amount of solar panel waste has the potential to increase exponentially.
first solar doesn't recycle here in Australia. Why? shifting waste into hidden jurisdictions is an easy way of making first world problems go away
first solar's own reports contradict their marketing claims. Why? saying solar panels ARE 90% recoverable in marketing is very different to their reports that state this is their goal by 2028 and as discussed putting glass into a hard stand is not recycling and landfill.
first solar claim they are recycling the glass but confirm they do not use a wet process. It is impossible to to remove carcinogenic chemicals from silica in the absence of chlorine based acids and hydroflouric acid. This confirms they are simply crushing the glass.
the crook is the founder and MD of the company and his fraud and deception charges speak volumes about the entities marketing. Further common sense says a bunch of dodgy electricians chasing government grants, who do not make solar panels, who do not mine and process feed for solar panels, who do not have extensive metallurgical experience; will not and do not have the capabilities of running a recycling facility.
I note Lotus do not publish any facts about their actual business activities.
You hold us to a massive standard that you refuse to uphold yourself.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
First Solar is another con organisation that has been found guilty of misleading shareholders in multiple class actions. Thus it is of no great surprise to see the variance gap between their marketing campaign of 90% "is recycled vs their sustainability report (also marketing) claiming it is their "goal" by 2028 vs their financial statements which paint a better picture. https://s2.q4cdn.com/646275317/file...ort-2021-Web-version-(final-from-Merrill).pdf
In their financials they highlight they no longer offer the recycling program and it is a liability, as the process is not economic. This program has been discontinued.
Further their is no disclosure of the end use, their is no disclosure of the re-use in their panels but their is discussion on the carcinogenic chemicals in the waste glass. This last bit highlights they are relying upon these carcinogenic elements being locked up an not available. This is the issue though, as it highlights it is going into landfill and we know in time it does leach.
I also note in the financials they make no discussion on the tonnes recycled and more importantly the credit on the materials sold or the tonnes in landfill, hard stands or other final solutions. Financials are not only a legal document but also provide a fantastic opportunity to promote the compay's achievements. It is interesting that where legal responsibility is present, their business achievements go missing...............perhaps being sued for misleading shareholders is the reason for this.
Last edited:
A fortune 500 conpany that’s mislead investors
Say
It
Isnt
So
Never before in the history of crooked corporations has this ever happened.
Especially to those who produce nuclear power - that you extoll in every thread related to renewables.
Its almost like you hold renewables to a standard you never do for your hobby horses.
as for the amounts they are currently recycling - id say not much at all, just the ones that are damaged in transit or prematurely fail.
The company has been public since 2006 - 16 years ago, they developed the recyclable cradle to grave system at that time - panels have a design life of 25 years so im guessing that they arent going to start mass recycling till they have mass panels to recycle yeah?
Or do you think the mass recycling should start before the eol?
Novel stategy….. you should take it to shark tank…..
…… when theyve finally finished laughing…..
Last edited:
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
their words not mine...........
1) they no longer offer the scheme
2) it is not economic
3) they have a goal to achieve 90% by 2028
4) they do not remove carcinogenic elements from the silicon
5) they claim the carcinogenic glass will be reused (what in glass bottles or homes?) and become someone else's problem
6) dumping carcinogenic glass into landfill or hard stands is not recycling
7) IT IS NOT a craddle to grave recycling process if it is a dry process. HPQ requires a whet process and definitely a sub 50 micron. Thus the representation they have a cradle to grave process is misleading and deceptive........and they no longer represent in legal documents...........perhaps they are learning from their previous class actions
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
yep
around a 10% cut in production, from nuclear in France representing 5GW, to ensure discharge remains a low temperature to maintain environmental standard in the rivers, Fortunately it isn't effecting supply as they have an additional 30GW of nuclear capacity in reserve.
at the same time a 95% loss in production, from wind in Germany representing a loss of 60GW, as the wind isn't blowing. add to that the 95% loss of production, from wind in France representing a loss 44GW, as the wind isn't blowing.
Europeans are paying a huge price (over Euro400) for unreliable power production
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,965
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Link to a reliable source that states this?
Not your interpretation of some random data.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
modern reactors don't use water, so no it is not an issue (unlike those built in the 60s and 70s which were built on rivers)
further 82% of energy consumed is heat not electricity, thus the 2/3 of energy that a reactor produces is extremely valuable. Especially if you want to have a hydrogen industry which is heat intensive.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption
Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.
app.electricitymaps.com
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,965
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I'm not letting you muddy the waters over a few pages with your vague answers and feigned confusion.Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption
Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.
You've been caught in a lie, again.
Link to a reliable source that states this?
Not your interpretation of some random data.
This might be true in a very narrow case, but there are actually shortages of recycled glass and concrete at the moment. Many Govt construction projects committed to certain amounts of recycled material, but now everybody is using it, so there are shortages across the eastern seaboard at least.
First you're saying SMRs work because they work in Subs, now you're saying they're newer and don't use any water, they're different.
Also that glass and concrete recycling is a farce (when I know for a fact this isn't true)
You're cherry-picking positive stories from nuclear and only showing negative stories from anything else.
I get that this is a forum where the only people who turn up have strong opinions, but geez, this is Fox News-level fact-picking.
The thing about heat energy is that it would be valuable if it were near something, but the thing about nuclear is that it shouldn't be near anything.
This is their current claim.
World-Class Recycling First Solar has a long-standing leadership position in PV recycling, having voluntarily established the industry’s first global program over a decade ago. It currently operates high-value PV recycling facilities in the United States, Germany, Malaysia and Vietnam that recover approximately 90 percent of the materials in each recycled First Solar module. This not only translates into commonly-used glass, rubber, and plastic products; it creates a regenerative source of CadTel.
---------------------------------
Based on the locations of their recycling facilities , it is fully expected that the Australian Waste would be shipped offshore.
However , it is assumed to a facility that they operate themselves.
They are claiming approximately 90% of the materials.
Their class actions related to misrepresentation of the costs/kwh of their solar systems around a decade ago.
- Thread starter
- #491
Sadly so much material across the board claimed to be recyclable is not.
Recyclable & recycled are not the same.
Its a con, like the %'s in the climate change debate are simply aspirations.
- Thread starter
- #492
Shades of Australia's coal fleet. These are assets in decline & as such no longer maintained for the long term, they are repaired aka patched up for short term gain.
As of June 2022, 10 nuclear reactors at six power stations have been given the go-ahead to restart in Japan but only 4 reactors are currently in operation. Despite local governments agreeing to restart the reactors, some have not yet become operational due to the time required to implement safety measures and complete other construction work.
Japan’s Nuclear Power Plants in 2022
As of June 2022, 10 nuclear reactors at six power stations have been given the go-ahead to restart in Japan but only 4 reactors are currently in operation. Despite local governments agreeing to restart the reactors, some have not yet become operational due to the time required to implement...
www.nippon.com
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,965
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Is it that the materials can't be recycled, or because companies are seeking profit?
- Thread starter
- #494
When something can be recycled, its academic if its not commercial: surely that is understood by now ?
Chucking something in the recyclables bin does not make it recyclable, in fact it only increases the cost to process the recycling waste stream & in the case of householders it pushes up your rates for NIL benefit to anyone.
On cooling steam generators ( regardless of the source of heat ).
world-nuclear.org
So once upon a time we built a Power Station in victoria.
We dammed the nearby river ( Lake Narracan ) and pumped water out of the dam, used it in the power station , then pumped it into the river downstream.
Years later they built Hazelwood, where they created an artificial lake with a large surface area, so that the water could be cooled evaportavely.
It was great for water skiiing or wind surfing in winter, though the water was fairly turbid.
When Loy Yang was later built it was not located on a significant waterway.
Now they use big cooling towers for the remaining Coal Power Stations. The Murdoch press always show photo's of these cooling towers to represent CO2 Pollution coming from coal power stations, but the plumes coming from the towers are just water vapour, just like the other clouds in the sky.
The Nuclear reactors actually use the same type of cooling. It seems that the French are limited by their cooling, and they can wring a bit more out of their reactors if they use more water from the river, and put some of the ( pre-cooled ) water back into the river.
Newport Power Station also uses a boiler, i assume that bay water passes through the condensers and back into the bay.
The best thermal power for waste heat are the high efficiency combined cycle gas stations. Simply because they use as much waste heat as possible.
Cooling Power Plants | Power Plant Water Use for Cooling - World Nuclear Association
Cooling steam-cycle power plants has nothing essentially to do with whether it is fuelled by coal, gas or uranium. Nuclear power plants have greater flexibility in location than coal-fired plants. Cooling technologies are available for nuclear power plants that have minimal water use.
So once upon a time we built a Power Station in victoria.
We dammed the nearby river ( Lake Narracan ) and pumped water out of the dam, used it in the power station , then pumped it into the river downstream.
Years later they built Hazelwood, where they created an artificial lake with a large surface area, so that the water could be cooled evaportavely.
It was great for water skiiing or wind surfing in winter, though the water was fairly turbid.
When Loy Yang was later built it was not located on a significant waterway.
Now they use big cooling towers for the remaining Coal Power Stations. The Murdoch press always show photo's of these cooling towers to represent CO2 Pollution coming from coal power stations, but the plumes coming from the towers are just water vapour, just like the other clouds in the sky.
The Nuclear reactors actually use the same type of cooling. It seems that the French are limited by their cooling, and they can wring a bit more out of their reactors if they use more water from the river, and put some of the ( pre-cooled ) water back into the river.
Newport Power Station also uses a boiler, i assume that bay water passes through the condensers and back into the bay.
The best thermal power for waste heat are the high efficiency combined cycle gas stations. Simply because they use as much waste heat as possible.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,965
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
That's my point.
So it's not an issue with renewables. It's an issue with 'profiteering'.
So it shouldn't be used as a reason against renewables. Because it's not specific to renewables.
The discussion started with a comment about First Solar.
First Solar currently claim to operate their recycling plants in a number of countries.
If they take their solar waste from Australia to their plant in Malaysia , that is not outsourcing.
If they are lying i'd suggest that they are risking more legal action from shareholders. ( So they probably aren't ).
Of course if you are a smaller operation, it is likely you'd need to outsource?
Do you recycle your own household waste or outsource?
Do the councils own recycling facilities?
Does a machine shop have scrap metal facilities?
Why is anyone surprised that outsourcing is a big thing?
---------------------------------
World-Class Recycling First Solar has a long-standing leadership position in PV recycling, having voluntarily established the industry’s first global program over a decade ago. It currently operates high-value PV recycling facilities in the United States, Germany, Malaysia and Vietnam that recover approximately 90 percent of the materials in each recycled First Solar module. This not only translates into commonly-used glass, rubber, and plastic products; it creates a regenerative source of CadTel.
--------------------------------
- Thread starter
- #499
Profiteering or covering the cost ... would you even know where to start looking.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,965
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Similar threads
