Getting to an all U.S. renewable grid by 2050 is a critical component of achieving the world’s climate goals. Solar energy will be a crucial contributor to that effort. But, there is a “dark side” to solar power and it is increasingly in the news based on a variety of theoretical calculations. The dark side includes the need to trash millions of used, outdated solar panels in landfills. It includes the problem of intermittency, which occurs because solar often produces the most energy when demand is low. And it includes covering tens of thousands of acres of potentially usable land with solar collectors — making the land unusable for housing or agriculture. Let’s look at each of these challenges to the future of solar power and explore some solutions that shed light on the darkness.
Solar Panels and Batteries Will Clog Landfills
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects that “large amounts of annual (solar panel) waste are anticipated by the early 2030s” and could reach 78 million tons by the year 2050. It has been projected that with increased efficiency and lower cost panels, many people will replace their current panels years before the expected 30 years of useful service. Theoretically early replacement could result in 50 times more waste in four years than IRENA projects. That could result in about 315,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste by 2050.
The Solution: First of all, most people will not likely rush to replace solar panels before 30 years, when they are still operating at better than 70% of their original production capability. Long term, life cycle assessment and recycling must be implemented for solar panels along with all other disposed materials in our economy. The Korea Institute of Energy Research has made great progress on this front. They have developed techniques for recycling 100% of the glass from discarded solar panels and for turning 80% of the other materials into high efficiency solar cells. They are now licensing this process for commercial use by a solar panel manufacturer. In the EU, recycling responsibility is assigned to manufacturers based on their current market share. Producer recycling fees are built into the price of solar panels. It is a realistic hope that improved recycling techniques and strategies will make recycling profitable — thus avoiding the need for government regulation and fees. Life cycle assessment of batteries, which will be crucial to the success of using solar to meet our climate goals, shows that lithium ion batteries have a significantly lower carbon impact than fossil fuels — and it is coming down. Life cycle assessment, recycling, and creating a “circular economy” for batteries and solar panels will greatly reduce the need for large-scale mining operations while reducing or eliminating the need to dump them in landfills.
Intermittency Will Reduce the Value and Growth of Solar
Because solar produces energy when the sun shines, it currently contributes little or no energy to the grid during peak hours of energy use in the early morning and evening. This results in the need for natural gas fired power plants to fill the gap and may reduce the return on investment on solar farms because they may produce a glut of electricity when it is needed less, resulting in lower pricing. This may stall the growth of the very solar power plants we need to reach the world’s climate goals.
The Solution: Batteries for homes, businesses, and utilities are already becoming more cost-effective for meeting short-term peak demand. And a great deal of work is being done to economically produce green hydrogen from excess solar energy to generate electricity during peak demand. The combination of a smart grid, smart homes and buildings, smart appliances, and peak-hour pricing will encourage electric vehicles to be charged, clothes to be laundered, and water to be heated during off-peak hours when energy is abundant. Electric vehicles are being developed with batteries that can function as home and grid storage, allowing for increased battery storage at no or little added cost.
Solar Farms Displace Agriculture and Housing
It has been estimated that the average solar farm can produce 357,000 kWh per acre. This estimate will vary depending on factors such as the latitude, cloud cover, and snow cover of the area, along with the power of the collectors themselves and the distance from end use. The U.S. currently uses close to 4,000 billion kWh of electricity per year. To obtain 100% of this electricity from solar would result in covering more than 11 million acres or 17,000 square miles with solar panels — an area larger than many of our smaller states.
The Solution: It’s not necessary to locate all solar facilities on land, particularly land that has better uses. There are 8 billion square meters of rooftops in the U.S. suitable for solar — capable of producing 1,400 terawatts of electricity — enough for 40% of U.S. current needs for electricity. There are another 9 billion square meters of parking lots that may be suitable for shading with solar collectors to produce another 40% of our electricity needs. And certain agricultural crops grow well with partial shade provided by solar collectors. Rooftop solar produces energy closer to where it is used, creating less need for long, expensive transmission lines that waste energy. The efficiency of solar panels is growing, so more electricity is being produced in a smaller area. And contributions to renewable energy from hydro and off-shore wind will further reduce the need for building out solar. Using these approaches, land use will not be a problem.
Going All Electric Will Double the Land Needed for Solar
The above estimates do not take into account the “electrify now” movement and the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, including the car, truck, bus, and public transportation fleets. In addition, green hydrogen will be produced from renewable electricity. According to a Princeton study, if we electrify everything, it is likely our electricity consumption could more than double before 2050. This would require a huge expansion of solar that could take huge swaths of land out of use for housing and agriculture.
The Solution: If all new buildings and homes are built to zero energy or passive house standards, and existing ones get well on the path to zero energy, the electric demand from all electric homes and buildings will be drastically reduced. Rooftop solar collectors will reduce the burden on utility power. New electric vehicles may have solar collectors on their skin, too. And efficiency gains of heat pump HVAC and water heating systems will complement the gains in solar cell efficiency.
Renewable Energy Powered Future Is On the Way
While there are several serious challenges on the road to a fully renewable energy system, there is a wide array of potential solutions. Thanks to thousands of small technical innovations, the theoretical challenges of shifting to a largely solar-based, all-renewable energy-powered economy are being solved. We can all help speed up the process by creating demand for currently available products that will get us there — solar panels, battery storage, heat pumps, “smart” grid-aware appliances, and electric vehicles, as well as all electric zero energy or passive house homes and buildings. As demand grows, innovations will increase and prices will fall — leading to universal adoption of zero energy lifestyles. All we need to do is shine our light on the challenges.
Paul Villella says:
The Article is feel good without much real value. Take for instance the proposition of the current roof top “if”, now walk your neighborhood and tell me how many sq/ft could be viable as solar covered. Exclude all areas with facets facing more than 20 deg (generous) east or west of due south. Exclude areas in heavily treed neighborhoods or shaded by adjacent roof hips or taller adjacent buildings. Yup, you got it now, most residential roof areas have little or no value as solar hosts.
Parking structures and lots, especially at park-and-rides and employers with cars parked all day are prime low hanging fruit for EV uptake of overproduction, but should be 2way for businesses and grid to peak shave. Tesla, for one, will not allow 2way (v2g, v2h), and being the only real volume producer they set the tone
Joe Emerson says:
Yes you are correct that many homes and buildings are not suitable for rooftop solar.
That being said if all suitable roofs were covered with solar panels, the US could get 20 to 40% of its total electricity needs met in that way:https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/a-solar-panel-on-every-roof-in-the-us-here-are-the-numbers/ As solar panel technology improves, those numbers could well increase.
Moira says:
interesting. I’ve had a solar panel array on my roof for more than 10years. Just the south facing panels produce enough energy to cover the energy use from 3 similar sized homes. i have a bungalow of 1750 sq ft. I sell my energy to the grid and make about $3500.00 CAD for this per year. None in the winter when the panels are covered in snow and less in spring and winter when the sun isn’t as strong. I made this investment in solar panels happily as i have a microfit contract with the local utility. At year 6 the investment was paid out and i have 10 more years on my microfit contract with an option to renew or depending on the amount of electricity created and cost then enough energy to power an electric car! The income currently pays my property taxes so helps me be able to stay in my home as a senior. Just made good sense to me, a greate ROI.
Jim Williams says:
In your article, proposing the idea of investing and buying currently available solar products to develop the future technologies of “a fully renewable energy system”. I believe in a free market “Capitalism”, BUT the whole solar industry is developing along the same line as the “Medicare Advantage” and “After market home and auto warranty” businesses.The consumer desperately needs an unbiased source of information detailing the difference between various products. It’s Obvious that you can’t trust the advertising “Hype” being pushed by the company’s selling the products.Their primary motivation is profit.Not to save the world.
Joe Emerson says:
Jim, If we want to save the world, we need to work with the system we have. If solar is profitable, solar manufacturers and installers will spread the word to sell their product. If solar is cost effective, consumers will buy it, as many are now. A simple, longterm incentive program for solar and batteries would help move it forward faster.
Daniel C Lutz says:
Current Solar technology is not going to save the planet. You haven’t addressed several other issues. The manufacturing process of solar panel and batteries are almost as dangerous as the use of fossil fuels. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! To save this world RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT is paramount NOT the profiting from the proliferation of a flawed technology. All efforts and finance need to be directed in the correct area.
Joe Emerson says:
Hi Daniel, Thanks for your observation. I agree that current solar technology is not going to save the planet, but combined with insulating and air sealing buildings, going all electric with heat pump HVAC and water heating, and using energy efficient appliances and lighting and electric vehicles powered by solar, it will be a big step forward while we wait for new technologies. Joe Emerson
Daniel C Lutz says:
No what I was saying is the carbon footprint of the mfg, mining ingredients along with many other factors cause the current solar tech to be comparative to the burning of fossil fuels. Very little gain. We need to research ways to improve the tech or explore other avenues. Best example see what has happened to the Congo due to the need of cobalt. Many other examples. Currently you are claiming that solar is clean. It is not even close. Honest people are installing panels thinking that they are helping the environment. Tell the children mining cobalt that solar is saving our planet.
Joe Emerson says:
“A 2017 study published in Nature Energy conducted life cycle assessments of renewable and non-renewable energy sources and found that solar, wind, and nuclear all have carbon footprints many times lower than fossil fuel-generated energy. That was true even when accounting for “hidden” emissions sources like resource extraction, transportation, and production—which, of course, are also associated with fossil fuels. The study found that coal, even with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology deployed, generates 18 times the carbon footprint of solar over its lifetime, while natural gas has 13 times the emissions footprint of solar. ” From Treehugger.com. Other soucrces confirm this.
There are problems in some countries with child labor. Lets solve those problems – but do not blame solar panels.
Steve Thomas says:
Thank you for initiating this dialogue and shedding light on the various aspects of solar power. It is through open and informed discussions that we can collectively make progress in creating a greener and more resilient energy landscape.