Are we really sure solar panels are much easier to dismantle on a euro-per-kWh basis though? That is, if you divide the total cost of dismantling and recycling a solar power plant, divided by the total amount of energy produced over the lifetime, does solar power do much better than nuclear?
Nuclear power in Germany (17 powerplants) has produced well over 5 million gigawatthours over the lifetime so far. It's hard to put good numbers on the cleanup costs, but somewhere in the ballpark of 50 billion euros is probably correct. (Keep in mind that some cost is the government paying the powerplant owners compensation because they are forcing them to shut down long before end-of-life).
So that gives you around 0.01 euros per kWh. A solar panel with 20% efficiency placed close to the equator produces 500 kWh/m2/yr. Over 30 years of lifetime that would produce 15 000 kWh/m2.
Are you sure you would spend significantly less than 150 euros per square meter of panel to dismantle, transport and recycle the solar panels?
My neighbor heats their pool using solar, it's just a bunch of tubes that cycle water over their roof. They got rid of their gas heater. Given that most backyard pools are used in the summer, why can't we swap these to using solar?
For domestic hot water, it's now cheaper to use PV and a heat pump (or even resistive!) water heater.
Are you sure you would spend significantly less than 150 euros per square meter of panel to dismantle, transport and recycle the solar panels?
Yes, because it's being done by leading companies and doesn't seem to diminish their competitive advantage:
From what I can find, Saudi Arabia is one of the best locations for solar power globally, and they have a total solar influx of 2300 kWh/m2/yr. Commercially available solar panels have efficiencies of 22% at best.
For the second point: I'm not saying people aren't recycling solar panels in a good way. I'm saying it doesn't look like the cost of that is significantly lower than for cleaning up after nuclear power.
I'm saying it doesn't look like the cost of that is significantly lower than for cleaning up after nuclear power.
Raw solar panels currently cost less than 45 Euros per m2 and since these companies recycle them and still get ahead, it can't be expensive.
Of course we should mandate that we keep the Earth clean, we don't have another.
I can buy a solar panel for $100 and have it generating electricity in my backyard at a click of a button
Why would I _not_ do that?
Nuclear takes years to build and generate output, and the price is going up. It would be foolish to build a nuclear plant today unless you have a specific need for it (small location, little sunlight/wind).
Personally I think that in 20-40 years time most people will get the bulk of their energy from local solar panels, with the grid, backed by a mix of renewables and existing non-renewable sources filling in all the gaps.
Solar is going to have fun in places like Alaska.
People who make solar panels for a living say yes, the curve has been astronomical and beyond predictions, but, we're closer to a wall than we are halving costs again
except you know, the solar panels. by the same logic you can you can capture fission power for free, all you need is set up the reactor.