Essay by Eric Worrall
Farmers whose pastures are covered with solar panels have claimed increased wool production. But perhaps no one has explained to farmers that if anything goes wrong, their pastures could be contaminated with toxic heavy metals that escape from the solar panels, as the panels are eaten. worn by wind and rain.
Solar farm test shows improved fleece on merino sheep grazed under panels
ABC Rural / Via Hannah Jose and Olivia Calver
Lambs grazed under solar panels on farms in NSW’s Midwest have produced better and more wool in the four years since the project began, growers say.
Main attractions:
- Grazing sheep in solar farm trials shows an increase in wool quantity and quality
- There are calls for more research on the common place of agriculture and renewable energy
- A NSW government review on agriculture and renewable energy has received 100 submissions
Local plotter manufacturers have labeled the setup “win-win,” with the sheep helping to clear grass and weeds so they don’t obscure the boards.
In turn, these sheets provide shade for sheep and grass, and help keep the soil from drying out.
Wool broker Graeme Ostini, who grazed merino wet dogs at a solar farm near Parkes during a test with the Parkes Show Society, said he has seen the benefits of feeding the animals. run under the panels.
He said his flock is a bit lighter than the district average but cuts an “incredible” amount of wool.
…
This claims that producing more wool, even if true, can come at a significant cost. Solar panels can leak dangerous heavy metal toxins, potentially contaminating wool and meat from any sheep grazing under the panels, according to a 2020 study.
Metal dissolution from end-of-life solar photovoltaics in real landfill leachate versus synthetic solutions: A year-long study
July 2020
Waste management 114: 351-361
DOIs:10.1016 / j.wasman.2020.07.004
Project: Solar photovoltaic at the end of life
Preeti Nain
Indian Institute of Technology DelhiArun kumar
Indian Institute of Technology DelhiTo investigate the after-life (EoL) concerns of solar panels, four commercially available photovoltaic panels measuring 15–15 cm2 in the damaged and unbroken condition were exposed to three synthetic solutions with pH 4, 7, 10 and one real municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill leachate in one year. Encapsulation degradation and release, the probability of metals exceeding their surface water limit, and the change in leachate contamination index after dumping of solar panels were investigated. The rainwater excitation solution was found to be mainly for metal leaching from silicon based photovoltaics, with Ag, Pb and Cr liberated respectively 683.26 mg/L (26.9%), 23.37 mg/L (17.6%) and 14.96 mg/L (13.05%). Copper indium gallium(de)selenide (CIGS) photovoltaic was found to be the least vulnerable under various conditions with negligible In, Mo, Se and Ga release with values ranging from zero. 2 to 1 mg/L (0.30% -0.74%). In contrast, minimal metals were released into MSW leachate compared with other washout solutions for all photovoltaics. A positive correlation was observed between wrapper release and metal dissolution with maximum encapsulation release in silicon-based photovoltaics under rainwater conditions. The excess probability of metals being washed to their respective surface water limits for Al (polycrystalline and monocrystalline silicon (c-Si)), Ag (amorphous photovoltaic) and In (CIGS) ) shows a maximum overshoot of 92.31%. Regression analysis indicated that the condition of the modules and the pH of the leaching solution played an important role in metal leaching. The increase in the possibility of leachate contamination after one year of photovoltaic discharge was found to be 12.02%, 10.90%, 15.26%, 54.19% for amorphous photovoltaic, respectively. CIGS, mono and multi-c-Si. Overall, The maximum metal release observed in this study was 30% of the baseline under the most stressful conditions, which suggests that short-term washout studies with millimeter-sized samples are not represent realistic dumping scenarios.. Keywords: Deadline, solar panel, photovoltaic, metal, washout
To be fair, other studies have stated the risk to be negligible;
Possibility of heavy metal and metal leaching from crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems
May 2019
Seth A. Robinson
University of FloridaGeorge A Meindl
Binghamton UniversityPhotovoltaic (PV) is a rapidly evolving technology as the global energy sectors move towards “greener” solutions. Despite the clean energy benefits of solar energy, photovoltaic panels and their structural support systems (e.g. cement) often contain a number of potentially hazardous elements used in their construction. Determining whether these elements have the potential to leach into the surrounding environment should be a research priority, as panels have already been deployed on a large scale. In this study, we analyzed the soil taken from underneath the photovoltaic modules to determine if they were enriched with metals (lead, cadmium, lithium, strontium, nickel, barium, zinc and copper). and metalloids (selenium) are present in the panel system. Soil samples were collected from just below the c-Si photovoltaic modules and adjacent fields. Samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). The measured concentrations of selenium, strontium, lithium, nickel and barium in the soil samples were significantly increased in the samples close to the PV system. There were no significant differences in lead or cadmium levels near and far from the PV system. Although there are differences in concentrations for some elements near and far from the panel system, on average no elements are present in concentrations that would pose a risk to neighboring ecosystems . As a result, PV systems remain a cleaner alternative to traditional energy sources, such as coal, especially in the operation of these energy production systems.
Pb (lead) and some Cr (Chromium) salts are environmental toxins that are difficult to decompose. I think we all know about lead, but Chromium can also be a nasty toxin, depending on the oxidation state. Chromium (VI) salts are toxic and carcinogenic.
Maintenance can be a bigger problem than farmers realize. Simply ironing broken panels into the ground is not an option – according to the first study I cite broken panels can leak up to 30% of toxic heavy metal content if they are buried. . Even if the farmer thinks they have a fixed price contract with the solar company, if the solar company goes bankrupt, the farmer could be left holding the child, creating the basis for an operation. expensive cleanup.
And you can bet if a farmer tries to claim insurance because of contamination, every panel during their installation will be meticulously inspected. Any cracks go unnoticed and the insurance company will try to sidestep the claim, citing poor maintenance.
Honestly, if I were a farmer, I would look for safer ways to improve profits, than covering my land with solar panels containing potentially toxic heavy metals. seeped into the grasslands, no matter how many assurances I received about the supposed safety of such installations.
Related
