While polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise as a result of carbon released from fossil fuels, the globe continues to awaken to the importance of renewables. With an impressive El Nino and a veritable parade of hurricanes passing close to the islands this year, one wonders how long we can be lucky.
Concerns for the environment, combined with a recent relaxation in rooftop solar approvals by Hawaiian Electric Co. and the possibility that the Public Utilities Commission will pull back on net metering, has driven a renewed frenzy in solar installations in Hawaii. Still, there is a steady chorus claiming that the production of photovoltaic panels has its own dangerous carbon footprint. Does it?
It turns out that PV does have a carbon footprint, but, over the typical 20-year life of a solar panel, it delivers a substantial net benefit compared with fossil fuels such as oil, coal and even natural gas. At the same time, there are multiple steps to the process that create opportunities not only to curb global warming, but also to be socially and environmentally responsible … or not.
The guts of a PV panel come from mining quartz, which is then refined to silicon dioxide. Mining, one of the oldest professions in the world, is subject to a robust safety industry in modern countries but can be frightfully lax in developing nations. Silicosis, a lung disease that comes from breathing silicon dust, is more common in such countries. The process that turns silicon into a solar panel also requires the use of multiple chemicals that may or may not be recycled and/or disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner.
In fact, before 2008, PV manufacturing occurred primarily in Europe, Japan and the United States. Today the majority of panels come from China, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Philippines. Case in point: While visiting a PV installer in Australia this past summer, the principal explained that until recently most PV panels down under had been sourced from Germany. Although the quality of Chinese panels was left wanting, to remain competitive on price, his firm had to switch over.
The good news is, technology is rapidly advancing, and there always seems to be a better solution around the corner. Thin-film solar-cell technology, for example, can be just as efficient as silicon-based solar cells, less costly to manufacture, and requires less material and energy to build.
Moving forward, it will be important to use a comprehensive, balanced scorecard and responsibly evaluate social, environmental and financial factors associated with potential sources of energy. As technologies continue to evolve, statisticians and marketing consultants alike will continue to find new ways of putting lipstick on a pig.
Take liquefied natural gas, for example. Not long ago I spoke with one of the local consultants who has been retained to assist NextEra in its quest to acquire HECO. He described those opposed to LNG as “purists.” What? LNG releases greenhouse gases, just like coal and oil. While it is somewhat cleaner and thought by some to be a “bridge solution,” LNG should not be peddled as a renewable.
The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition evaluates solar panels using a broad range of metrics, including emissions transparency, chemical reduction plans, workers’ rights, health and safety, modular toxicity, recycling and greenhouse gas emissions.
Global warming is real, and curbing the trend must be a global priority. Continuing to develop and employ responsible renewables is a critical part of the solution. Let’s be wise about it.
Ira Zunin, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., is medical director of Manakai o Malama Integrated Healthcare Group and Rehabilitation Center and CEO of Global Advisory Services Inc. Submit your questions to info@manakaiomalama.com.
