Ummmm...delicious....let's distribute lead AND polymers all over the world for the solar energy fantasy.

[NNadir]

This reminds me of the swell "improvement" to gasoline, tetraethyl lead, which I discussed here:

For my 30,000th post, I'd like to thank DU for inspiring me to expand my knowledge, and of course...

Most of the lead dumped into the environment today is connected with the (rising) use of coal, but formerly was generated by gasoline.

Don't worry, be happy, we can now hope to add solar energy to lead distribution, as noted in the following paper:

Defect Passivation Enabled by Amphiphilic Polymer Additives for Perovskite Solar Cells with Suppressed Charge Recombination Lili Ke, Xin Xiong, Ding Hu, Gang Liu, Conghua Zhou, Hanyue Chen, Ling Li, and Hongxing Li ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024 12 (19), 7434-7442.

From the text:

Over the past few years, metal halide-based organic–inorganic hybrid perovskite solar cells (PSCs) have attracted widespread concern because of their adjustable bandgap, long charge diffusion length, excellent absorption coefficient, and low cost. (1) Up to the present, the power conversion efficiency (PCE) of the PSCs at the laboratory scale has climbed to 26.1%. (2) However, it remains challenging to extensively apply PSCs in the commercial field because of their poorer long-term stability toward moisture, light, and heat than traditional silicon-based photovoltaic technology. (3) Such instability is mainly caused by high density defects disorderly distributed in grain boundary and perovskite surfaces, (4) which facilitates trap-assisted nonradiative recombination (5) and thus seriously restricts the enhancement of the PCE and greatly affects the stability of the devices. (6) To solve this problem, it is of great importance to passivate these defects. Many attempts have been made to eradicate the undesired defects in PSCs through defect healing stratagems including interface engineering, (7) chemical deposition, (8) additive methods, (9) and grain boundary regulation. (10)

As is well-known, the formation of defects in perovskite is inevitable. (11) Additive engineering is considered by many scientists to be one of the most effective ways to passivate these defects. (12) A variety of additives, such as Lewis acid, Lewis base, (13) inorganic acid, fullerene derivatives, (14) etc. are widely studied, with the aim of preventing the formation of harmful defects and reducing the migration channels of ions, while suppressing unfavorable crystallization. (15) In contrast to highly volatile and diffusive small molecule additives in perovskite film, polymer agents, characterized by long-range order, excellent stability, and low volatility, are potentially superior. Polymers are able to more stably and reliably interact with perovskite grains, (16) which could lead to a long-lasting defect passivation effect. Numerous studies have shown that polymer additives not only reduce the formation of noxious defects but also regulate the crystallization process. (17) Zuo et al. explored polymers with various specific groups and proposed that the polymer/perovskite bonding interaction is the critical factor to influence the passivation. (18) However, most reported polymers containing a single type of functional group can only passivate positive defects (i.e., Pb ions), thereby limiting the improvement of device performance and stability. In this regard, further research is required to develop new-type polymer additives with particular functionalized groups that are capable of precisely regulating the interaction with various defect sites in the perovskite while simultaneously protecting perovskite thin films...

So with what are these magic perovskites made?

Um, lead.

A figure from the text:



Of course, the chemical symbol for lead is Pb.

The caption:

Figure 1. (a) The synthesis procedure of p(HEMA-co-DEAMA) and schematic illustration of the molecular interactions between the perovskite crystal and p(HEMA-co-DEAMA). (b) Pb 4f XPS and (c) I 3d XPS spectra of the PbI2 films without and with p(HEMA-co-DEAMA). (d) C 1s XPS and (e) N 1s XPS spectra of FAI without and with p(HEMA-co-DEAMA). (f) FTIR spectra of the PbI2 film and the p(HEMA-co-DEAMA)-doped PbI2 film. (g) FTIR spectra of the FAI film and the p(HEMA-co-DEAMA)-doped FAI film.

This strikes me as wonderful as the time that tetraethyl lead solved the terrible problem with engine knock in gasoline. It made the world safe for cars, unsafe for human beings, but what's more important, cars or human beings?

The trillion dollar solar industry has proved worse than useless in addressing the extreme global heating we are now observing, producing just 8 Exajoules of the 642 Exajoules consumed by humanity, leaving us with growing dependency on fossil fuels (in the period between 2022 and 2023, coal grew faster in absolute terms than solar.)



World Energy Outlook 2024

Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

The chief role of solar and wind energy is to provide dishonest cover for people looking to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen" and to encourage battery nonsense in lieu of understanding the inviolable thermodynamics and the fact that the use of dangerous fossil fuels is rising, not falling, resulting in the increase in the rate of accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere.

The Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa: Yet Another Update.

(Regrettably, it seems likely that I'll be posting another of these depressing updates tomorrow, 11/03/2024.)

Happily, the stability "problem" of lead perovskite solar cells has not been solved. They'll be hell to pay if it is, particularly if it's "solved" with organic polymer chemistry. We have enough environmental disasters already.

I trust you're enjoying the weekend.

[wysimdnwyg]

1. There's a lot of science there....

My eyes started to cross after the first paragraph, and I’ll admit I couldn’t make it far, let alone all the way through the article. However, I will offer this:

The problem with lead in paint is that it’s easy for it to become airborne (sanding) or ingested (peeling or chipping). The problem with lead in water pipes is that it can dissolve in the water (read up on Flint, MI for info on why this often isn’t an immediate issue, but can quickly become a major problem). The problem with lead in gasoline is that it is burned, directly putting the lead into the air.

From what I understand about the use of perovskites in solar cells, none of this is an issue. It’s not likely that the lead will ever be released into the environment in an unsafe manner (perhaps via wildfires, but that would present a plethora of problems). The only time the lead would be exposed directly or dissolved would be during manufacturing or recycling of the panels, and that would be in a controlled manner.

[NNadir]

3. As a scientist who follows the environmental literature closely, I share exactly zero of your reassurances.

If one is even remotely familiar with industrial practice - I've stood in chemical plants with reactors 4 stories tall - these glib assurances are rather naive.

One of the biggest environmental problems in the world is the chemotoxic effects, well documented, of recycling electronic waste, electronic waste being what solar cells become in about 20 to 25 years of use, depending on the weather patterns where they are used.

If one enters the terms (electronic waste recycling lead) one gets over 900,000 hits on Google scholar, many of the top ones referring to lead levels in children living near electronic waste recycling facilities. Over 16,000 have been published in 2024, and the year's not over yet.

Generally, these toxic recycling facilities are located in areas inhabited by poor people. Now that China has become a wealthy country, it's moving to places like Bangladesh...

Blood lead, cadmium and hair mercury concentrations and association with soil, dust and occupational factors in e-waste recycling workers in Bangladesh

...and Ghana:

Ecotoxicity of heavy metals in soil around long-term e-waste recycling sites in Tema and Ashaiman areas of Ghana

One of the reason we are experiencing the environmental disaster now before us is that people do not look seriously into the implications of these kind of notions, which often amount to handwaving.

The solar industry, which has soaked up trillions of dollars in the last decade for no measurable environmental advantage, is not sustainable owing to the mass intensity, the land intensity, the toxicological implications all of which are greatly exacerbated by the unreliability and the horrible unsustainable implications of energy storage presented, again with extreme naiveté, as a "solution" to this intractable problem.

The solar (and the wind) industry will never be as clean or as sustainable as nuclear energy. The world is slowly (too slowly, too little, too late) waking up to this reality.

[wysimdnwyg]

6. Well, this is why I listen to people who know more than I do

It sounds like there are some good reasons to be wary of the use of perovskites in solar panels. And I do believe nuclear energy is a necessary component of a “clean” energy future. However, there are plenty of concerns with nuclear as well, and it’s important that we get off fossil fuels asap, even if it means kicking a lead can down the road for a decade or two.


(On that last comment, what I mean is that perovskite panel manufacturing and recycling is and will be for some time a minuscule problem when compared to the gargantuan environmental catastrophe of fossil fuels. Further, new panels created today will not be recycled for years, meaning half of the problem will be put off until we - hopefully - have a better solution to recycling them cleanly. And if not, it’s at least somewhat likely they’ll be obsolete technology and not recycled anyway.)

[NNadir]

13. The "plenty of concerns" with nuclear remind me...

...of "concerns" with Kamala Harris when her opponent is a rapist and a convicted criminal.

Fossil fuels are raping the planet. To my thinking, claiming, after much experience and trillions of dollars squandered on it, that solar energy will arrest fossil fuel use is rather like announcing that parking tickets will make Trump go away.

[wysimdnwyg]

14. To be honest, I find that offensive

Comparing the idea that people - rightfully, IMO - have concerns about nuclear power generation to the ridiculous notion that voters with “concerns” about Harris might vote for Trump instead is absurd.

One is being aware that nuclear facilities have a documented history of massive environmental impacts (see Fukushima and Chernobyl, as well as the many concerns - there’s that word again - about the waste). The other is suggesting someone would vote for the convicted felon and adjudicated rapist because Harris is a bit ambiguous with her Middle East policy. Both statements may be true, as ridiculous as the notion is regarding Harris/Trump, but that doesn’t make the analogy appropriate.


As for solar energy, I don’t know of anyone who has suggested that solar will be the savior energy source by itself. It’s part of the package, and with the way growth is trending, it’s going to be a big part. But it’s still just part of the equation. Wind, geothermal, nuclear, even tidal and other niche technologies will also be part of the path away from fossil fuels. And yet, none of those technologies are without issues of their own. But don’t let the fact that an emerging solar technology comes with an environmental risk take away from the fact that it’s exponentially better than continued use of fossil fuels.

[NNadir]

15. I reported in another thread with data (Mauna Loa) now active...

...how I feel about discussions about Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.

Chernobyl took place in 1986, 38 years ago.

Fukushima took place in 2011, 13 years ago.

The general figure for deaths attributed to air pollution is 7 million people per year, 19,000 every damned day.

This suggests that more than a quarter of a billion people, more than six times the population of Ukraine have died since the Chernobyl explosion. Roughly 90 million people have similarly died since Fukushima from air pollution. Note I am excluding deaths from extreme global heating that are now becoming prominent.

Given these numbers, it offends me that I even have to talk endlessly about these "concerns."

The solar industry is a trillion dollar scale waste that has done nothing, zero, to address the destruction of the planetary atmosphere which is now accelerating.

I have no use for selective attention.

[wysimdnwyg]

16. And yet you continue to misrepresent - or misunderstand - what I'm saying

My argument is not that nuclear (or solar) is worse than fossil fuels. You and I can agree that continued use of fossil fuels is by far the worst thing we can do. So please stop trying to imply that I’m suggesting for one second that there is ANY equivalence there.

Now, if you can show me (and not by a reference to another thread, especially without a link) how the environmental impact of perovskite solar - or solar as a whole - is worse than nuclear generation, I’d be happy to review. (Be aware: you’re the scientist, I’m in IT, and much of what you understand may be over my head.) Until then, please understand that I believe nuclear is and will continue to be part of the solution, at least over the next few decades.

And come on, saying solar has “done nothing, zero, to address the destruction of the planetary atmosphere” is absurd. Every kilowatt of energy used from solar is less used from fossil fuel sources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. I would suggest it is the former

Been there…

[cachukis]

2. Depressing as hell.

[Bayard]

4. I am curious

What is your solution for disposal of nuclear waste?

[hunter]

9. It seems to me that fossil fuel waste is the much greater threat.

There's enough gas in the ground to destroy what's left of the natural world as we know it, and our entire civilization as well.

We may already be past the point of no return because of fossil fuels, not nuclear power.

The volume of nuclear waste is small and manageable. The volume of fossil fuel waste is not. Fossil fuel waste is simply dumped everywhere and we mostly ignore it, even when it's killing people. Some of that toxic fossil fuel waste has a half life of forever.

[NNadir]

12. While a comprehensive answer would be highly technical...

...and is touched upon in many posts in my journal, I hardly think this should be a major concern, given that used nuclear fuel, unlike any other byproduct used to generate energy, has a spectacular, unmatched record of not harming anyone.

We are far more in need of dealing with energy waste that does kill people, notably fossil fuel waste.

I will say this: The "solution" to dealing with used nuclear fuel is to recognize that it is extremely valuable and a key to the survival of the planet. Without putting it to use, we will have a scaling timeliness problem requiring mining and enrichment. We can and should do better.

[farmbo]

5. Perovskites solar panels will not replace silicon panels until (unless) the lead problem is fixed.

Although they are nominally more efficient than silicon panels, perovskites panels are not ready for prime time and will not enjoy significant adoption until their manufacturers can scale up production to begin to complete in the silicon- dominated panel market.
Your concerns about lead in perovskites panels is well- placed, but hypothetical at this time. They are not being deployed in significant numbers and may never compete with cheap Chinese manufactured silicon panels.
Solar, wind, and geothermal energy are now cheaper than coal, oil and natural gas generation to deploy, when lifetime fueling costs are taken into consideration.Fossil fuel usage may continue to increase , but largely for political reasons.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Naturally, the OP only talks about what its author wishes were true

The author of the OP is not truly interested in science, which requires a mind open to considering inconvenient facts, which may not match the “scientist’s” preferred notions of “reality.”

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07951-y

Article | Open access | Published: 03 January 2019
Highly stable and efficient all-inorganic lead-free perovskite solar cells with native-oxide passivation

…

[hunter]

8. New hybrid natural gas / wind / solar / battery power systems are not "cheaper" than nuclear power.

What's worse they reduce carbon emissions by 40% at most, leaving filthy natural gas as the primary power source.

Nuclear power is the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely. Solar and wind will do nothing in the long run to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gasses humans dump into earth's atmosphere and oceans.

As an environmentalist I oppose all solar and wind development on all previously undeveloped land and seascapes. We are not going to save the world by trashing it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. EIA: The Electricity Mix in the United States Shifts from Fossil Fuels to Renewables

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/narrative/index.php#TheElectricityMixinth

The Electricity Mix in the United States Shifts from Fossil Fuels to Renewables
In this section, we discuss renewables displacing fossil fuels in the electric power sector.

Renewables displace fossil fuels in the electric power sector due to declining renewable technology costs and rising subsidies for renewable power
Economic growth paired with increasing electrification in end-use sectors results in stable growth in U.S. electric power demand through 2050 in all cases. Declining capital costs for solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage, as well as government subsidies such as those included in the IRA, result in renewables becoming increasingly cost effective compared with the alternatives when building new power capacity.

Renewables are increasingly meeting power demand throughout the projection period (Figure 2). Natural gas, coal, and nuclear generation shares decline. Renewable power outcompetes nuclear power, even in the Low Zero-Carbon Technology Cost (ZTC) case, which evaluates the impact of more aggressive cost declines for nuclear and renewables than the Reference case. Most natural gas-fired generation comes from combined-cycled power plants as opposed to simple-cycle combustion turbines. Uncertainty in natural gas prices across cases leads to various projections for combined-cycle units in the short term, but in the long term, natural gas demand from the electric power sector stabilizes across all cases.


Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (AE02023)
Note: Shaded regions represent maximum and minimum values for each projection year across the AEO2023 Reference case and side cases. Ref=Reference case.

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. NREL: 100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Study

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-study.html

100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Study

…

Key Findings
Technology Deployment Must Rapidly Scale Up
In all modeled scenarios, new clean energy technologies are deployed at an unprecedented scale and rate to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035. As modeled, wind and solar energy provide 60%–80% of generation in the least-cost electricity mix in 2035, and the overall generation capacity grows to roughly three times the 2020 level by 2035—including a combined 2 terawatts of wind and solar.

To achieve those levels would require rapid and sustained growth in installations of solar and wind generation capacity. If there are challenges with siting and land use to be able to deploy this new generation capacity and associated transmission, nuclear capacity helps make up the difference and more than doubles today’s installed capacity by 2035.

Across the four scenarios, 5–8 gigawatts of new hydropower and 3–5 gigawatts of new geothermal capacity are also deployed by 2035. Diurnal storage (2–12 hours of capacity) also increases across all scenarios, with 120–350 gigawatts deployed by 2035 to ensure demand for electricity is met during all hours of the year.

Seasonal storage becomes important when clean electricity makes up about 80%–95% of generation and there is a multiday to seasonal mismatch of variable renewable supply and demand. Across the scenarios, seasonal capacity in 2035 ranges about 100–680 gigawatts.

…

So, if people don’t want solar farms and wind farms to be built in “my back yard” maybe they’ll accept nuclear power plants instead… (yeah… right… good luck with that!)