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.

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.

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.)

...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.

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.

...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.

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.

What is your solution for disposal of nuclear waste?

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.

...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.

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.

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

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.