Solar Power: The New E-Waste, or Safe to Recycle?

Hey Mr. Green,

Are solar panels worthwhile as an environmental investment, or are they the next e-waste? –-Anna L, in Pasadena, California

Given the staggering amount of e-waste we already generate, your concern is legitimate. We dump more than 1.8 million tons of electronic stuff every year, according to the EPA. That’s a toxic heap of 14 million TVs; 109 million computers and their peripherals, and 112 million cell phones. (To find responsible electronics recyclers, see the Electronics TakeBack Coalition’s listings at www.electronicstakeback.com/how-to-recycle-electronics/)

Defunct solar panels are not likely to grow into similar mountains--and that’s quite a claim from techno-skeptic like Mr. Green, who has been called a hopeless Luddite. Solar panels will last 25 years, unlike so much electronic gear that gets tossed because it’s obsolete, dysfunctional, or simply uncool within a few months or years of its gestation This life span should give the solar industry and government regulators ample time to set up safe recycling operations. Already, one major producer of solar panels, First Solar, has recycling facilities at its plants that operate by OSHA and other safety standards and recover 95 percent of panel material and 90 percent of the glass used. Because the bulk of the recycling will take place far in the future, this company has set up a separate trust to fund recycling operations. The largest U.S. solar panel company, Solar World, has a certified recycling facility in Germany where it can send old panels, while in Europe, 85 percent of the solar manufacturers are already committed to safety-certified recycling programs.

The Solar Energy Industry Association, a major solar trade group, even includes recycling in its “Solar Bill of Rights,” declaring, “Consumers should expect the solar industry to minimize its environmental impact through panel recycling and other programs, and communicate information about available incentives in a clear, accurate and accessible manner..”

The reason for this approach are obvious: At the very heart of the solar industry is its claim to green energy, so it becomes highly vulnerable to attack if green energy comes at the cost of a dirty environment cluttered with dirty waste. By contrast, other electronics industries never made environmental values their main reason for existence and the basis of their marketing. They had little reason to worry about chucking millions of tons of their products. This radical difference explains why solar-industry folks I’ve consulted view environmental regulation and recycling with a positive attitude one rarely finds in most other industries.

But not all solar manufacturers are safe or environmentally responsible, so if you are considering the purchase or rental of solar panels, you should be prepared to ask tough questions about any solar manufacturer’s processes and recycling policies.

P.S. I was going to append a fine poem, “Throw Your Cell Phone in the Ocean,” but was worried that some people might take literally what is a metaphor for unplugging the wretched excess of electronic gadgetry and tuning in to the actual world around us. If you'd like a copy, request it at submit your question above.

Hey Mr. Scribe, What Are the Greenest Writing Tools?

Hey Mr. Green,

What is better for the environment, refillable pencils and pens, or the throwaway kind?

--Terri, Burnaby, British Columbia

The choice of pens and pencil isn’t the most urgent environmental question facing us and the planet, but it raises enough issues to be worthy of attention. Not the least of these issues is the difficulty in finding a definitive answer.

Non-throwaway mechanical pencils with the hardest, finest lead seem the obvious best choice. They last indefinitely, the hard fine lead wears down slowly, and they require less raw material than regular wood pencils that devolve to mere stubs that get tossed. Even when wood pencils write a breakthrough mathematical formula or a great novel, they all come to the same sad fate. Another advantage of mechanical pencils is that they use less graphite (aka lead), because sharpening a wooden pencil also shaves away some of this material to acquire a new point, whereas the mechanical model is "Eversharp"--as indicated by the brand name of a worthy pioneer in mechanical-pencil manufacturing.

The same logic applies to a ballpoint pen that uses fine-tipped refills instead of being thrown away when the ink.

But hold on. It’s not that simple, because not all pens and pencils are created equal, not in size or composition or sourcing of their many materials, which are mind-boggling in their variety. Everything hinges on these details. BIC, for example, the iconic purveyor of disposable writing instruments, actually makes throwaway pens and pencils that have been certified by France’s Ecolabel program. Both the BIC Orange fine-point pen with its tiny (0.8mm) point and its Evolution 650 pencil have won the ecolabel honor based on their lifespans (the Orange can write for 1.5 miles); their use of recycled materials, their light weight, and no less than 15 other environmental criteria, ranging from breakage resistance to eraser durability. Life cycle assessments that go into such detail are not available for more than a few writing products, and even if they were, considerable doubt would remain because different materials and processes have so many different impacts that they are difficult to compare. 

Given this level of uncertainty, and the fact that my office is not fully paperless (and I'm not even sure the paperless office is all that miraculous anyhow), I default to mechanical pencils and fountain pens, on cultural grounds. Well-made objects that you use, cherishe, and maintain for years have an intrinsic value than can't be quantified, any more than you can quantify the spiritual worth of a poem or an art work. (Sometimes we environmentalists get too rigid and puritanical. Granted, a gigantic sterile modern warehouse might be more "sustainable" than the Taj Mahal or the Cathedral of Chartres, but do we really want to replace them?) Also, an excess of throwaway items seems to foster a throwaway culture that generates more than 240 million tons of municipal waste each year in the United States alone. In 1960, we dumped 2.68 pounds per person per day. By 2005, that figure jumped to 4.67 pounds. Unfortunately, our quality of life has not correspondingly increased. 

Staying safe from ticks

Hey Mr. Green,
I work outdoors in tall grass that harbors ticks. I've heard that unless you wash your clothes in hot water and dry them in the dryer, ticks can survive in the fabric. True? If so, the daily wash-and-dry routine, plus a shower, seems incredibly energy-intensive. Is there a more efficient way to minimize my risk of Lyme disease from ticks?--Rowan in Aberdeen, Maryland

When trying to save energy, we sometimes forget other environmental hazards. The amount of resources you'd consume de-ticking your duds might be far less than you'd end up burning for doctor visits, hospital stays, or, God forbid, having to drive everywhere because you'd gotten so decrepit.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommends removing ticks from clothes, washing the clothing in hot water, then drying it in high heat for a full hour--though the American Lyme Disease Foundation says just 20 minutes will do. The high-heat part is especially important; research shows that these bloodsucking micro-menaces can survive a strong washing but not extended exposure to high temperatures.

Lyme disease is on the rise in the United States, with nearly 30,000 confirmed cases reported in 2009. Ironically, this may be partly the result of two great environmental triumphs: the regrowth of forests and the resurgence of deer, which carry ticks, from a low of 500,000 in the early 1900s to 30 million today.

Whatever the reason for Lyme disease's revival, don't hold back on efforts to avoid it; doing so would represent a false economy.

Which is worse: clean cars or green lawns?

Hey Mr. Green,
I'm seeing lots of media messages urging people not to wash their cars at home in order to stop toxic runoff. This makes sense, but why aren't there similar efforts to stop people from fertilizing and pouring pesticides on lawns? Are efforts to reduce home car washes more common because the lawn care industry is much larger than the car wash industry?
--Adam in Zionsville, Indiana

Your theory about the clout of the lawn care business may be valid. The EPA actually diagnoses folks who wash their cars once a month as "chronic car washers," but nowhere does it identify our obsession with lawns as a psychological disorder.

Of the two quasi-religious rituals, punctilious lawn care is probably worse than periodic vehicle baptism. Lawn-tenders pour on three times as much pesticide per acre as farmers do. Phosphorous-rich runoff from lawn fertilizer feeds ugly carpets of algae that suffocate waterways. Minnesota got so bummed by all the phosphorous draining into its fabled lakes that it banned phosphorous-containing lawn fertilizers five years ago. New York recently followed suit, and other states are also considering bans.

Also, about 100 times more water is used on lawns than on car washing at home, making our 30 million acres of residential lawns America's most irrigated "crop."

But by no means am I letting DIY car washers off the hook: The practice swishes toxic gunk and chemical-laced cleaning products into storm drains that then channel the pollutants into our waterways and oceans. So I recommend commercial car washes, which use less water and are required to adhere to EPA rules. If you choose to wash your car at home, though, use biodegradable soap and limit the amount of water that ends up in the street.

Mercury and Broken Fluorescent Bulbs: How Dangerous?

Hey Mr. Green,

Your response to the questions about the use of compact fluorescent bulbs was very helpful. (See the Nov. 23 blog.) But I have a concern about the breakage of fluorescents dissipating mercury inside the house. A couple of kids who have a tendency to play soccer in the living room does increase the odds of a broken light bulb. How would you balance that risk with the obvious benefits of the new bulbs. --Paul, University Heights, Ohio

Unless the kids are mischievous little soccer prodigies who aim for the lights and consistently hit them (something the lads back in my soccer-coaching days couldn’t accomplish in their wildest dreams), there’s no need to panic. However, if a bulb is busted, open the windows immediately, shut off the central heating or air system, and leave the room for 15 minutes to let mercury vapor dissipate, per the EPA’s advice. But DON’T VACUUM the bulb fragments, because a vacuum cleaner can retain the mercury instead of letting it evaporate to the outside. Finally, clean up carefully, following the EPA’s instructions at http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html#before

If these precautions sound scary, it’s because the EPA is being extremely cautious and conservative. True, when a typical fluorescent bulb containing 5 milligrams of mercury breaks and is not cleaned up, there is a brief spike in airborne mercury anywhere from about 2 to 180 times the above the EPA’s recommendedhazard limit at one foot from the floor. But the concentration drops rapidly after that, and in less than 20 minutes is below or less than 25 percent higher the limit for most bulbs tested, except for one brand that remained 9 times higher, according to detailed research by Maine’s Department of Environmental Quality. At a 5-foot level--closer to the altitude of your soccer players--the initial spike is much lower, and drops below the maximum in less than 20 minutes, except for that one brand. Moreover, the EPA max is set for constant exposure over time, whereas the exposure from a broken bulb is merely short term. Also,  my calculations based on kids’ lung capacity and weight, indicate that the amount of mercury from a bulb that a 50-pound kid could possibly inhale in a half hour, even at the highest level found, would still be way below the limit recommended by the EPA per unit of blood volume or body weight.

So why all the fuss about cleanup? Well, because the aformentioned limits are set for adults, not children, who are more susceptible to the effects of mercury. Secondly, we don’t really know what the impact of a brief spike might be. Hence, it seems wise to apply the precautionary principle, or “better safe than sorry” rather than wait for definitive parameters. The most effective way to inculcate this useful principle is to issue an extreme warning: “If you kick that damn ball around the living room and smash those bulbs, Mr. Green says you’ll get mercury poisoning.” Granted, fear of Mr. Green won’t equal fear of God as a deterrent, but if your presentation is sufficiently menacing, it will be effective.  GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-AL!