Panasonic vs Sunpower

[littleharbor]

Sell them on eBay.

If they're still functional, why not? Ebay is a pain to sell on though. Local craigslist ads work better.

[SunEagle]

Locally I have found places to recycle old electronics, all batteries, tires, and flourescent tubes. But am still
looking for a way to get rid of PV panels. Bruce Roe

Sell them on eBay.

[bcroe]

Locally I have found places to recycle old electronics, all batteries, tires, and flourescent tubes. But am still
looking for a way to get rid of PV panels. Bruce Roe

[Mike90250]

Dan, you bring nothing new, just regurgitating the same old same old. Kalifornia makes a policy, others fall blindly behind. Cloning a stupid policy does not make it good. Safe, sane disposal is always preferred. But think, when a tornado rips through a solar farm and shreds 60,000 panels and disperses it, it's an act of nature and OK. Or lets ban PV totally in the tornado belt. There, don't you feel safer ?
Try disposing of a CFL bulb in Kalifornia now, in my area, the dump only takes them 2 days a year. Stores wont take them back. Where are the rest going - buried in the regular trash.

[DanKegel]

That page is from Kalifornia...

Best case, there will be widespread access to good recycling programs for solar panels in the future (say, like pvcycle.org's), and this just won't be a problem.
Worst case... well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but:

End-of-life solar panels may be considered hazardous waste in at least two states beyond California: New York and Massachusetts. See
training.ny-sun.ny.gov/88-resources/faqs/general-faqs/207-is-anything-within-the-arrays-or-associated-materials-such-that-future-disposal-will-require-disposal-as-anything-other-than-simple-garbage-as-in-household-garbage
mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/solar/solar-pv-guide.pdf
There's concern in North Carolina, too: carolinajournal.com/news-article/lawmakers-warn-of-solar-farm-cleanup-costs/

So... depending on whether and how your state regulates solar panel disposal, and how pessimistic you are about having access to solar panel recycling, you may want to consider avoiding panels that contain significant quantities of lead, cadmium, or other toxic materials.
And get and save a copy of the datasheet for the panels, as that might be hard to find later.

This is a fairly negative message about solar panels (a 'green' technology), not sure why Mike would consider this a greenwashing message of any sort.

While looking this stuff up, I found a few possibly helpful pages:
greenelectronicscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PV_Primer_Phase1_FINAL_April2015.pdf also looks informative.
digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=gguelj
theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/03/solar-panels-ewaste
pvcycle.org
Also, RoHS and/or "PV Cycle" compliance may be worth looking into.

[J.P.M.]

Dude, appreciate the passion but I think your emotion here is getting you twisted up. There is a difference between the science of identifying lead in plumbing fittings and recognizing it as a (low but measurable) risk to public health, and the policy that is to accept the (higher) risk of broken fittings in an attempt to reduce that public health risk. These discussions are hard to have when people who object to the policy want to attack the science, which more often than not, stands on its own. California has lots of policies I don't understand or agree with, but that doesn't mean the science underneath them is bad, it just means the policy makers choose a different set of trade-offs than I would. The "nanny state" doesn't create science, it creates policy.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the link provided doesn't actually indicate which panels might be hazardous, it just has an embedded link to a comprehensive list of panels manufacturers so that an interested party could go contact each one and figure out which ones are safer than others (eye roll).

Good motives can lead to policies that can have unintended consequences when the original intent of the policies is poorly understood, in this case by the general public. I'm all for getting the lead out the steel that fittings are made from, but I'm not sure the idea of a lot of lead poisoning coming from my sink faucets is either well understood by science or quantified at this time. I don't have the same faith in the quality of science being done today as I did 30 years ago. I don't believe that's attacking the science, just maybe the quality of the science or what passes for science these days - and I am a fan of rigorous and methodical investigation.

But it seems to me people have become such lamebrained sheeple that they only believe the last thing they heard and so incapable of making informed decisions and being stampeded that we have real potential of a situation where any opinion is as valid as the most informed opinion simply because someone has it - and the idea of all opinions being equally valid negating the idea that some opinions are are better fit with reality. One result of all this is that the loudest mouth and the biggest finger point carry the day and the debate, be that voice wise or ignorant or anything in between, no matter.

On getting the lead out, If folks are willing to pay for it, go for it, but good luck on quantifying the costs or benefits. I'd guess that a lot more of the expense of additional machining is incurred in the additional time, care, and rejected pieces caused by not using sulfurized and/or leaded steel in the machining of plumbing fixtures, with the result being that cost variance becoming an additional profit producer as mfgs. add markup to it. Interestingly (perhaps), machine operator contact with other potential toxins added as a necessity to the removal of the lead can raise other problems, leaded steel operations requiring a lot less operator intervention.

Nothing is simple. More understanding leads to more informed decision making by the public. More ignorance leads to less freedom of choice from the tyranny of that ignorance.

[GRickard]

Another potentially useful ruined by all the Kardashian style bickering and moaning.

[sensij]

And yet you claim to like science.
That page is from Kalifornia, where every grocery store (even whole foods) has a sign stating the store contents are hazardous and cause cancer. Sure not founded on real science, but fear mongering "brass has lead", therefor brass plumbing fixtures must be banned. Even if the lead free version breaks easily and drains 6,000 gallons of water out of my tanks. I've had enough of the nanny state telling me (and fools that believe junk science sites) how to live, what car to drive, fuel to use, to destroy my power tools (I now buy aviation gas for tools). Yet I do wear kevlar chaps when chainsawing, and ear plugs when weed whacking.
Kalifornia - same state where failed water policy have decimated the native salmon population via shutting down pumps at hatcheries and releasing hot dam water into cold streams.

Face it Dan. I'm calling you EVERY TIME on your greenwash BS. I don't use Li batteries and won't comment much on them, having little experience with them.
But EVERY junky statement and link, I will call you out on, till I'm tired and ban you.

And you do know how to treat Hazmat waste ? You call the company, and a crew in white respirator suits climbs your roof to remove the panels and packs them individually into hermetic shipping bags, and hauls them to a disposal site. Just like cleaning up asbestos insulation. That will sure cost citizens a lot, but hey, Dan is rich and can afford it, so why not everyone else.

Dude, appreciate the passion but I think your emotion here is getting you twisted up. There is a difference between the science of identifying lead in plumbing fittings and recognizing it as a (low but measurable) risk to public health, and the policy that is to accept the (higher) risk of broken fittings in an attempt to reduce that public health risk. These discussions are hard to have when people who object to the policy want to attack the science, which more often than not, stands on its own. California has lots of policies I don't understand or agree with, but that doesn't mean the science underneath them is bad, it just means the policy makers choose a different set of trade-offs than I would. The "nanny state" doesn't create science, it creates policy.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the link provided doesn't actually indicate which panels might be hazardous, it just has an embedded link to a comprehensive list of panels manufacturers so that an interested party could go contact each one and figure out which ones are safer than others (eye roll).

[J.P.M.]

There are worse metals found in most pv panels then lead. And far worse metals and toxins found in all types of batteries. Neither technologies are clean or GREEN if thrown away.

Another reality: Most industrial and commercial shell & tube heat exchangers that a lot of consumer products initially and ultimately get exposed to use something called admiralty metal for the tubing ( the actual heat transfer surface). That material is primarily copper and zinc, but needs and contains arsenic or antimony as one of its constituent materials - Not much, but enough to scare the pants off of the uninformed. And, guess what: U.S. pennies once had the same levels of arsenic in them, since removed.

Point is, the uninformed can be stampeded by the tyranny of their ignorance. The state of our education system is only increasing that ignorance. The tactics of the Dan's of the world help spread their spoor of misinformation and fear. Informed truth, whatever that is, will set people free.

[Mike90250]

dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/SolarPanels/upload/SolarPanelFAQs.pdf indicates that panels which contain "certain levels" of lead do need to be treated as hazardous waste.
I don't think it's an unfounded concern.

And yet you claim to like science.
That page is from Kalifornia, where every grocery store (even whole foods) has a sign stating the store contents are hazardous and cause cancer. Sure not founded on real science, but fear mongering "brass has lead", therefor brass plumbing fixtures must be banned. Even if the lead free version breaks easily and drains 6,000 gallons of water out of my tanks. I've had enough of the nanny state telling me (and fools that believe junk science sites) how to live, what car to drive, fuel to use, to destroy my power tools (I now buy aviation gas for tools). Yet I do wear kevlar chaps when chainsawing, and ear plugs when weed whacking.
Kalifornia - same state where failed water policy have decimated the native salmon population via shutting down pumps at hatcheries and releasing hot dam water into cold streams.

Face it Dan. I'm calling you EVERY TIME on your greenwash BS. I don't use Li batteries and won't comment much on them, having little experience with them.
But EVERY junky statement and link, I will call you out on, till I'm tired and ban you.

And you do know how to treat Hazmat waste ? You call the company, and a crew in white respirator suits climbs your roof to remove the panels and packs them individually into hermetic shipping bags, and hauls them to a disposal site. Just like cleaning up asbestos insulation. That will sure cost citizens a lot, but hey, Dan is rich and can afford it, so why not everyone else.

[SunEagle]

dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/SolarPanels/upload/SolarPanelFAQs.pdf indicates that panels which contain "certain levels" of lead do need to be treated as hazardous waste.
I don't think it's an unfounded concern.

There are worse metals found in most pv panels then lead. And far worse metals and toxins found in all types of batteries. Neither technologies are clean or GREEN if thrown away.

[DanKegel]

Standard electronic solder is easily recycled and adds virtually nothing to the disposal cost...
But if you get all panicky and say, Oh - those have lead in them, and cause them to be classed as hazmat....

dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/SolarPanels/upload/SolarPanelFAQs.pdf indicates that panels which contain "certain levels" of lead do need to be treated as hazardous waste.
I don't think it's an unfounded concern.

[SunEagle]

Standard electronic solder is easily recycled and adds virtually nothing to the disposal cost. at the first heating, the solder drips off at 800F. Lead free solder has to be heated hotter to be reclaimed, adding to the recycle expense.
But if you get all panicky and say, Oh - those have lead in them, and cause them to be classed as hazmat. Oh, wait, you are "green" mafia. Look up what your Li batteries cost, from mining to disposal, compared to easily recycled lead acid.

Don't confuse the guy with facts.

[Mike90250]

FWIW, when I bought my first solar roof, I chose "lead-free" panels (thinking about the cost of disposal down the line).

Standard electronic solder is easily recycled and adds virtually nothing to the disposal cost. at the first heating, the solder drips off at 800F. Lead free solder has to be heated hotter to be reclaimed, adding to the recycle expense.
But if you get all panicky and say, Oh - those have lead in them, and cause them to be classed as hazmat. Oh, wait, you are "green" mafia. Look up what your Li batteries cost, from mining to disposal, compared to easily recycled lead acid.

[DanKegel]

ok so I netted out with the conversation above that the Pani panels are ok quality if I'm willing to pay more than the others mentioned. I'm looking for a C-Sun vendor in NorCal, out of all mentioned, I don't have a quote for that manufacture... All the others mentioned are from:

C-Sun - China
canadian - China
trina - China
QCell - ???
S-Energy - ???

QCell may be Malaysia: cleantechnica.com/2015/01/26/hanwha-q-cells-pulling-germany-production-shifting-malaysia/
S-Energy looks Korean, like LG.

What are your criteria? Cost and reliability?

FWIW, when I bought my first solar roof, I chose "lead-free" panels (thinking about the cost of disposal down the line).