Environmental impact of electricity generation

Electric power systems consist of generation plants of different energy sources, transmission networks, and distribution lines. Each of these components can have environmental impacts at multiple stages of their development and use including in their construction, during the generation of electricity, and in their decommissioning and disposal. These impacts can be split into operational impacts (fuel sourcing, global atmospheric and localized pollution) and construction impacts (manufacturing, installation, decommissioning, and disposal). All forms of electricity generation have some form of environmental impact,[1] but coal-fired power is the dirtiest.[2][3][4] This page is organized by energy source and includes impacts such as water usage, emissions, local pollution, and wildlife displacement.

Greenhouse gas emissions per energy source.
Coal power is being phased out because of its pollution - such as Navajo Generating Station

Greenhouse gas emissions
This section is an excerpt from Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources.[edit]

Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the environmental impacts of electricity generation. Measurement of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions involves calculating the global warming potential of energy sources through life-cycle assessment. These are usually sources of only electrical energy but sometimes sources of heat are evaluated.[5] The findings are presented in units of global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated by that source. The scale uses the global warming potential unit, the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and the unit of electrical energy, the kilowatt hour (kWh). The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change harmonized the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) findings of the major electricity generating sources in use worldwide. This was done by analyzing the findings of hundreds of individual scientific papers assessing each energy source.[6] Coal is by far the worst emitter, followed by natural gas, with solar, wind and nuclear all low-carbon. Hydropower, biomass, geothermal and ocean power may generally be low-carbon, but poor design or other factors could result in higher emissions from individual power stations.

For all technologies, advances in efficiency, and therefore reductions in CO2e since the time of publication, have not been included. For example, the total life cycle emissions from wind power may have lessened since publication. Similarly, due to the time frame over which the studies were conducted, nuclear Generation II reactor's CO2e results are presented and not the global warming potential of Generation III reactors. Other limitations of the data include: a) missing life cycle phases, and, b) uncertainty as to where to define the cut-off point in the global warming potential of an energy source. The latter is important in assessing a combined electrical grid in the real world, rather than the established practice of simply assessing the energy source in isolation.

Water usage

Water usage is one of the main environmental impacts of electricity generation.[7] All thermal power plants (coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, and biomass) use water as a cooling fluid to drive the thermodynamic cycles that allow electricity to be extracted from heat energy. Solar uses water for cleaning equipment, while hydroelectricity has water usage from evaporation from the reservoirs. The amount of water usage is often of great concern for electricity generating systems as populations increase and droughts become a concern. In addition, changes in water resources may impact the reliability of electricity generation.[8]

Discussions of water usage of electricity generation distinguish between water withdrawal and water consumption.[8] According to the United States Geological Survey, "withdrawal" is defined as the amount of water removed from the ground or diverted from a water source for use, while "consumption" refers to the amount of water that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment.[9] Both water withdrawal and consumption are important environmental impacts to evaluate.

General numbers for fresh water usage of different power sources are shown below.

  Water Consumption (gal/MW-h)
Power source Low case Medium/average case High case
Nuclear power 100 (once-through cooling) 270 once-through, 650 (tower and pond) 845 (cooling tower)
Coal 58 [10] 500 1,100 (cooling tower, generic combustion)
Natural gas 100 (once-through cycle) 800 (steam-cycle, cooling towers) 1,170 (steam-cycle with cooling towers)
Hydroelectricity 1,430 4,491 18,000
Solar thermal 53 (dry cooling)[11] 800[11] 1,060 (Trough)[11]
Geothermal 1,800 4,000
Biomass 300 480
Solar photovoltaic 0 26 33
Wind power 0[8] 0[8] 1[8]

Steam-cycle plants (nuclear, coal, NG, solar thermal) require a great deal of water for cooling, to remove the heat at the steam condensers. The amount of water needed relative to plant output will be reduced with increasing boiler temperatures. Coal- and gas-fired boilers can produce high steam temperatures and so are more efficient, and require less cooling water relative to output. Nuclear boilers are limited in steam temperature by material constraints, and solar thermal is limited by concentration of the energy source.[12]

Thermal cycle plants near the ocean have the option of using seawater. Such a site will not have cooling towers and will be much less limited by environmental concerns of the discharge temperature since dumping heat will have very little effect on water temperatures. This will also not deplete the water available for other uses. Nuclear power in Japan for instance, uses no cooling towers at all because all plants are located on the coast. If dry cooling systems are used, significant water from the water table will not be used. Other, more novel, cooling solutions exist, such as sewage cooling at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

Hydroelectricity's main cause of water usage is both evaporation and seepage into the water table.

While water usage is still a major necessity for the production of electricity, since 2015 the use of water has decreased.[13] In 2015 the total water withdrawals from thermoelectric power plants was just over 60 trillion gallons, but in 2020 it decreased to just under 50 trillion gallons. The water use has gone down because of the increase in the use of renewable energy sources.

80% of the decrease in water use is due to the use of natural gas and the use of renewables instead of just producing energy through coal-fired plants. And the other 20% of the decrease in water use comes from the implementation of closed loop recirculating and hybrid cooling systems rather than once through cooling systems. Once through cooling systems has an excessive amount of water withdrawals, so the water is only used once then released. While the closed loop water is reused several times so the water withdrawals is much lower. [14]

Fossil fuels
See also: Environmental impact of the energy industry § Fossil fuel use, Environmental impact of the oil shale industry, and Health and environmental impact of the coal industry

Most electricity today is generated by burning fossil fuels and producing steam which is then used to drive a steam turbine that, in turn, drives an electrical generator.

More serious are concerns about the emissions that result from fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuels constitute a significant repository of carbon buried deep underground. Burning them results in the conversion of this carbon to carbon dioxide, which is then released into the atmosphere. The estimated CO2 emission from the world's electrical power industry is 10 billion tonnes yearly.[15] This results in an increase in the Earth's levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which enhances the greenhouse effect and contributes to global warming.[16]

Coal power

Depending on the particular fossil fuel and the method of burning, other emissions may be produced as well. Ozone, sulfur dioxide, NO2 and other gases are often released, as well as particulate matter.[17] Sulfur and nitrogen oxides contribute to smog and acid rain. In the past, plant owners addressed this problem by building very tall flue-gas stacks, so that the pollutants would be diluted in the atmosphere. While this helps reduce local contamination, it does not help at all with global issues.

Fossil fuels, particularly coal, also contain dilute radioactive material, and burning them in very large quantities releases this material into the environment, leading to low levels of local and global radioactive contamination, the levels of which are, ironically, higher than a nuclear power station as their radioactive contaminants are controlled and stored.

Coal also contains traces of toxic heavy elements such as mercury, arsenic and others.[18] Mercury vaporized in a power plant's boiler may stay suspended in the atmosphere and circulate around the world. While a substantial inventory of mercury exists in the environment, as other man-made emissions of mercury become better controlled, power plant emissions become a significant fraction of the remaining emissions. Power plant emissions of mercury in the United States are thought to be about 50 tons per year in 2003, and several hundred tons per year in China. Power plant designers can fit equipment to power stations to reduce emissions.

Coal mining practices in the United States have also included strip mining and removing mountain tops. Mill tailings are left out bare and have been leached into local rivers and resulted in most or all of the rivers in coal producing areas to run red year round with sulfuric acid that kills all life in the rivers.

Fossil gas power

In 2022 the IEA said that greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired power plants had increased by nearly 3% the previous year and that more efforts were needed to reduce them.[19]

As well as greenhouse gases, these power plants emit nitrogen oxides (NOx)[20] but this is less dangerous than NOx from gas appliances in houses.[21]

The efficiency of gas-fired power plants can be improved by co-generation and geothermal (combined heat and power) methods. Process steam can be extracted from steam turbines. Waste heat produced by thermal generating stations can be used for space heating of nearby buildings. By combining electric power production and heating, less fuel is consumed, thereby reducing the environmental effects compared with separate heat and power systems.

Fuel oil and diesel

Dirty oil is burnt in power plants in a few oil producing countries such as Iran.[22] Diesel is often used in backup generators, which can cause air pollution.[23]

Switching from fuels to electricity
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Electrification § Electrification for sustainable energy.[edit]

As clean energy is mostly generated in the form of electricity, such as renewable energy or nuclear power, a switch to these energy sources requires that end uses, such as transport and heating, be electrified for the world's energy systems to be sustainable. Recent work has shown that in the U.S. and Canada the use of heat pumps (HP) is economic if powered with solar photovoltaic (PV) devices to offset propane heating in rural areas[24] and natural gas heating in cities.[25] A 2023 study[26] investigated: (1) a residential natural gas-based heating system and grid electricity, (2) a residential natural gas-based heating system with PV to serve the electric load, (3) a residential HP system with grid electricity, and (4) a residential HP+PV system. It found that under typical inflation conditions, the lifecycle cost of natural gas and reversible, air-source heat pumps are nearly identical, which in part explains why heat pump sales have surpassed gas furnace sales in the U.S. for the first time during a period of high inflation.[27] With higher rates of inflation or lower PV capital costs, PV becomes a hedge against rising prices and encourages the adoption of heat pumps by also locking in both electricity and heating cost growth. The study[26] concludes: "The real internal rate of return for such prosumer technologies is 20x greater than a long-term certificate of deposit, which demonstrates the additional value PV and HP technologies offer prosumers over comparably secure investment vehicles while making substantive reductions in carbon emissions." This approach can be improved by integrating a thermal battery into the heat pump+solar energy heating system.[28][29]

It is easier to sustainably produce electricity than it is to sustainably produce liquid fuels. Therefore, adoption of electric vehicles is a way to make transport more sustainable.[30] Hydrogen vehicles may be an option for larger vehicles which have not yet been widely electrified, such as long distance lorries.[31] Many of the techniques needed to lower emissions from shipping and aviation are still early in their development.[32]

A large fraction of the world population cannot afford sufficient cooling for their homes. In addition to air conditioning, which requires electrification and additional power demand, passive building design and urban planning will be needed to ensure cooling needs are met in a sustainable way.[33] Similarly, many households in the developing and developed world suffer from fuel poverty and cannot heat their houses enough.[34] Existing heating practices are often polluting.

A key sustainable solution to heating is electrification (heat pumps, or the less efficient electric heater). The IEA estimates that heat pumps currently provide only 5% of space and water heating requirements globally, but could provide over 90%.[35] Use of ground source heat pumps not only reduces total annual energy loads associated with heating and cooling, it also flattens the electric demand curve by eliminating the extreme summer peak electric supply requirements.[36] However, heat pumps and resistive heating alone will not be sufficient for the electrification of industrial heat. This because in several processes higher temperatures are required which cannot be achieved with these types of equipment. For example, for the production of ethylene via steam cracking temperatures as high as 900 °C are required. Hence, drastically new processes are required. Nevertheless, power-to-heat is expected to be the first step in the electrification of the chemical industry with an expected large-scale implementation by 2025.[37]

Some cities in the United States have started prohibiting gas hookups for new houses, with state laws passed and under consideration to either require electrification or prohibit local requirements.[38] The UK government is experimenting with electrification for home heating to meet its climate goals.[39] Ceramic and Induction heating for cooktops as well as industrial applications (for instance steam crackers) are examples of technologies that can be used to transition away from natural gas.[40]

Nuclear power
See also: Nuclear power debate
This section is an excerpt from Environmental impact of nuclear power.[edit]
Nuclear power activities involving the environment; mining, enrichment, generation and geological disposal.

Nuclear power has various environmental impacts, both positive and negative, including the construction and operation of the plant, the nuclear fuel cycle, and the effects of nuclear accidents. Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels and so do not directly emit carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide emitted during mining, enrichment, fabrication and transport of fuel is small when compared with the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels of similar energy yield, however, these plants still produce other environmentally damaging wastes.[41] Nuclear energy and renewable energy have reduced environmental costs by decreasing CO2 emissions resulting from energy consumption.[42]

There is a catastrophic risk potential if containment fails,[43] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment.[44] In normal operation, nuclear power plants release less radioactive material than coal power plants whose fly ash contains significant amounts of thorium, uranium and their daughter nuclides.[45]

A large nuclear power plant may reject waste heat to a natural body of water; this can result in undesirable increase of the water temperature with adverse effect on aquatic life. Alternatives include cooling towers.[46] As most commercial nuclear power plants are incapable of online refueling and need periodic shutdowns to exchange spent fuel elements for fresh fuel, many operators schedule this unavoidable downtime for the peak of summer when rivers tend to run lower and the issue of waste heat potentially harming the fluvial environment is most acute.[47]

Mining of uranium ore can disrupt the environment around the mine. However, with modern in-situ leaching technology this impact can be reduced compared to "classical" underground or open-pit mining. Disposal of spent nuclear fuel is controversial, with many proposed long-term storage schemes under intense review and criticism. Diversion of fresh- or low-burnup spent fuel to weapons production presents a risk of nuclear proliferation, however all nuclear weapons states derived the material for their first nuclear weapon from (non-power) research reactors or dedicated "production reactors" and/or uranium enrichment. Finally, some parts the structure of the reactor itself becomes radioactive through neutron activation and will require decades of storage before it can be economically dismantled and in turn disposed of as waste. Measures like reducing the cobalt content in steel to decrease the amount of cobalt-60 produced by neutron capture can reduce the amount of radioactive material produced and the radiotoxicity that originates from this material.[48] However, part of the issue is not radiological but regulatory as most countries assume any given object that originates from the "hot" (radioactive) area of a nuclear power plant or a facility in the nuclear fuel cycle is ipso facto radioactive, even if no contamination or neutron irradiation induced radioactivity is detectable.

Renewable energy

Renewable power technologies can have significant environmental benefits. Unlike coal and natural gas, they can generate electricity and fuels without releasing significant quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, however the greenhouse gas savings from a number of biofuels have been found to be much less than originally anticipated, as discussed in the article Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels.

Both solar and wind have been criticized from an aesthetic point of view.[49] However, methods and opportunities exist to deploy these renewable technologies efficiently and unobtrusively: fixed solar collectors can double as noise barriers along highways, and extensive roadway, parking lot, and roof-top area is currently available; amorphous photovoltaic cells can also be used to tint windows and produce energy.[50]

Hydroelectricity
See also: Environmental impact of reservoirs and Hydroelectricity § Advantages and disadvantages

The major advantage of conventional hydroelectric dams with reservoirs is their ability to store potential power for later electrical production. The combination of a natural supply of energy and production on demand has made hydro power the largest source of renewable energy by far. Other advantages include longer life than fuel-fired generation, low operating costs, and the provision of facilities for water sports. Some dams also operate as pumped-storage plants balancing supply and demand in the generation system. Overall, hydroelectric power can be less expensive than electricity generated from fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and areas with abundant hydroelectric power attract industry.

However, in addition to the advantages above, there are several disadvantages to dams that create large reservoirs. These may include: dislocation of people living where the reservoirs are planned, release of significant amounts of carbon dioxide at construction and flooding of the reservoir, disruption of aquatic ecosystems and bird life, adverse impacts on the river environment, and in rare cases catastrophic failure of the dam wall.[51][52]

Some other disadvantages of the construction of hydroelectric dams is having to build access roads to get to the dam which disrupt the land ecosystem and not just the water ecosystems. Also with the increase in carbon dioxide, there is an increase in methane. This is from the flooding during the creation of the dams, when plants are submerged underwater and decay, they release methane gas.[53] Another disadvantage is the upfront cost to build the dam and the amount of time it takes to build it.[54]

Some dams only generate power and serve no other purpose, but in many places large reservoirs are needed for flood control and/or irrigation, adding a hydroelectric portion is a common way to pay for a new reservoir. Flood control protects life/property and irrigation supports increased agriculture.

Small hydro and run-of-the-river are two low impact alternatives to hydroelectric reservoirs, although they may produce intermittent power due to a lack of stored water.

Tidal
This section is an excerpt from Tidal power § Environmental concerns.[edit]
Tidal power can affect marine life. The turbines' rotating blades can accidentally kill swimming sea life. Projects such as the one in Strangford include a safety mechanism that turns off the turbine when marine animals approach. However, this feature causes a major loss in energy because of the amount of marine life that passes through the turbines.[55] Some fish may avoid the area if threatened by a constantly rotating or noisy object. Marine life is a huge factor when siting tidal power energy generators, and precautions are taken to ensure that as few marine animals as possible are affected by it. The Tethys database provides access to scientific literature and general information on the potential environmental effects of tidal energy.[56] In terms of global warming potential (i.e. carbon footprint), the impact of tidal power generation technologies ranges between 15 and 37 gCO2-eq/kWhe, with a median value of 23.8 gCO2-eq/kWhe.[57] This is in line with the impact of other renewables like wind and solar power, and significantly better than fossil-based technologies.

Biomass
Further information: Biomass § Environmental impact

Electrical power can be generated by burning anything which will combust. Some electrical power is generated by burning crops which are grown specifically for the purpose. Usually this is done by fermenting plant matter to produce ethanol, which is then burned. This may also be done by allowing organic matter to decay, producing biogas, which is then burned. Also, when burned, wood is a form of biomass fuel.[58]

Burning biomass produces many of the same emissions as burning fossil fuels. However, growing biomass captures carbon dioxide out of the air, so that the net contribution to global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is small.

The process of growing biomass is subject to the same environmental concerns as any kind of agriculture. It uses a large amount of land, and fertilizers and pesticides may be necessary for cost-effective growth. Biomass that is produced as a by-product of agriculture shows some promise, but most such biomass is currently being used, for plowing back into the soil as fertilizer if nothing else.

Wind power
This section is an excerpt from Environmental impact of wind power.[edit]
Livestock grazing near a wind turbine.[59]

The environmental impact of electricity generation from wind power is minor when compared to that of fossil fuel power.[60] Wind turbines have some of the lowest global warming potential per unit of electricity generated: far less greenhouse gas is emitted than for the average unit of electricity, so wind power helps limit climate change.[61] Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.[62]

Onshore (on-land) wind farms can have a significant visual impact and impact on the landscape.[63] Due to a very low surface power density and spacing requirements, wind farms typically need to be spread over more land than other power stations.[64][65] Their network of turbines, access roads, transmission lines, and substations can result in "energy sprawl";[66] although land between the turbines and roads can still be used for agriculture.[67][68]

Conflicts arise especially in scenic and culturally-important landscapes. Siting restrictions (such as setbacks) may be implemented to limit the impact.[69] The land between the turbines and access roads can still be used for farming and grazing.[67][70] They can lead to "industrialization of the countryside".[71] Some wind farms are opposed for potentially spoiling protected scenic areas, archaeological landscapes and heritage sites.[72][73][74] A report by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland concluded that wind farms harmed tourism in areas known for natural landscapes and panoramic views.[75]

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest potential impacts on wildlife of onshore wind farms,[66] but they are small[76] and can be mitigated if proper monitoring and mitigation strategies are implemented.[77] The worldwide ecological impact is minimal.[60] Thousands of birds and bats, including rare species, have been killed by wind turbine blades,[78] as there are around other manmade structures, though wind turbines are responsible for far fewer bird deaths than fossil-fueled power stations.[79] This can be mitigated with proper wildlife monitoring.[80]

Many wind turbine blades are made of fiberglass and some only had a lifetime of 10 to 20 years.[81] Previously, there was no market for recycling these old blades,[82] and they were commonly disposed of in landfills.[83] Because blades are hollow, they take up a large volume compared to their mass. Since 2019, some landfill operators have begun requiring blades to be crushed before being landfilled.[81] Blades manufactured in the 2020s are more likely to be designed to be completely recyclable.[83]

Wind turbines also generate noise. At a distance of 300 metres (980 ft) this may be around 45 dB, which is slightly louder than a refrigerator. At 1.5 km (1 mi) distance they become inaudible.[84][85] There are anecdotal reports of negative health effects on people who live very close to wind turbines.[86] Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these claims.[87][88][89] Pile-driving to construct non-floating wind farms is noisy underwater,[90] but in operation offshore wind is much quieter than ships.[91]

Geothermal power
Main article: Geothermal power

Geothermal energy is the heat of the Earth, which can be tapped into to produce electricity in power plants. Warm water produced from geothermal sources can be used for industry, agriculture, bathing and cleansing. Where underground steam sources can be tapped, the steam is used to run a steam turbine. Geothermal steam sources have a finite life as underground water is depleted. Arrangements that circulate surface water through rock formations to produce hot water or steam are, on a human-relevant time scale, renewable.

While a geothermal power plant does not burn any fuel, it will still have emissions due to substances other than steam which come up from the geothermal wells. These may include hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide. Some geothermal steam sources entrain non-soluble minerals that must be removed from the steam before it is used for generation; this material must be properly disposed. Any (closed cycle) steam power plant requires cooling water for condensers; diversion of cooling water from natural sources, and its increased temperature when returned to streams or lakes, may have a significant impact on local ecosystems.[92]

Removal of ground water and accelerated cooling of rock formations can cause earth tremors. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) fracture underground rock to produce more steam; such projects can cause earthquakes. Certain geothermal projects (such as one near Basel, Switzerland in 2006) have been suspended or canceled owing to objectionable seismicity induced by geothermal recovery.[93] However, risks associated with "hydrofracturing induced seismicity are low compared to that of natural earthquakes, and can be reduced by careful management and monitoring" and "should not be regarded as an impediment to further development of the Hot Rock geothermal energy resource".[94]

Solar power
This section is an excerpt from Solar power § Environmental effects.[edit]
Part of the Senftenberg Solarpark, a solar photovoltaic power plant located on former open-pit mining areas close to the city of Senftenberg, in Eastern Germany. The 78 MW Phase 1 of the plant was completed within three months.

Solar power is cleaner than electricity from fossil fuels,[95] so can be good for the environment when it replaces that.[96] Solar power does not lead to any harmful emissions during operation, but the production of the panels leads to some amount of pollution. A 2021 study estimated the carbon footprint of manufacturing monocrystalline panels at 515 g CO2/kWp in the US and 740 g CO2/kWp in China,[97] but this is expected to fall as manufacturers use more clean electricity and recycled materials.[98] Solar power carries an upfront cost to the environment via production with a carbon payback time of several years as of 2022,[98] but offers clean energy for the remainder of their 30-year lifetime.[99]

The life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of solar farms are less than 50 gram (g) per kilowatt-hour (kWh),[100][101][102] but with battery storage could be up to 150 g/kWh.[103] In contrast, a combined cycle gas-fired power plant without carbon capture and storage emits around 500 g/kWh, and a coal-fired power plant about 1000 g/kWh.[104] Similar to all energy sources where their total life cycle emissions are mostly from construction, the switch to low carbon power in the manufacturing and transportation of solar devices would further reduce carbon emissions.[102]

Lifecycle surface power density of solar power varies a lot[105] but averages about 7 W/m2, compared to about 240 for nuclear power and 480 for gas.[106] However when the land required for gas extraction and processing is accounted for gas power is estimated to have not much higher power density than solar.[95] PV requires much larger amounts of land surface to produce the same nominal amount of energy as sources with higher surface power density and capacity factor. According to a 2021 study, obtaining 25 to 80% of electricity from solar farms in their own territory by 2050 would require the panels to cover land ranging from 0.5 to 2.8% of the European Union, 0.3 to 1.4% in India, and 1.2 to 5.2% in Japan and South Korea.[107] Occupation of such large areas for PV farms could drive residential opposition as well as lead to deforestation, removal of vegetation and conversion of farm land.[108] However some countries, such as South Korea and Japan, use land for agriculture under PV,[109][110] or floating solar,[111] together with other low-carbon power sources.[112][113] Worldwide land use has minimal ecological impact.[114] Land use can be reduced to the level of gas power by installing on buildings and other built up areas.[105]

Harmful materials are used in the production of solar panels, but in generally in small amounts.[115] As of 2022 the environmental impact of perovskite is hard to estimate, but there is some concern that lead may become a problem.[95] A 2021 International Energy Agency study projects the demand for copper will double by 2040. The study cautions that supply needs to increase rapidly to match demand from large-scale deployment of solar and required grid upgrades.[116][117] More tellurium and indium may also be needed and recycling may help.[95]

As solar panels are sometimes replaced with more efficient panels, the second-hand panels are sometimes reused in developing countries, for example in Africa.[118] Several countries have specific regulations for the recycling of solar panels.[119][120][121] Although maintenance cost is already low compared to other energy sources,[122] some academics have called for solar power systems to be designed to be more repairable.[123][124]

An objector at non-profit “Basin and Range Watch” to the Riverside East Solar Energy Zone in the California desert said in 2023 that ‘solar plants create myriad environmental problems, including habitat destruction and “lethal death traps” for birds, which dive at the panels, mistaking them for water ... one project bulldozed 600 acres of designated critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise, while populations of Mojave fringe-toed lizards and bighorn sheep have also been afflicted.’ The same article included many other examples of how the same solar project had hurt the desert flora and fauna, according to environmentalists.[125]

A very small proportion of solar power is concentrated solar power. Concentrated solar power may use much more water than gas-fired power. This can be a problem, as this type of solar power needs strong sunlight so is often built in deserts.[126]

See also

References
  1. "environmental impact of energy — European Environment Agency". www.eea.europa.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  2. "What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
  3. "Coal - Fuels & Technologies". IEA. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
  4. "Coal Was Meant to Be History. Instead, Its Use Is Soaring". Bloomberg.com. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
  5. "Full lifecycle emissions intensity of global coal and gas supply for heat generation, 2018 – Charts – Data & Statistics". IEA. Archived from the original on 24 June 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  6. Nuclear Power Results – Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization Archived 2 July 2013 at the Wayback Machine, NREL Laboratory, Alliance For Sustainable Energy LLC website, U.S. Department Of Energy, last updated: 24 January 2013.
  7. "Electricity and Water use". powerscorecard.org. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  8. A Review of Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies. NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-50900. March 2011. By Jordan Macknick, Robin Newmark, Garvin Heath, and KC Hallett. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf
  9. Kenny, J.F.; Barber, N.L.; Hutson, S.S.; Linsey, K.S.; Lovelace, J.K.; Maupin, M.A. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344. Reston, VA: USGS, 2009; p. 52. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/
  10. "Majuba Power Station". Retrieved 2 March 2015.
  11. Masters, Gilbert M (2004). Renewable and efficient electric power systems. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience.
  12. "Concentrated Solar Heat - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics". www.sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 4 May 2023.
  13. "U.S. electric power sector's use of water continued its downward trend in 2020". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  14. "Over half the cooling systems at U.S. electric power plants reuse water". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 4 May 2023.
  15. "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Power Plants Rated Worldwide".
  16. "Fossil fuel production 'dangerously out of sync' with climate change targets". UN News. 20 October 2021. Retrieved 19 March 2022.
  17. "Where greenhouse gases come from – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 23 November 2019.
  18. Ochedi, Friday O.; Liu, Yangxian; Hussain, Arshad (10 September 2020). "A review on coal fly ash-based adsorbents for mercury and arsenic removal". Journal of Cleaner Production. 267: 122143. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122143. ISSN 0959-6526. S2CID 219443754.
  19. "Natural Gas-Fired Electricity – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  20. Dirik, Mahmut (1 August 2022). "Prediction of NOx emissions from gas turbines of a combined cycle power plant using an ANFIS model optimized by GA". Fuel. 321: 124037. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124037. ISSN 0016-2361.
  21. "California's 2030 ban on gas heaters opens a new front in the war on fossil fuels". Grist. 26 September 2022. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  22. "Iran Switches From Liquid Gas To Polluting Fuels At Power Plants". Iran International. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  23. "In Parts of Mideast, Power Generators Spew Toxic Fumes 24/7". VOA. 12 September 2022. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  24. Padovani, Filippo; Sommerfeldt, Nelson; Longobardi, Francesca; Pearce, Joshua M. (1 November 2021). "Decarbonizing rural residential buildings in cold climates: A techno-economic analysis of heating electrification". Energy and Buildings. 250: 111284. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111284. ISSN 0378-7788. S2CID 237669282.
  25. Pearce, Joshua M.; Sommerfeldt, Nelson (2021). "Economics of Grid-Tied Solar Photovoltaic Systems Coupled to Heat Pumps: The Case of Northern Climates of the U.S. and Canada". Energies. 14 (4): 834. doi:10.3390/en14040834. ISSN 1996-1073.
  26. Sommerfeldt, Nelson; Pearce, Joshua M. (15 April 2023). "Can grid-tied solar photovoltaics lead to residential heating electrification? A techno-economic case study in the midwestern U.S." Applied Energy. 336: 120838. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120838. ISSN 0306-2619. S2CID 257066236.
  27. "Chart: Americans bought more heat pumps than gas furnaces last year". Canary Media. 10 February 2023. Retrieved 1 March 2023.
  28. Li, Yuanyuan; Rosengarten, Gary; Stanley, Cameron; Mojiri, Ahmad (10 December 2022). "Electrification of residential heating, cooling and hot water: Load smoothing using onsite photovoltaics, heat pump and thermal batteries". Journal of Energy Storage. 56: 105873. doi:10.1016/j.est.2022.105873. ISSN 2352-152X. S2CID 253858807.
  29. Ermel, Conrado; Bianchi, Marcus V. A.; Cardoso, Ana Paula; Schneider, Paulo S. (1 October 2022). "Thermal storage integrated into air-source heat pumps to leverage building electrification: A systematic literature review". Applied Thermal Engineering. 215: 118975. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118975. ISSN 1359-4311. S2CID 250416024.
  30. Bogdanov, Dmitrii; Farfan, Javier; Sadovskaia, Kristina; Aghahosseini, Arman; et al. (2019). "Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 1077. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10.1077B. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08855-1. PMC 6403340. PMID 30842423.
  31. Miller, Joe (9 September 2020). "Hydrogen takes a back seat to electric for passenger vehicles". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 20 September 2020. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
  32. International Energy Agency 2020, p. 139.
  33. Mastrucci, Alessio; Byers, Edward; Pachauri, Shonali; Rao, Narasimha D. (2019). "Improving the SDG energy poverty targets: Residential cooling needs in the Global South". Energy and Buildings. 186: 405–415. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.01.015. ISSN 0378-7788.
  34. Bouzarovski, Stefan; Petrova, Saska (2015). "A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary". Energy Research & Social Science. 10: 31–40. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007. ISSN 2214-6296.
  35. Abergel, Thibaut (June 2020). "Heat Pumps". IEA. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 12 April 2021.
  36. Mueller, Mike (1 August 2017). "5 Things You Should Know about Geothermal Heat Pumps". Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. US Department of Energy. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
  37. "Dream or Reality? Electrification of the Chemical Process Industries". www.aiche-cep.com. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  38. "Dozens Of US Cities Are Banning Natural Gas Hookups In New Buildings — #CancelGas #ElectrifyEverything". 9 March 2021. Archived from the original on 9 August 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
  39. "Heat in Buildings". Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
  40. "BASF, SABIC and Linde join forces to realize the world's first electrically heated steam cracker furnace". www.basf.com. Archived from the original on 24 September 2021. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
  41. "Electricity and the environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  42. Sadiq, Muhammad; Shinwari, Riazullah; Wen, Fenghua; Usman, Muhammad; Hassan, Syed Tauseef; Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad (1 February 2023). "Do globalization and nuclear energy intensify the environmental costs in top nuclear energy-consuming countries?". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 156: 104533. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104533. ISSN 0149-1970.
  43. International Panel on Fissile Materials (September 2010). "The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy" (PDF). Research Report 9. p. 1.
  44. "Environment and Health in Electricity Generation - World Nuclear Association". world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  45. "Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American".
  46. Liu, Xingmin (November 2018). "Nuclear District Heating Warm the World, Guard the Globe (Deep-pool Low-temperature Heating Reactor---DHR)" (PDF). International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation.
  47. "When Should a Nuclear Power Plant be Refueled?". Forbes.
  48. Resnikoff, Marvin (November 2019). "Decommissioned Nuclear Reactors Are Hot" (PDF). Vermont Department of Public Service.
  49. "Small Scale Wind Energy Factsheet". Thames Valley Energy. 14 February 2007. Retrieved 19 September 2007.
  50. Denis Du Bois (22 May 2006). "Thin Film Could Soon Make Solar Glass and Facades a Practical Power Source". Energy Priorities. Retrieved 19 September 2007.
  51. Lai, Olivia (11 April 2022). "Examining the Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy". Earth.Org. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  52. trvst (7 August 2021). "What Are the Environmental Impacts of Hydropower?". TRVST. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  53. nikki (15 January 2020). "Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy". Kiwi Energy. Retrieved 4 May 2023.
  54. nikki (15 January 2020). "Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy". Kiwi Energy. Retrieved 4 May 2023.
  55. "Tidal Energy Technology Brief" (PDF). International Renewable Energy Agency. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 November 2015. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
  56. "Tethys". Archived from the original on 10 November 2014.
  57. Kaddoura, Mohamad; Tivander, Johan; Molander, Sverker (2020). "life cycle assessment of electricity generation from an array of subsea tidal kite prototypes". Energies. 13 (2): 456. doi:10.3390/en13020456.
  58. Sciences, National Academy of; Engineering, National Academy of; National Research Council (2010). Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12619. ISBN 978-0-309-13708-9.
  59. Buller, Erin (11 July 2008). "Capturing the wind". Uinta County Herald. Archived from the original on 31 July 2008. Retrieved 4 December 2008."The animals don't care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines." – Mike Cadieux, site manager, Wyoming Wind Farm
  60. Dunnett, Sebastian; Holland, Robert A.; Taylor, Gail; Eigenbrod, Felix (8 February 2022). "Predicted wind and solar energy expansion has minimal overlap with multiple conservation priorities across global regions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (6). Bibcode:2022PNAS..11904764D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2104764119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8832964. PMID 35101973.
  61. "How Wind Energy Can Help Us Breathe Easier". Energy.gov. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
  62. Begoña Guezuraga; Rudolf Zauner; Werner Pölz (January 2012). "Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW class wind turbines". Renewable Energy. 37 (1): 37. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.008.
  63. Thomas Kirchhoff (2014): Energiewende und Landschaftsästhetik. Versachlichung ästhetischer Bewertungen von Energieanlagen durch Bezugnahme auf drei intersubjektive Landschaftsideale Archived 18 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine, in: Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (1), 10–16.
  64. What are the pros and cons of onshore wind energy?. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. January 2018.
  65. "What are the pros and cons of onshore wind energy?". Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment. Archived from the original on 22 June 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2020.
  66. Nathan F. Jones, Liba Pejchar, Joseph M. Kiesecker. "The Energy Footprint: How Oil, Natural Gas, and Wind Energy Affect Land for Biodiversity and the Flow of Ecosystem Services". BioScience, Volume 65, Issue 3, March 2015. pp. 290–301
  67. "Why Australia needs wind power" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  68. "Wind energy Frequently Asked Questions". British Wind Energy Association. Archived from the original on 19 April 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
  69. Loren D. Knopper, Christopher A. Ollson, Lindsay C. McCallum, Melissa L. Whitfield Aslund, Robert G. Berger, Kathleen Souweine, and Mary McDaniel, Wind Turbines and Human Health, [Frontiers of Public Health]. June 19, 2014; 2: 63.
  70. "Wind energy Frequently Asked Questions". British Wind Energy Association. Archived from the original on 19 April 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
  71. Szarka, Joseph. Wind Power in Europe: Politics, Business and Society. Springer, 2007. p.176
  72. Dodd, Eimear (27 March 2021). "Permission to build five turbine wind farm at Kilranelagh refused". Irish Independent. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  73. Kula, Adam (9 April 2021). "Department defends 500ft windfarm in protected Area of Outstanding Beauty". The News Letter. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  74. "Building wind farms 'could destroy Welsh landscape'". BBC News. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  75. Gordon, David. Wind farms and tourism in Scotland Archived 21 September 2020 at the Wayback Machine. Mountaineering Council of Scotland. November 2017. p.3
  76. Dunnett, Sebastian; Holland, Robert A.; Taylor, Gail; Eigenbrod, Felix (8 February 2022). "Predicted wind and solar energy expansion has minimal overlap with multiple conservation priorities across global regions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (6). Bibcode:2022PNAS..11904764D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2104764119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8832964. PMID 35101973.
  77. Parisé, J.; Walker, T. R. (2017). "Industrial wind turbine post-construction bird and bat monitoring: A policy framework for Canada". Journal of Environmental Management. 201: 252–259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.052. PMID 28672197.
  78. Hosansky, David (1 April 2011). "Wind Power: Is wind energy good for the environment?". CQ Researcher.
  79. Sovacool, B. K. (2013). "The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update". Renewable Energy. 49: 19–24. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.074.
  80. Parisé, J.; Walker, T. R. (2017). "Industrial wind turbine post-construction bird and bat monitoring: A policy framework for Canada". Journal of Environmental Management. 201: 252–259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.052. PMID 28672197.
  81. Joe Sneve (4 September 2019). "Sioux Falls landfill tightens rules after Iowa dumps dozens of wind turbine blades". Argus Leader. Archived from the original on 24 November 2021. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
  82. Rick Kelley (18 February 2018). "Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has". Valley Morning Star. Archived from the original on 5 September 2019. Retrieved 5 September 2019. The blades are composite, those are not recyclable, those can't be sold," Linowes said. "The landfills are going to be filled with blades in a matter of no time.
  83. "These bike shelters are made from wind turbines". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
  84. How Loud Is A Wind Turbine? Archived 15 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine. GE Reports (2 August 2014). Retrieved on 20 July 2016.
  85. Gipe, Paul (1995). Wind Energy Comes of Age. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 376–. ISBN 978-0-471-10924-2.
  86. Gohlke JM et al. Environmental Health Perspectives (2008). "Health, Economy, and Environment: Sustainable Energy Choices for a Nation". Environmental Health Perspectives. 116 (6): A236–A237. doi:10.1289/ehp.11602. PMC 2430245. PMID 18560493.
  87. Professor Simon Chapman. "Summary of main conclusions reached in 25 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health Archived 22 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine" Sydney University School of Public Health, April 2015
  88. Hamilton, Tyler (15 December 2009). "Wind Gets Clean Bill of Health". Toronto Star. Toronto. pp. B1–B2. Archived from the original on 18 October 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  89. Colby, W. David et al. (December 2009) "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review" Archived 18 June 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Canadian Wind Energy Association.
  90. "The Underwater Sound from Offshore Wind Farms" (PDF).
  91. Tougaard, Jakob; Hermannsen, Line; Madsen, Peter T. (1 November 2020). "How loud is the underwater noise from operating offshore wind turbines?". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 148 (5): 2885–2893. Bibcode:2020ASAJ..148.2885T. doi:10.1121/10.0002453. ISSN 0001-4966. PMID 33261376. S2CID 227251351.
  92. "Impact of Power Plants on the Environment". Engineering Notes India. 7 December 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  93. Peter Fairley, Earthquakes Hinder Green Energy Plans, IEEE Spectrum,ISSN 0018-9235, Volume 48 No. 10 (North American edition), April 2011 pp. 14–16
  94. Geoscience Australia. "Induced Seismicity and Geothermal Power Development in Australia" (PDF). Australian Government. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 October 2011.
  95. Urbina, Antonio (26 October 2022). "Sustainability of photovoltaic technologies in future net‐zero emissions scenarios". Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications: pip.3642. doi:10.1002/pip.3642. ISSN 1062-7995. S2CID 253195560. the apparent contradiction that can arise from the fact that large PV plants occupy more land than the relatively compact coal or gas plants is due to the inclusion in the calculation of impacts in land occupation arising from coal mining and oil or gas extraction; if they are included, the impact on land occupation is larger for fossil fuels.
  96. "Solar energy and the environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
  97. Anctil, Annick (June 2021). "Comparing the carbon footprint of monocrystalline silicon solar modules manufactured in China and the United States". 2021 IEEE 48th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC). pp. 1–3. doi:10.1109/PVSC43889.2021.9518632. ISBN 978-1-6654-1922-2. S2CID 237332457.
  98. "Solar power's potential limited unless "you do everything perfectly" says solar scientist". Dezeen. 21 September 2022. Retrieved 15 October 2022.
  99. "Aging Gracefully: How NREL Is Extending the Lifetime of Solar Modules". www.nrel.gov. Retrieved 15 October 2022.
  100. Zhu, Xiaonan; Wang, Shurong; Wang, Lei (April 2022). "Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions of China's power generation on spatial and temporal scale". Energy Science & Engineering. 10 (4): 1083–1095. doi:10.1002/ese3.1100. ISSN 2050-0505. S2CID 247443046.
  101. "Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources" (PDF). p. 49.
  102. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solar Photovoltaics" (PDF).
  103. Mehedi, Tanveer Hassan; Gemechu, Eskinder; Kumar, Amit (15 May 2022). "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy footprints of utility-scale solar energy systems". Applied Energy. 314: 118918. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118918. ISSN 0306-2619. S2CID 247726728.
  104. "Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization". www.nrel.gov. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  105. "How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 3 November 2022.
  106. Van Zalk, John; Behrens, Paul (1 December 2018). "The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities and their application in the U.S." Energy Policy. 123: 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023. ISSN 0301-4215.
  107. van de Ven, Dirk-Jan; Capellan-Peréz, Iñigo; Arto, Iñaki; Cazcarro, Ignacio; de Castro, Carlos; Patel, Pralit; Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel (3 February 2021). "The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): 2907. Bibcode:2021NatSR..11.2907V. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82042-5. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7859221. PMID 33536519.
  108. Diab, Khaled. "There are grounds for concern about solar power". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
  109. Staff, Carbon Brief (25 August 2022). "Factcheck: Is solar power a 'threat' to UK farmland?". Carbon Brief. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  110. Oda, Shoko (21 May 2022). "Electric farms in Japan are using solar power to grow profits and crops". The Japan Times. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  111. Gerretsen, Isabelle. "The floating solar panels that track the Sun". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  112. Pollard, Jim (29 May 2023). "Wind Power Body Plans to Provide a Third of Japan's Electricity". Asia Financial. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
  113. "Clean power in South Korea" (PDF).
  114. Dunnett, Sebastian; Holland, Robert A.; Taylor, Gail; Eigenbrod, Felix (8 February 2022). "Predicted wind and solar energy expansion has minimal overlap with multiple conservation priorities across global regions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (6). Bibcode:2022PNAS..11904764D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2104764119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8832964. PMID 35101973.
  115. Rabaia, Malek Kamal Hussien; Abdelkareem, Mohammad Ali; Sayed, Enas Taha; Elsaid, Khaled; Chae, Kyu-Jung; Wilberforce, Tabbi; Olabi, A. G. (2021). "Environmental impacts of solar energy systems: A review". Science of the Total Environment. 754: 141989. Bibcode:2021ScTEn.754n1989R. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141989. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 32920388. S2CID 221671774.
  116. "Renewable revolution will drive demand for critical minerals". RenewEconomy. 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  117. "Clean energy demand for critical minerals set to soar as the world pursues net zero goals - News". IEA. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  118. "Used Solar Panels Are Powering the Developing World". Bloomberg.com. 25 August 2021. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  119. US EPA, OLEM (23 August 2021). "End-of-Life Solar Panels: Regulations and Management". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  120. "The Proposed Legal Framework On Responsibility Of Producers And..." www.roedl.com. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  121. Majewski, Peter; Al-shammari, Weam; Dudley, Michael; Jit, Joytishna; Lee, Sang-Heon; Myoung-Kug, Kim; Sung-Jim, Kim (1 February 2021). "Recycling of solar PV panels- product stewardship and regulatory approaches". Energy Policy. 149: 112062. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112062. ISSN 0301-4215. S2CID 230529644.
  122. Gürtürk, Mert (15 March 2019). "Economic feasibility of solar power plants based on PV module with levelized cost analysis". Energy. 171: 866–878. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.090. ISSN 0360-5442. S2CID 116733543.
  123. Cross, Jamie; Murray, Declan (1 October 2018). "The afterlives of solar power: Waste and repair off the grid in Kenya". Energy Research & Social Science. 44: 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.034. ISSN 2214-6296. S2CID 53058260.
  124. Jang, Esther; Barela, Mary Claire; Johnson, Matt; Martinez, Philip; Festin, Cedric; Lynn, Margaret; Dionisio, Josephine; Heimerl, Kurtis (19 April 2018). "Crowdsourcing Rural Network Maintenance and Repair via Network Messaging". Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '18. New York, NY, US: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1–12. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173641. ISBN 978-1-4503-5620-6. S2CID 4950067.
  125. How solar farms took over the California desert: ‘An oasis has become a dead sea’, Guardian, May 21, 2023, Archive
  126. "Water consumption solution for efficient concentrated solar power | Research and Innovation". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 4 December 2021.

Works cited
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.