Fast on Green - Slow on Clean

This article of mine was published in the Feb-March 2023 Newsletter of the Global Smart Energy Federation.

In the October 2020 GSEF Newsletter, I briefly touched on the recycling issues associated with PV panels and concluded that rapid strides need to be undertaken before we pile up even more landfill. This aspect is being revisited now in its entirety, to examine the progress we have made so far.

?The COP27 meeting in Egypt last year ended in an intense debate about the asymmetrical cause-and-effect of climate change and its impact on poorer nations that did not contribute to this in the first place. A second debate was about notional “reparation payments” to help such nations to remediate. My earlier two articles (GSEF Newsletters) elaborate why the technical and process discussions, thus far, are missing the woods for the trees. Many of the same discussions of the initial Rio Summit of 1992 still persists.

?The push for “Green” without “Clean” is setting the stage for another problem i.e. land and water contamination. The global waste management theme is fast adding newer items to its list, while the old ones are yet to be resolved. For example, the single-use plastic waste issue is still being addressed (40 years now) as they continue to accumulate in landfills, river bodies and vast “swirling islands” in the Pacific Ocean. An OECD June 2022 study predicts that by 2060 the world would have 1 billion metric tons of plastic waste. Another big unresolved issue is e-waste from consumer electronics, PC boards and mobile phones (20 years now). A UNEP/UNU 2019 Report estimates that global consumer e-waste will reach 110 million metric tons by 2050.

?New additions to the above list (past 10 years) now include (a) automotive plastics and fiberglass (bumpers, side panels, front consoles, others); (b) EV sub-systems (lithium batteries and plastics); and (c) green energy sources (PV panels, wind turbine blades and stationary lithium batteries). The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects that by 2050, about 78 million metric tons of PV panels will see their end of useful life with an additional 6 million tons accumulating annually. The University of Cambridge estimates that over 43 million metric tons of wind turbine blades will make it to landfills by 2050. An IEA 2022 outlook report estimates that about 1.3 GWh or 5.4 million metric tons (at 4kg/kwh average) of spent EV/Stationary batteries will need recycling or disposal.

?The push towards green energy and net-zero (since COP21) is much needed to limit GHG emissions, but such singular focus may be lopsided. In a recent executive roundtable, a comparison was made that oil and gas exploration was equivalent to extraction of rare earth materials for batteries. Both exploits underground natural resources with the former contributing to air pollution/climate change and the latter contributing to land and water pollution. In a Wall Street Journal Sept 21, 2022 article, “Electric-Car Demand Pushes Lithium Prices to Records”, it states that “…. surging prices for lithium are intensifying a race between auto makers to lock up supplies and that lithium carbonate prices stand at about $71,000 a metric ton (almost four times as high as a year ago)”. In order not to slow down EV sales momentum, OEMs may indeed be encouraging accelerated efforts at lithium mining to hold prices down.

?The “Breakthrough Agenda” of COP26 (Glasgow 2021) was endorsed by 45 countries to work together to hold the temperature rise below 2 deg C, by working to bring breakthrough solutions by 2050 in 4 thematic areas (clean power, zero emission vehicles, near-zero emission steel and green hydrogen). Surprisingly, the announcement did not emphasize such solutions to adopt a “near-zero” waste contamination (air, land and water). Many argue that the main problem is not just carbon dioxide but pollution from toxic chemicals, plastic and partially combusted carbon-based chemicals.

?The Aug 10, 2022 Report of the Global Oceanic Environmental Survey (GOES), Roslin Innovation Center (Edinburgh, Scotland), titled “Save our Oceans”, notes that (a) it is impossible to stop climate change by carbon mitigation alone; (b) a net zero 2050, poses an oceanic pH below 7.95 resulting in loss of most carbonate-based life in the oceans and further resulting in loss of most seabirds and marine life (a food supply for 3 billion people); (c) the Ocean SML layer that controls water-vapor gas diffusion across the air/seawater interface (which accounts for over 75% of all greenhouse gas protection), will be lost resulting in uncontrollable climate disruption, strong winds, torrential rain storms; and (d) the IPCC work does factor this SML layer and oceans impact which account for 80% of climate change.

?Another impasse factor is the North-South divide. Most of the devastating climate change impact (floods, hurricanes, sea-level rise, higher ambient temperatures, droughts) is being felt by developing nations that contribute very little to climate change today. So, they argue, the notion of restitution lies squarely with the nations that created climate change in the first place.

?Missed in all this din, is the global NGO and youth’s collective stand for drastic reduction of all pollution (air, land and water), rather than just carbon mitigation alone. Their slogans such as (a) “humanity has destroyed more than 50% of all life over 50 years and the next 25 years will complete the task”; (b) “we might achieve net zero for carbon, but will have wiped out life support for the planet”; (c) “stop deluding that carbon is 100% of the problem”; or (d) “a non-toxic planet by the end of this decade is the best chance of survival”. Their message and protests appear very consistent but seem to be getting lost in the global scientific and business debate and not taken seriously by governments. Perhaps, they do not constitute a coherent and politically savvy voting population.

?So, this begs the question whether policy makers are fast on Green, but slow on Clean. There is truth to this. One would think, if the above statistics are so overwhelming on the pollution aspects, then why are nations, big and small, poor and rich, ignoring the vast accumulated and growing waste problem? The principal rationale for governments to ignore the pollution aspect appears to be (a) a quick green start is better than waiting for a clean-waste consensus; (b) the optics of green energy production potentially diverts a more difficult waste disposal debate; and (c) a true clean-net-zero requires a very frugal consumption life-style, which is an anathema to modern capitalistic and national economics. So, the best thing is to kick the “clean” down the road and just focus on the “green”.

?Waste recycling and reduction policies should drive market innovation, but the global needle has not moved much in addressing waste issues. The single biggest reason is the high costs associated with waste collection and recycling (breaking into individual elements for re-use). It is far cheaper to landfill. Even developed nations are dragging their feet. Only in Sept 2022, the US Senate passed the “Strategic EV Management” Bill, which seeks to maximize EV battery recycling for their own federal fleet (awaiting passing by the House). Similarly, EU has sought to ban the landfilling of wind turbine blades by 2035.

?So, while global policy makers continue their debates at the various COP meetings and the global NGO/Youth continue their street protest, the waste tally increases unabated. Here are the waste projections for 2050 (from above references):

·???????1,000 million (1 billion) metric tons of plastic waste (2060)

·???????110 million metric tons of electronic waste

·???????78 million metric tons of PV panel waste

·???????43 million metric tons of wind turbine blades waste

·???????5.4 million metric tons of spent lithium battery waste

·???????Unquantified - untreated municipal solid/liquid waste and mining leachates

?In closing, it appears that as mankind innovates to improve its lot, the waste tally keeps piling up, endangering the very air, land and water required to survive. A very impressive record for economic development but a very poor record for our own future life on the planet.

?We are for sure fast on Green, but very slow on Clean!