The Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, a regional renewable energy advocacy group, in a section of its website, www.nesea.org, titled "Solar Electricity" (accessed Oct. 30, 2008), wrote:
"Of all the renewable energy sources available, solar cells have the smallest environmental impacts. Electricity produced from photovoltaic cells does not result in air or water pollution, deplete natural resources, or endanger animal or human health. The only potential negative impacts are associated with some toxic chemicals, like cadmium and arsenic, that are used in the production process. These environmental impacts are minor and can be easily controlled through recycling and proper disposal."
Ken Zweibel, PhD, Founding Director of the Institute for Analysis of Solar Energy at George Washington University, James Mason, PhD, Director at the Solar Energy Campaign, and Vasilis Fthenakis, PhD, Senior Research Engineer and Scientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, in their Dec. 2007 Scientific American article "A Solar Grand Plan," wrote the following:
"In our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power. Some 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays would have to be erected. Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining. Studies by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., show that more than enough land in the Southwest is available without requiring use of environmentally sensitive areas, population centers or difficult terrain... The benign nature of photovoltaic plants (including no water consumption) should keep environmental concerns to a minimum."
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), in a section of its website, www1.eere.energy.gov, titled "Why PV Is Important" (accessed Oct. 21, 2008), wrote:
"Few power-generation technologies have as little impact on the environment as photovoltaics. As it quietly generates electricity from light, PV produces no air pollution or hazardous waste. It doesn't require liquid or gaseous fuels to be transported or combusted..."
Vasilis M. Fthenakis, PhD, Senior Research Engineer and Scientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, in his Aug. 8, 2004 article "Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cadium in CdTe PV Production," in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, wrote the following:
"In summary, the environmental risks from CdTe [cadium telluride] PV [photovoltaic cells] are minimal. The estimated atmospheric emissions of 0.02g of Cd per GWh [gigawatt hour] of electricity produced during all the phases of the modules’ life, are extremely low. Large-scale use of CdTe PV modules does not present any risks to health and the environment, and recycling the modules at the end of their useful life completely resolves any environmental concerns. During their operation, these modules do not produce any pollutants, and, furthermore, by displacing fossil fuels, they offer great environmental benefits. CdTe in PV appears to be more environmentally friendly than all other current uses of Cd, including Ni–Cd [nickel-cadium]batteries."
Paul K. Driessen, JD, Senior Fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, in a chapter titled "Solar and Wind Power Are Unproductive and Environmentally Harmful," in the 2005 book At Issue: What Energy Sources Should be Pursued?, wrote:
"Producing 50 megawatts of electricity using a gas-fired generating plant requires between 2 and 5 acres of land. Getting the same amount from photovoltaics means covering some 1,000 acres with solar panels (assuming a very optimistic 10 watts per square meter (W/m2) or 5 percent peak efficiency), plus access for trucks to clean the panels. Using the sun to meet California's energy needs would require paving over tens of thousands of acres of desert habitat, sacrificing what the Wilderness Society calls 'some of the most beautiful landscapes in America,' and with it their resident plant and animal life."
The California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in their Nov. 2003 report "Potential Health and Environmental Impacts Associated with the Manufacture and Use of Photovoltaic Cells," available on the EPRI website (accessed Nov. 25, 2008), wrote the following:
"The production of photovoltaic devices can involve the use of some toxic and explosive gases, corrosive liquids, and suspected carcinogenic compounds. The magnitude of potential effects will vary based on the materials’ toxicological properties, and the intensity, frequency, and duration of human exposure...
Disposal of large quantities of modules in a single landfill could lead to increased potential risks to humans and biota [animal and plant life of an area or time period]. The leaching of chemicals from these landfilled modules has the potential to contaminate local ground and surface water...
Biota inhabiting the areas in the vicinity of an accidental release at a manufacturing facility could be exposed to elevated concentrations of chemicals through direct ingestion of compounds, ingestion of contaminated water, contact with contaminated soils, or inhalation of contaminated air. Exposure to chemicals can lead to a variety of impacts on organisms, including impaired reproduction, decreased pulmonary activity, increased mortality, and reduced growth. The severity of any effects will vary depending upon the amount and type of chemical being released..."
Howard C. Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Connecticut, in his 2005 book The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World, wrote:
"The Solar Two site [a solar installation in Barstow, CA] occupies 52.6 hectares (130 acres) and produces 10 MWe (megawatt electrical) peak. Its capacity factor is about 16%. For a Solar-Two installation to produce as much energy as a typical 1000-MWe power plant [approximately 0.6 square miles] does in a year, it would have to cover about 33,000 hectares (127 square miles). That is environmental impact!"