I've been studying the topic in the primary scientific literature for decades and have convinced myself - after changing my mind on a number of things - especially on so called "renewable energy" I have a strong feeling of what must be done to work, which is different than what is being done and probably different than what will be done.
I will say that for the first time in 30 years, it does seem that some of the approaches I suggest are increasingly being raised, because clearly the solar/wind/geothermal/tidal scheme has not worked, is not working and won't work.
The point I made is that the lead in solar cells will not be recycled, since at concentrations that low, the cost of transport, processing etc will not justify recycling. Car batteries are different, in that they are generally bulk lead. This is also true of lead pipes.
Lead perovskites are not entirely insoluble. This means that they can because of mechanical insult, leach toxic stuff into the environment. The permissible level of lead in drinking water is 15 micrograms/liter. 38,000 tons is enough to contaminate 2.5 billion liters of water. We may add to the 38,000 that will not be recycled because it is too diffuse, that which is actually in the cells, to runoff from mines - already a huge problem around the world, unavoidable manufacturing waste, and the fact that lead is already distributed from coal burning (along with mercury) widely, so we are certainly not starting from zero contamination.
I sometimes muse that the stupidity and ignorance of our times reflects the psychophysiological conseqeunce of breathing and eating lead and mercury neurotoxins.
There are far safer ways to generate energy, and the safest and most sustainable forms, though not risk free, have the highest energy to mass ratio. To produce one watt of power, 125 trillions of a gram of plutonium is required, significantly less mass than is involved in distributed lead in a perovskite solar cell. Moreover, this material can be contained in a relatively tiny volume, and doesn't require much transport. Moreover the components of used nuclear fuel are concentrated and extremely valuable.
My journal here on this website is peripatetic to be sure, but probably 80% is commentary on readings in the primary scientific literature, and of that, better than 75% probably relates to energy and the environment.
I oppose so called "renewable energy" because it is not actually renewable, nor is it sustainable. I strongly support nuclear energy, and my reasoning can be found by wading through my journal.
Nuclear energy is the world's last best hope. It's as clear as day, if, and only if, one thinks critically.
= new reply since forum marked as read