Solar is the real eye opener and should serve as a lesson on blindly trusting hype and "What seems obvious." Solar panels are terrible for the environment,
It's always important to remember that there's no such thing as free energy. That said, the linked graph doesn't say anything about solar being "terrible for the environment", only that other sources of electricity consumes* very little silver compared to solar (as Scientific American also notes in the graph). Importantly, it does not show how that use compares to e.g. worldwide silver use.
* "consumes"? "wastes"? "produces as a byproduct"? Pretty sure that oil energy (or biomass!) doesn't consume uranium, even if drilling for oil produces it as a byproduct. Not sure what exactly is being graphed here, honestly. Unfortunately, the cited report is paywalled.
Anyway, if you look at the other report cited by Scientific American as the graph source, in figure 4 on page 19, it shows the global material requirements (in giga-grams, that is, kilotons) under various energy mix scenarios. Neither silver or tin use even registers on the graph in the so-called "non-fossil" scenario (mix of solar, wind and hydro - and no nuclear). In other words, in the "non-fossil" scenario, silver and tin usage for power is less than 1 kiloton a year. Worldwide silver use in 2013 was 34 kt.
As a bonus, silver recycles better than aluminum, with energy savings of 96% (table 4.4).