Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 Jun 2010 20:58 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jun 3, 8:16�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden >> >> >> >> <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >On Jun 2, 11:55 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >> >wrote: >> >> On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 8:45 am, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >> >> >>> There are many sources claiming net (solar panel) energy >> >> >>> payback is far greater than the energy cost of production. >> >> >> >> These claims are utterly bogus as they treat subsidies as assets, rather >> >> >> than as much larger "iceberg" liabilities. The key issue is addressed at >> >> >> <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp#d05-31-10> >> >> >> >>> And I know people in the business making a good living at it. >> >> >> >> So do I. Including the few remaining honest pioneers that have all the >> >> >> arrows in their backs. And when you get them drunk enough or stoned >> >> >> enough, they freely admit they are stealing federal and state dollars >> >> >> just like everybody else does. >> >> >> >> <http://www.tinaja.com/blig/nrglect2.pdf> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >> >> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 >> >> >> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 >> >> >> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xmlemail: d...(a)tinaja.com >> >> >> >> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com >> >> >> Junk science. >> >> >> > Well that's nice. Now if you can just give me a couple other >> >> > references, not written by you, I will be a believer. >> >> >> That isn't going to happen. Although the myth that solar panels never >> >> pay back their energy investment is widespread. They may never pay back >> >> the cost to make, install and use them over their lifetime, but that is >> >> an entirely different matter. And the economics is shifting as someone >> >> demonstrated there appear to be panels on the market now at $2/W. >> >> >> > Here's another one you don't want to read. >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics >> >> >> > "Energy payback time and energy returned on energy invested >> >> >> > The energy payback time is the time required to produce an amount of >> >> > energy as great as what was consumed during production. The energy >> >> > payback time is determined from a life cycle analysis of energy. The >> >> > energy needed to produce solar panels is paid back in the first few >> >> > years of use.[79] >> >> >> > Another key indicator of environmental performance, tightly related to >> >> > the energy payback time, is the ratio of electricity generated divided >> >> > by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. This ratio >> >> > is called the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). This should >> >> > not be confused with the economic return on investment, which varies >> >> > according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering >> >> > techniques. >> >> >> > Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar >> >> > photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy >> >> > payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years,[80] but more recent >> >> > studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to >> >> > 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems.[74] >> >> >> > Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of >> >> > 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[74] With lifetimes of such systems of at least >> >> > 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They >> >> > thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce >> >> > themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) >> >> > depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and >> >> > the geographic location of the system.[81] " >> >> >> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer reviewed >> >> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once have >> >> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >> >> >> See Richards & Watt (2007) >> >> >>http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Martin Brown >> >> >Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >> >project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >> >if SCE wants to build it. >> >> California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from >> renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. >> >> John > >How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time >with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb >question? And kill salmon? Shirley you jest!
From: John Larkin on 4 Jun 2010 21:04 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jun 3, 8:16�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden >> >> >> >> <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >On Jun 2, 11:55 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >> >wrote: >> >> On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 8:45 am, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >> >> >>> There are many sources claiming net (solar panel) energy >> >> >>> payback is far greater than the energy cost of production. >> >> >> >> These claims are utterly bogus as they treat subsidies as assets, rather >> >> >> than as much larger "iceberg" liabilities. The key issue is addressed at >> >> >> <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp#d05-31-10> >> >> >> >>> And I know people in the business making a good living at it. >> >> >> >> So do I. Including the few remaining honest pioneers that have all the >> >> >> arrows in their backs. And when you get them drunk enough or stoned >> >> >> enough, they freely admit they are stealing federal and state dollars >> >> >> just like everybody else does. >> >> >> >> <http://www.tinaja.com/blig/nrglect2.pdf> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >> >> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 >> >> >> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 >> >> >> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xmlemail: d...(a)tinaja.com >> >> >> >> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com >> >> >> Junk science. >> >> >> > Well that's nice. Now if you can just give me a couple other >> >> > references, not written by you, I will be a believer. >> >> >> That isn't going to happen. Although the myth that solar panels never >> >> pay back their energy investment is widespread. They may never pay back >> >> the cost to make, install and use them over their lifetime, but that is >> >> an entirely different matter. And the economics is shifting as someone >> >> demonstrated there appear to be panels on the market now at $2/W. >> >> >> > Here's another one you don't want to read. >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics >> >> >> > "Energy payback time and energy returned on energy invested >> >> >> > The energy payback time is the time required to produce an amount of >> >> > energy as great as what was consumed during production. The energy >> >> > payback time is determined from a life cycle analysis of energy. The >> >> > energy needed to produce solar panels is paid back in the first few >> >> > years of use.[79] >> >> >> > Another key indicator of environmental performance, tightly related to >> >> > the energy payback time, is the ratio of electricity generated divided >> >> > by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. This ratio >> >> > is called the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). This should >> >> > not be confused with the economic return on investment, which varies >> >> > according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering >> >> > techniques. >> >> >> > Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar >> >> > photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy >> >> > payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years,[80] but more recent >> >> > studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to >> >> > 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems.[74] >> >> >> > Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of >> >> > 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[74] With lifetimes of such systems of at least >> >> > 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They >> >> > thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce >> >> > themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) >> >> > depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and >> >> > the geographic location of the system.[81] " >> >> >> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer reviewed >> >> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once have >> >> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >> >> >> See Richards & Watt (2007) >> >> >>http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Martin Brown >> >> >Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >> >project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >> >if SCE wants to build it. >> >> California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from >> renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. >> >> John > >How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time >with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb >question? > >-Bill Most of the good hydro opportunities are already in use. And not only is it impossible to build any new dams, the Sierra Club type loonies want to tear down many of the ones we have now. John
From: Don Lancaster on 4 Jun 2010 22:07 On 6/4/2010 5:41 PM, Bill Bowden wrote: > On Jun 3, 8:16 pm, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden >> >> >> >> <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: >>> On Jun 2, 11:55 pm, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 2, 8:45 am, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >>>>>>> There are many sources claiming net (solar panel) energy >>>>>>> payback is far greater than the energy cost of production. >> >>>>>> These claims are utterly bogus as they treat subsidies as assets, rather >>>>>> than as much larger "iceberg" liabilities. The key issue is addressed at >>>>>> <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp#d05-31-10> >> >>>>>>> And I know people in the business making a good living at it. >> >>>>>> So do I. Including the few remaining honest pioneers that have all the >>>>>> arrows in their backs. And when you get them drunk enough or stoned >>>>>> enough, they freely admit they are stealing federal and state dollars >>>>>> just like everybody else does. >> >>>>>> <http://www.tinaja.com/blig/nrglect2.pdf> >> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Many thanks, >> >>>>>> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 >>>>>> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 >>>>>> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xmlemail: d...(a)tinaja.com >> >>>>>> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com >> >>>> Junk science. >> >>>>> Well that's nice. Now if you can just give me a couple other >>>>> references, not written by you, I will be a believer. >> >>>> That isn't going to happen. Although the myth that solar panels never >>>> pay back their energy investment is widespread. They may never pay back >>>> the cost to make, install and use them over their lifetime, but that is >>>> an entirely different matter. And the economics is shifting as someone >>>> demonstrated there appear to be panels on the market now at $2/W. >> >>>>> Here's another one you don't want to read. >> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics >> >>>>> "Energy payback time and energy returned on energy invested >> >>>>> The energy payback time is the time required to produce an amount of >>>>> energy as great as what was consumed during production. The energy >>>>> payback time is determined from a life cycle analysis of energy. The >>>>> energy needed to produce solar panels is paid back in the first few >>>>> years of use.[79] >> >>>>> Another key indicator of environmental performance, tightly related to >>>>> the energy payback time, is the ratio of electricity generated divided >>>>> by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. This ratio >>>>> is called the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). This should >>>>> not be confused with the economic return on investment, which varies >>>>> according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering >>>>> techniques. >> >>>>> Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar >>>>> photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy >>>>> payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years,[80] but more recent >>>>> studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to >>>>> 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems.[74] >> >>>>> Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of >>>>> 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[74] With lifetimes of such systems of at least >>>>> 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They >>>>> thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce >>>>> themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) >>>>> depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and >>>>> the geographic location of the system.[81] " >> >>>> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer reviewed >>>> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once have >>>> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >> >>>> See Richards& Watt (2007) >> >>>> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin Brown >> >>> Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >>> project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >>> if SCE wants to build it. >> >> California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from >> renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. >> >> John > > How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time > with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb > question? > > -Bill Most of the useful hydro sites are taken, and many are now being torn down. In retrospect, most dam sites turned into ecological and economic disasters. A recent book gives a choice: You can keep lake Mead or keep lake Powell, but not both. As guaranteed by long term drought. A dam presents a dilemma: The power people want it full all the time. The flood control people want it empty all the time. The irrigation people want its level to change all the time. The rec people do not care whether the dam is full or empty but want the level to stay the same. <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp> -- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don(a)tinaja.com Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
From: Sylvia Else on 4 Jun 2010 22:11 On 5/06/2010 10:41 AM, Bill Bowden wrote: > On Jun 3, 8:16 pm, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden >> >> >> >> <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: >>> On Jun 2, 11:55 pm, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 2, 8:45 am, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >>>>>>> There are many sources claiming net (solar panel) energy >>>>>>> payback is far greater than the energy cost of production. >> >>>>>> These claims are utterly bogus as they treat subsidies as assets, rather >>>>>> than as much larger "iceberg" liabilities. The key issue is addressed at >>>>>> <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp#d05-31-10> >> >>>>>>> And I know people in the business making a good living at it. >> >>>>>> So do I. Including the few remaining honest pioneers that have all the >>>>>> arrows in their backs. And when you get them drunk enough or stoned >>>>>> enough, they freely admit they are stealing federal and state dollars >>>>>> just like everybody else does. >> >>>>>> <http://www.tinaja.com/blig/nrglect2.pdf> >> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Many thanks, >> >>>>>> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 >>>>>> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 >>>>>> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xmlemail: d...(a)tinaja.com >> >>>>>> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com >> >>>> Junk science. >> >>>>> Well that's nice. Now if you can just give me a couple other >>>>> references, not written by you, I will be a believer. >> >>>> That isn't going to happen. Although the myth that solar panels never >>>> pay back their energy investment is widespread. They may never pay back >>>> the cost to make, install and use them over their lifetime, but that is >>>> an entirely different matter. And the economics is shifting as someone >>>> demonstrated there appear to be panels on the market now at $2/W. >> >>>>> Here's another one you don't want to read. >> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics >> >>>>> "Energy payback time and energy returned on energy invested >> >>>>> The energy payback time is the time required to produce an amount of >>>>> energy as great as what was consumed during production. The energy >>>>> payback time is determined from a life cycle analysis of energy. The >>>>> energy needed to produce solar panels is paid back in the first few >>>>> years of use.[79] >> >>>>> Another key indicator of environmental performance, tightly related to >>>>> the energy payback time, is the ratio of electricity generated divided >>>>> by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. This ratio >>>>> is called the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). This should >>>>> not be confused with the economic return on investment, which varies >>>>> according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering >>>>> techniques. >> >>>>> Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar >>>>> photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy >>>>> payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years,[80] but more recent >>>>> studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to >>>>> 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems.[74] >> >>>>> Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of >>>>> 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[74] With lifetimes of such systems of at least >>>>> 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They >>>>> thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce >>>>> themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) >>>>> depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and >>>>> the geographic location of the system.[81] " >> >>>> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer reviewed >>>> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once have >>>> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >> >>>> See Richards& Watt (2007) >> >>>> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin Brown >> >>> Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >>> project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >>> if SCE wants to build it. >> >> California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from >> renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. >> >> John > > How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time > with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb > question? > > -Bill The economics of hydro are good, if there's a suitably place to build one. Suitable means that the topography and rainfall have to be appropriate, and it's mustn't be too far from the place where the power will be used. Sylvia.
From: Bill Bowden on 5 Jun 2010 00:10
On Jun 4, 6:04 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from >>> renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic." >>> John >> How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time >> with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb >> question? >> -Bill > Most of the good hydro opportunities are already in use. And not only > is it impossible to build any new dams, the Sierra Club type loonies > want to tear down many of the ones we have now. > > John How about Tidal Power? Looks like PG&E is interested in San Francisco bay tides. http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/features/tidalpower.shtml "Exploring Tidal Power in the San Francisco Bay" "In a 2006 study, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) identified San Francisco Bay as a potential resource for electricity generation using tidal power technology. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) and the Golden Gate Energy Company signed a statement of collaboration in June 2007 to conduct the most comprehensive study yet undertaken to assess the possibilities for harnessing the tides in San Francisco Bay to create a new source of zero-emissions, renewable electric power." -Bill |