SILICON BLADES: Novel silicon microwires can harvest nearly as much light as traditional photovoltaic wafers, with just one percent of the total silicon.
Image: Courtesy of Harry A. Atwater
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Enough sunlight bathes Earth's daytime half in an hour to meet all human energy needs for a year. Sadly, there are several problems with meeting human energy demands by tapping such abundant, free solar power—not least of which is the cost of making semiconducting material that can cheaply harvest the power in sunlight. But material improvements from the California Institute of Technology and IBM might just lower the cost of solar power.
Graduate student Michael Kelzenberg and other materials scientists at Caltech employed vertical crystals of silicon—microwires, like "blades of grass," Kelzenberg says—to capture as much as 85 percent of the full spectrum of incoming sunlight, the researchers report in the February 14 Nature Materials. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) Their efficiency is almost as good as that of traditional silicon wafers, yet they require just one percent of the silicon in such wafers.
"With one one-hundredth of the material, we've gotten it to absorb 96 percent of the peak visible light," Kelzenberg says. "There's lots of reasons to believe this could be scaled to make thin-film solar cells."
The researchers embedded the silicon blades in a bed of "fish-tank material," flexible, clear silicone plastic known as polydimethylsiloxane. That alone was enough for the rods to efficiently capture sunlight coming in at an angle. But the direct sunlight of high noon failed to hit enough of the blades to efficiently initiate the flow of electrons. So the team added nanoparticles of aluminum oxide to reflect and scatter the incoming sunlight, enabling it to hit more of the microwires. "We have access to all the side walls of the wire," Kelzenberg explains. "It creates interesting junction geometries that absorb light and collect electricity."
No actual solar cells have been produced from the new microwires, yet. But "if you can't absorb light efficiently, then you certainly can't convert it to electricity efficiently," notes Caltech chemist Nate Lewis, who was also involved in the research. The silicon blades show enough light absorption to make them "interesting candidates from which to make solar cells."
Of course, thin-film silicon solar cells already exist, but they have struggled to match the efficiency of traditional silicon photovoltaics at absorbing light or turning it into electricity. The new microwires of silicon achieve similar efficiency at a fraction of the material cost. "Our goal is to make a thin-film [solar] cell that gets you the efficiency of a regular wafer-based solar cell," Kelzenberg says. "I certainly hope to see that come to fruition within the next few years."
There are also other semiconducting materials that might prove as cheap as the silicon microwires to produce. Already, thin-film photovoltaic cells made from copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) or cadmium telluride are available with efficiencies in the field of roughly 11 percent and prices as low as $1 per watt, according to manufacturer First Solar. But both of these types of cells are made from rare or expensive materials: tellurium is rare, and indium is expensive because it is also employed in flat-panel televisions.
Researchers at IBM, however, have produced a similar thin-film solar cell from a combination of copper, zinc, tin, selenium and sulfur—all relatively abundant, inexpensive materials. The new cell can turn 9.6 percent of incoming sunlight into electricity, according to testing from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.
Materials scientist David Mitzi of IBM and his team report in the February 8 Advanced Materials that they replaced the indium in a CIGS cell with zinc and tin. Previous work in Japan had shown that such "kesterite" cells could achieve efficiencies of nearly 7 percent—not enough for deployment in the field, where lab efficiencies are usually cut at least in half—but promising. By varying the ratio of sulfur and selenium, Mitzi and his colleagues were able to boost the overall efficiency of the kesterite solar cell by 40 percent. "Increasing the sulfur does increase the open-circuit voltage of the device," Mitzi says. And "it's not obvious that this is limited to low efficiency," meaning there is more room to improve.
IBM itself has no plans to manufacture such kesterite cells, preferring to license the technology. But the group has also made a breakthrough in the manufacturing process. Typical thin-film solar cells are made from depositing a layer of the applicable materials as a vapor in a vacuum, which necessitates high-energy expenditures to both vaporize the materials and maintain the vacuum as well as intensive quality control to minimize introduced defects. But the IBM team deposited most of its material as a mixture of particles and solution, like printing with kesterite "ink" made from copper and tin in solution with particles of zinc. The sulfur and/or selenium was then added as a vapor. Similarly, companies such as XsunX are working on importing some of the vapor-based deposition improvements from industries such as computer hard-drive manufacturers to the solar cell business.
The ultimate benefit of both of these technologies may be flexibility as well as cost—both the silicon microwires and kesterite cells could conceivably be made into a variety of flexible devices, including some woven into fabrics, Mitzi says. Already, Dow Chemical and Global Solar have created a solar roof shingle that employs CIGS thin-film cells to generate electricity.
But, as it stands—despite an ongoing boom in rooftop and ground-based photovoltaic panels—solar power contributes roughly 0.1 percent of U.S. electricity needs. New thin-film technologies aim to boost that, cheaply. "Unless solar can get to a cost point that is competitive with conventional carbon-based energy sources, it's not going to take off," Mitzi says. Solar "production is approaching gigawatt scale. But if one wants to really have solar take off and address large-scale energy issues in the world, one needs to increase that by orders of magnitude."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
67 Comments
Add CommentI am so disappointed by the whole PV market. The panels I purchased for my off grid place in Hawaii are the same cost and wattage as they were 5 years ago. Where is all this "change and cost reduction" I have been reading about for 5 years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLikes This
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis new discovery is intriguing because if they can make these the same way they are making the silicon microwires out of non-rare earth material or energy dependant silicon then it could be a game changer...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Researchers at IBM, however, have produced a similar thin-film solar cell from a combination of copper, zinc, tin, selenium and sulfurall relatively abundant, inexpensive materials. The new cell can turn 9.6 percent of incoming sunlight into electricity, according to testing from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.
When calculating in the HUGE tax credits (Cardinal glass coating facility in MN $7.7 million) for nebulous gains in cost reduction and efficiency, let alone toxic effluent and by-product, new technology for less toxic materials and applied using less material is hopeful. The MN plant laid-off all their employees to re-tool for a renewable product - anticipating only 2/3 to be rehired for the new PV product.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe focus should be on cheap production and durability, even at lower efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you can roof your house in even 3% efficient solar panels for the cost of asphalt shingles, that would be revolutionary.
This is great. This is the first step in making solar power a common place in the energy world. As long as we can make the panels cheap, the next step is to make them efficient. That's the problem with solar panels right now, they are not efficient and they cost a ton to make. These new panels will be even less efficient, but if they can cut the cost dramatically, I don't see a reason why we can't then figure out how to make it very efficient at collecting the solar energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime for a prediction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.1% of our energy is solar in 2010
3.2% of our energy is solar in 2020
100% of our energy is from solar in 2030
These are of course approximations, but solar will be the main energy source in 2030.
AND still the price does not come down.... I have wanted to move to solar for decades -- the price STILL goes up, not down to a viable, cost-effective level. Call me cynical but, I suspect the price will be the same even after tax increases on fuels, incentives, and inflation come 2030.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe price for premium technology will never go down. Once this becomes marketable (they have only done this on a small scale) then this will be expensive, and the old technology will get cheaper before it fades away. Until the technology has leveled off, you won't find it to be cheap, and there is a ways to go with photovoltaics. It just os happens in this market, why would you want to pay for the cheaper less efficient technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do like the shingles idea though. There are really two paths to take with PV production. One is getting more efficient, the other is getting it into people's lives. This only covers one really.
frgough...i agree...cheap mass produced cells that provide an additional function(such as roofing) even if they are less efficient would be a boon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistwo other pieces need to be put in place too....batteries and inverters...both are way to expensive right now.
anadventurer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am so disappointed by the whole PV market. The panels I purchased for my off grid place in Hawaii are the same cost and wattage as they were 5 years ago."
-----------------------
Not at all true, but maybe in Hawaii where everything must be shipped in from thousands of miles away!
I bought my BP-140's five years ago, and they were about $4.25/watt. Today, you can get 200+ watt panels for $2.50/watt, so conventional frame PV panels have almost seen prices cut in half.
As thin-film technology get rolling in the next couple of years, that frame-less PV will probably drop to close to $1/watt. I'm quite excited about this article about the vertical crystals of siliconmicrowires, like "blades of grass," since they use only 1% of the usual silicon material. The thin-film uses much less silicon than the conventional PV, so look to the near future for even lower PV pricing.
Besides, with the current federal tax incentives for both PV and small wind generators, you can get up to 30% back, which is something I never had five years ago!
The PTB won't let cheap solar in the marketplace. Look what happened to those guys in South Africa that found a cheap way to make solar panels. Nobody has heard from them since.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRrundge...any links to this...i'd be interested...thanks...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne , I will try and find the article links. It was 18 months ago that the aricle was posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne, I will try to find the link to the article. It was posted 18 months ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the link;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-2-2006-95061.asp
Article is actually 4 years old.
"But both of these types of cells are made from rare or expensive materials: tellurium is rare, and indium is expensive because it is also employed in flat-panel televisions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read the final phrase of the line above and immediately thought that it was the big white elephant in the room. That, with existing technology, a much better cell could be made from indium. However, the number one obstacle of that effort is that it is in direct competition with the flat-panel TV market. As always, serving unlimited consumption and demand seems to trump solving our much greater issue of ever more limited and/or detrimental supply.
And therein lies the rub with any of our attempts to solve our energy crisis, our ever increasingly voracious per capita demand for more and more, with the flat screen TV phenomenon 100% emblematic thereof. Not only does their very manufacture consume huge amounts of energy, as we seem so blindly intent on replacing billions upon billions of TV's, but in legacy terms, they also consume far more power than their cathode ray tube brethren. That alone seemed bad enough, but now I hear that they're ever increasing ubiquity is one of the direct obstacles to implementing a much more efficient source of solar power, the very kind of solar power that could actually help us solve our supply issues.
Of course, I'm no economist, and so I really don't know that much about economics but, IMO, a model where demand growth not only ever outstrips supply growth, but also directly competes with the very ability to increase supply is, at best, unsustainable and, at worst, doomed to ultimate and total collapse.
This is sheer insanity people and, like the recent housing and economic bubbles, the energy bubble will one day collapse and that collapse will make our modern recessions and depressions seem like the good old days of wealth, health, happiness and prosperity.
They say what makes man so amazing is his singular power for forethought. And yet ever with all the data at hand, we seem so blindly ignorant to what a dim and bleak future we ourselves are forging. For shame I say, for shame!
"The MN plant laid-off all their employees to re-tool for a renewable product - anticipating only 2/3 to be rehired for the new PV product." - concern
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as you remain a slave of capitalism, you will remain a slave to capitalism.
"AND still the price does not come down.... I have wanted to move to solar for decades -- the price STILL goes up, not down to a viable, cost-effective level." - Perplexed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget that the U.S. dollar - under the fine economic management of George Bush and his neo-con advisors, fell in value by abou 40% on the world stage. And on top of that you have abou a 2% to 3% decline in the value of money per year due to inflation. So over 3 decades add another 60% decline.
In that time the cost of PV has actually gone down in American dollars, So on a real scale (not funny money), the cost has gone down even more dramatically.
Still, the cost is high.
At this point the energy consumption component of my electric bill is about $10 per month.
How about you?
"two other pieces need to be put in place too....batteries and inverters...both are way to expensive right now." - Wayne Williamson
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBattery technology just isn't there, and there is none in the forseable future - at least not for industry as it stands.
For the home, there is already sufficient battery technology if you exclude electric space heating/cooling electric water heating and cooking.
There are already entirely adequate replacements for these for most people, but there is insufficient infrastructure to deploy the solutions in a cost effective manner.
The failure has been and continues to be one of planning
Development of a rational plan I should point out is the least costly thing in the entire efficiency equation, costing essentially nothing but a few moments of Rational thought.
You might have noticed that Rational thought is in short supply at the moment.
Witness the QuackFart rantings of Conservadopian Americans.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-2-2006-95061.asp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo details. Just Claptrap.
"So over 3 decades add another 60% decline." - Me
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a doofus. Inflation is multiplicitive not additive.
1.03**30 = 240 percent.
Solar PV is a sick joke, and the only reason it is getting any funding, is the Fossil Fuel lobbies are using it as an excellent bait-and-switch SUCKER TRAP. Promises wonderful, clean energy, but instead you get the same old Oil, Gas & Coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if they do get cost down to $1 per peak watt for panels and $2 per peak watt full package installed. Bloody Windows cost as much per sq. meter - how cheap do you think you can make them? When a Solar Panel the size of your Picture Window only puts out enough average energy to light a lousy 40w light bulb in Sunny Los Angeles.
$2 per Wpk installed in Los Angeles is $12 per kwavg. And you need backup power to supply overnight, or at the very MINIMUM, to supply shoulder load through to 11pm, requires battery backup for 8 hrs, pushing cost up to $17k per kwavg. And you still have no power for overnight or a week of cloudy weather. Completely wacked. Death, destruction & misery will be our legacy, if we continue dumping precious funds into these nutty schemes.
Nuclear Energy is the ONLY solution!
"When a Solar Panel the size of your Picture Window only puts out enough average energy to light a lousy 40w light bulb in Sunny Los Angeles." - dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm, my front window is approximately 1.3 by 2.5 meters in size, or about 3 square meters in size. Total light capture potential is then about 4,500 watts and at 10 percent efficiency that comes to 450 watts.
That is enough to light 34, 13 watt CF bulbs which give the same amount o flight as a 60 watt incandescent bulb.
Right now I have 7 of those bulbs on to light this house.
What's your failure? Hopless Joe?
"Nuclear Energy is the ONLY solution!" - Hopeless Joe
Small minds are so easily fixated on fantom solutions to real problems.
Where are you going to get the workforce to build and operate those 200,000 nuclear power plants you are going to need Hopeless Joe?
Are you gonna pull them out of your back pocket?
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Solar PV is a sick joke.....When a Solar Panel the size of your Picture Window only puts out enough average energy to light a lousy 40w light bulb.....Nuclear Energy is the ONLY solution!"
--------------------------------
Nice emotional rant, but completely devoid of any facts!
Why do you confused people have such a need to attack clean and green renewable energy, like both the solar and wind industries that have been growing 50% per year, use free fuel and emit absolutely no emissions at all?
Your insane propaganda is hardly needed today, and sounds more like political posturing for all the wrong reasons!
Concerns:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The MN plant laid-off all their employees to re-tool for a renewable product..."
-----------------------
We've lost 8.4 million jobs due to the bush/cheney Great Recession, many of them being manufacturing jobs that will NEVER return, and here you're complaining about a company that is re-tooling for the 21st century as well as re-hiring. The conservitard ideology in America is pure sickness!
Your extremely negative and pessimistic post is disgusting, and even moreso, when I did a simple Google search on Cardinal, faced with the downturn in residential construction. Hey- my hat's off to Cardinal and federal stimulus funds for offering NEW SOLUTIONS and NEW IDEAS to an ever-shrinking manufacturing industry in the U.S.
------
GLASS FUTURE BRIGHT
The Minnesota-based company makes the glass components for the solar panels, which are then sold to companies that assemble and install the finished units.
More jobs coming
The $31 million Mazomanie facility, which began production in April, turns panes of glass made at its Portage production facility into hardened panes that absorb solar energy.
Over the next two years, the number of employees at the Mazomanie facility is expected to increase from 34 to 100, with production increasing to 8.8 million panes of glass a year, from 2.5 million this year. Another $1 million will be spent over the next year to install automation equipment to load glass onto the production line, a process now done by hand.
"It's been good for us, and as time goes on, it will be better," Lowell Holcomb, Mazomanie's village president, said of the Cardinal plant. "We're happy with them. We hope to have them around for a long, long time."
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/renewable-energy-solar/13930891-1.html
Some of you people have a poor grasp of 'game changing technology'. Did the computer revolution pass you by? The original cost of the computer you are reading this on was once more than a million dollars, = $20 million allowing for inflation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people posting here have a poor grasp of 'game changing technology'. Don't you realize that the computer you are reading this on would once have cost over $20 million, (corrected for inflation), and come with a low resolution black and white text only screen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilar silicon saving technology, using 'slivers' cut from the solid wafer will soon hit the market as well.
The pent up demand for better batteries will ensure that maximal effort will be applied to the solution of that perennial problem as well.
Getting an aeroplane to fly safely is actually more difficult. Give up Wilbur and Orville, it will never work!
"The original cost of the computer you are reading this on was once more than a million dollars". John Saint Smith
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe computer I am using right now has hundreds of times more computing capacity than the original Cray 1 supercomputer which cost 5 to 8 million.
The second cray, the x-mp was capable of around 800 megaflops. In comparison the ATI Radeon graphic card in this machine is capable of performing more than 3,500,000 megaflops.
modren 80x86 CPU cores are capable of performing 2 floating point operaions per clock once the pipe is primed, so at 3 Ghz, you are looking at a computational speed of around 6,000 megaflops peak, And of course a 4 core CPU can do 4 times that, or 25,000 megaflops. As a practical matter you shouldn't expect any more than around 18,000 megaflops.
CPU price, $1000 ATI GPU price $200
Tool. Your calculations are bogus. So your picture window is 3.25 sq meters. So according to PVWatts for Los Angeles, fixed at latitude, in Jan you will get avg 4.44 kwh/M^2/day & 3.23 AC kwh/day for a 1kw peak panel. At 10% efficiency that works out to a 9.44 sq. meter panel. Therefore your 3.25 sq. meter panel will put out 3.25/9.44 X 3.23 = 1.11 kwh per day. That’s an avg output of 46 watts. And of course in order to give you that avg 46 watts you will have to store it in batteries because the Solar Output is only from 9a.m to 4 pm. At 80% round trip efficiency that gives you miserly 37 watts continuous power, for that Solar Panel, the size of your Picture Window, in sunny Los Angeles, with a perfect roof, no shade trees or buildings and cleaned weekly, and that only if it is a Sunny Day. THAT IS PATHETIC!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRun the same calculation for July, and you get 56 watts continuous. Woopedy-F'in-do. It is immaterial whether you use it for CF light bulbs or to power a Television, ridiculous, miniscule, trivial amounts of power from the Sun is inescapable. A SCAM – PLAIN & SIMPLE.
No matter how cheap they make Solar Cells, a run-of-the-mill double paned Window unit will cost you the equivalent of $1 per Wpk. And $1 per Wpk for the hardware, inverter, switchgear, wiring, mounting and installation, means YOU-AIN'T GETTING LESS THAN $2 PER Wpk. I’m still waiting for Window prices (mass produced in huge quantities, for a long time to come down – instead of going up).
So it is possible that some day Solar PV prices will fall to $2 per Wpk installed, after which material & energy price inflation will cause the price to rise again. But right now pro-Solar people are admitting that systems cost $7 per Wpk installed. So dude, get Real, don't be a Tool of the Fossil Fuel Lobbies.
As a matter of fact the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory lists the costs of Solar Installations in the USA:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf
"....The capacity-weighted average installed cost of systems completed in 2008 – in terms of real 2008 dollars per installed watt (DC-STC)4 and prior to receipt of any direct financial incentives or tax credits – was $7.5/Watt, a decline from $7.8/W in 2007 following several years (2005-2007) during which installed costs remained relatively flat. From 1998 to 2008, installed costs declined by about 3.6% (or $0.3/W) per year, on average, starting from $10.8/W in 1998.
• Preliminary cost data indicates that the average cost of projects installed through the California Solar Initiative program during the first 8½ months of 2009 rose by $0.4/W relative to 2008..."
$2 per Wpk installed is looking pretty dubious I would say. But even that is upwards of $17k per avg kw for a perfect roof in sunny Los Angeles. Lasts 20 yrs, still needs fossil fuel backup for cloudy weather or in the Winter. Pure Craziness.
The Tool says: "...Where are you going to get the workforce to build and operate those 200,000 nuclear power plants you are going to need..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this200,000? You invent that number?
That problem is analyzed here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
"...The world in 2050 will demand ~700 EJ of thermal energy, or roughly 300 EJ of electrical energy. This will require ~10,000 GWe (10 TWe) of generating capacity, which is a 5-fold increase in electricity generating capacity, or 680 MWe, every day, for the next 40 years (2010 to 2050)..."
Req'd 9700 AP1000 sized reactors over 40 yrs. Material req'd:
Wind: 1,250,000 tonnes of concrete and 335,000 tonnes of steel per day.
Solar Thermal: 2,215,000 tonnes of concrete, 690,000 tonnes of steel per day.
Nuclear: 160,000 tonnes of concrete and 10,000 tonnes of steel per day
Labor should be no problem, after all France achieved that rate of expansion, basically from scratch, without using factory produced or modular reactors.
Compare France's mediocre effort on Nuclear:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
with Denmark's all out effort on Wind:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKTPES.pdf
(the tiny little red line on top is Wind Energy ( most of which must be exported, only 1/4 to 1/2 is actually consumed in Denmark)
And Germany with 1/2 the World's Solar PV, and extraordinary subsidies of 60 cents per kwh for Solar and 20 cents per kwh for Wind, plus Power Transmission paid by the Public plus up to $300 million for 15 yrs of credit per project:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf
Again a tiny red line on top includes, Solar & Wind.
Another plan, in this case replacing Coal Burners with Nuclear Thermal power - rest of the Coal Power Plant infrastructure will remain:
http://coal2nuclear.com/
lokota says: "... clean and green renewable energy..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHardly, clean & green. Read the truth about the impact of Wind Energy on the environment here:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
Solar PV leaves deadly toxic waste:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
lokota says: "... use free fuel and emit absolutely no emissions at all..."
Incorrect. Full lifecycle emissions of SolarPV are 50/53/95 gCO2 per kwh produced (3 seperate studies)
Wind is 5.5/14/29 gCO2 per kwh
Nuclear is 6/22/10-26 gCO2 per kwh
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
But that doesn't include the INESCAPABLE fossil fuel backup of Wind & Solar energy, nor does it include the effect of fluctuating Wind (esp) & Solar has on the backup power. Including that effect, Wind DOES NOT REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS. See:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
And Peter Lang shows that the CO2 AVOIDANCE COSTS OF WIND, including necessary backup are $830 to $1149 per tonne CO2 avoided, vs Nuclear at $22 per tonne CO2 avoided, and just using Close Cycle Gas Turbines, Nix the Wind is $33 per tonne CO2 avoided - compared with a standard Black Coal Power plant. So who needs Wind?
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
lokota says: "... like both the solar and wind industries that have been growing 50% per year..."
Yes, from miniscule to slightly more than miniscule. The latest EIA 2008 Energy Outlook is projecting USA Energy Production to increase from 74.2 to 81.7 Quads from 2008 to 2020. Total Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Wave & Tidal is projected to supply 1.8 Quads of that 7 Quad increase. Can't even NEARLY SUPPLY OUR INCREASING DEMAND FOR ENERGY - NEVER MIND DO THE DESPERATELY IMPORTANT JOB OF REPLACING FOSSIL FUELS!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html " - dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a story about a particular chinese production plant which produces polysilicon and happens to be dumping toxic waste from the production onto a neighbours field.
If this were a common and required method of waste disposal by all polisilicon production factories, it would support your assertion that PV energy production is actually toxic to the environment. But since it is neither common nor necessary, the article doesn't support your assertion.
"http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html" - dwbd
Wind Watch is an anti-windpower propaganda group that has a political interest in reducing the rate at which wind power is deployed.
The articles from that PR group, contain a lot of emotion, very few facts, and what facts they do present are often wrong. The logic that is employed in many of the articles is also often nonsense.
As an example, it is claimed that each wind turbine has to have several acres of land cleared below it, for it to function.
Another example, is the claim that standby generators must be run at low power (and this is inefficient) in order to compensate for the variance in wind power.
The fact is, such standby production is already in place, to compensate for generators that go down, and these facilities may or may not be inefficient depending on what facility is being used.
"Full lifecycle emissions of SolarPV are 50/53/95 gCO2 per kwh produced (3 seperate studies)
Wind is 5.5/14/29 gCO2 per kwh
Nuclear is 6/22/10-26 gCO2 per kwh"
Odd that you failed to include the following qualifier...
"If all energy inputs are assumed to be from coal-fired plants, at about one tonne of carbon dioxide per MWh..."
That is found a few paragraphs up.
What we see here from dwbd is typical of a know nothing Google Droid. He has enough brains to hold an opinion - rational or irrational - and just enough brains to use Google to find chatterbox sites sympathetic to his ideology to find his information and misinformation.
However he isn't actually smart enough to understand what he quotes from those sites, or he is too corrupt to care. Neither is he smart enough to distinguish between propaganda group and real sources of unbiased data.
He simply regurgitates anything that will support his irrational world view.
And off to Planet Conservadopia he goes.
So according to PVWatts for Los Angeles, fixed at latitude, in Jan you will get avg 4.44 kwh/M^2/day & 3.23 AC kwh/day for a 1kw peak panel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI use 11 kilowatt hours total to power my house. So according to you, 3 square meters of panels would be enough to power this house.
Oh, wait a second. No one makes a 1kw panel that is only 1 meter square. Thus invalidating your calculations.
Doesn't that make you a Kook Fart?
The fact of the matter is that I can walk down to wallmart and get commercial panels that gather 100 watts of power per square meter. So 1 hour of direct sunlight generation from these panels will provide 300 watt hours of energy, enough to run a three 13 watt CF bulbs for the evening.
Over an entire day, that panel will produce about 4 times that much power, and provide enough energy to run 12 of those bulbs. I typically use 6 or 7 of those bulbs to light my home.
"...Wind Watch is an anti-windpower propaganda group that has a political interest in reducing the rate at which wind power is deployed..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't even read. AWEO is not WindWatch. It is the site of Eric Rosenbloom who just happens to be someone who can see through the Wind Energy SCAM. He is not a dupe like you. And what you call propaganda just happens to be the truth. Political Interest?!? Like How or Why? Anyone who opposes the Wind Energy Scam, like people who have to live with those monstrosities near their homes - has a political interest - according to you. Pure crapola.
"...As an example, it is claimed that each wind turbine has to have several acres of land cleared below it, for it to function..."
Yeah, so. The actual quote is:
"...Each tower should be at least 5-10 times the rotor diameter from neighboring towers and trees for optimal performance. For a tower with 35 meter rotors, that is 1,200-2,400 feet, a quarter to a half of a mile. A site on a forested ridge would require clearing 45-90 acres per tower to operate optimally (although only 4-6 acres of clearance per tower, the towers spaced every 500-1,000 feet, is typical, making them almost useless when the wind is not a perfect crosswind). The Danish grid operator Eltra has found that a turbine can decrease the production of another turbine 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) away..."
Sounds reasonable to me. And you offer no counter-argument, but you claim "...contain a lot of emotion, very few facts..." It is you who sound 100% emotional, 0% factual information.
"...such standby production is already in place, to compensate for generators that go down..."
You don't know the difference between Standby Generators, and Spinning Reserve, Peaking or Shadowing Generators. The Utility typically only needs enough Spinning Reserve to cover loss of the largest generator on their Grid. They only need 1.5X that for 30 min standby generation. Wind requires a Shadowing Fossil Fuel generation to match the rapid fluctuations in Wind Output. In addition you still need the Spinning Reserve & Standby Generation in case a large Baseload Generator goes down, and you still need the Peaking Generator in addition. High efficiency CCGTurbines can't be used for shadowing. Low efficiency OCGTurbines must be used.
"...Odd that you failed to include the following qualifier...If all energy inputs are assumed to be from coal-fired plants..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere again, that reading comprehension problem of yours. That Qualifier is to estimate the CO2 emissions of various aspects of the Uranium / Nuclear full lifecycle emissions. That is not the method used by the three studies, I quoted. Certainly if you assume all energy inputs are from Green Sources, then full lifecycle CO2 emissions will drop to nil for NUCLEAR, WIND & SOLAR. That is a BOGUS assumption - don't ya think. A good case of you not being "... actually smart enough to understand what [you] quotes from those sites..."
"... Neither is he smart enough to distinguish between propaganda group and real sources of unbiased data..."
Typical Greenpeace, Astroturfer strategy. When you can’t debate actual data & logic – you resort to personal attacks & attack the source of the information - avoiding having to examine any points or data critically. Of course you always claim your Vested Interest AWEA, Greenpeace sites are bastions of credibility. Like the head of Greenpeace claiming lately that the Artic Ice Cap will be gone by 2030. Like your NREL/AWEA Paper 20% Wind Energy by 2030. It has been totally discredited as pure trash:
http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/DOECritique.pdf
A few quotes:
"...This report falls under the category of "manufactured science," which is in reality, nonsense, or non-science. As a physicist..."
"...the only non-governmental partners in this project are AWEA (American Wind Energy Association), and consultants Black & Veatch (who proudly proclaim on their website "We helped launch the modern wind power industry..."
"...Nowhere in this section is any backup or spinning reserves by conventional sources necessitated by wind power mentioned. Clearly that will affect the CO2 savings..."
"...This is an important assertion, so a heavyweight independent source would be expected here, but no, AWEA again references itself . Then it doesn’t even give a specific document, as if "AWEA 2007" would be sufficient enough..."
Now here you have serious problems with basic reading comprehension & arithmetic. The 3.23 AC kwh/day is for a 1 kwpk panel. AREA IS NOT A PART OF THAT CALCULATION. How much power you happen to use for your house ( the USA avg over a full day is 1.3 kw), or what lighting you happen to use is irrelevant. Why can't you understand that? I never claimed you needed 3 sq.m. of panels to power your house – where did you get that from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Area part comes from your stated usage of 10% efficient panels. That implies that a 1 kwpk panel in Los Angeles is 9.44 sq.m. or 106 watts per sq.m. But your window is only 3.25 sq.m. So 3.25/9.44 X 3.23 = 1.11 kwh per day. Or 46 watts avg output. Using batteries for 24 hrs of output reduces that to about 37 watts avg.
As for the Solar PV pollution - it is a serious issue. Yes it isn't necessary to pollute, just like in any industry. But, it is a lot cheaper if you do. The more you pollute - the cheaper your product. Since Solar PV is a mass produced commodity, like toasters, cutting costs to the bone is a common business strategy. Thus toxic pollution, in particular in developing Nations, where the majority of SolarPV is made.
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Hardly, clean & green. Read the truth about the impact of Wind Energy on the environment here...Solar PV leaves deadly toxic waste..."
-----------------------
Very nice propagandist sites and articles, especially rosenbloom's imaginative distortions and outright LIES about wind energy. I don't have time to go point by point for such ridiculous propaganda by lobbyists fighting wind power projects, or why the Chinese cannot recycle their PV manufacturing waste like developed countries do.
From your source:
"But Chinese companies' methods for dealing with waste haven't been perfected.
Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process. But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like Luoyang Zhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not brought those systems fully online, industry sources say."
"If this happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested," Shi, chief executive of Pro-EnerTech, said.
This is no different than corporate America's need to pass NAFTA 15+ years ago, to circumvent the environmental regulations in the U.S., and build factories in Mexico for cheap labor and ease of pollution. Believe me, I've seen it, since i used to live in southern NM, and know all about places like Juarez. Guess that's the main reason why PV companies like Kyocera moved from Arizona to Mexico a few years ago.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon Inaugurates KYOCERA's New Solar Module Manufacturing Facility in Tijuana
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/news/news_detail.cfm?key=590
You would do yourself a big favor by leaving the one-sided propaganda in the garbage where it belongs, since I've been dealing with clean and green renewable energy since the 70's, and know that the antiquated fossil fuel industry has many more problems of environmental concerns than solar and wind. We won't even discuss radioactivity and millions of tons of radioactive waste from the current LWR nuclear.
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Now here you have serious problems with basic reading comprehension & arithmetic......or what lighting you happen to use is irrelevant."
---------------------
Actually, much of your math is useless, since I can tell you much more than a propagandist site due to my practical experience with solar/wind energy. Many days I see 33% more power than the rated maximum wattage due to MPPT controllers and higher PV voltages with lower current using smaller gauge wire, and series/parallel hookups.
Your delirious thought on lighting being irrelevant is nuts, just like all the other uses for energy in any house -- it's all about efficiency, and LED lighting and LED-backlit LCD HDTV's are far superior to anything in your house! I'm willing to bet on it! I know all my loads in my house, and I know exactly how much power I produce on a daily basis.
Please, stop the useless ranting and propagandist links, since you're showing your true colors and partisan politics.
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As for the Solar PV pollution - it is a serious issue. Yes it isn't necessary to pollute, just like in any industry. But, it is a lot cheaper if you do."
--------------------
Maybe so.....but that just means that it is more moral to know your PV sources and manufacturing methods, and not buy Chinese garbage if you have a choice. My BP panels were USA made in Maryland, and I seriously doubt they were able to pollute the air, water or ground where they were made.
You rants are getting quite ridiculous, especially trying to compare manufacturing in the USA compared to China.
Besides, have you ever seen "mountain-topping" for coal?
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislokota says: "... use free fuel and emit absolutely no emissions at all..."
Incorrect. Full lifecycle emissions of SolarPV.....
------------------------
Why are you using a nuclear website to parrot propaganda against PV/wind power? You don't see the conflict of interest and sheer hypocrisy?
While I don't discount the fact that all manufacturing processes make waste, it is the methods of recycling of those wastes that is important. It's all about responsibility.
But, once those PV panels or wind turbine have been installed, there is absolutely no emissions -- and certainly no CO2 emissions -- EVER! And, your 20-year estimate on PV panels is ridiculous, since I've used some out of the CA desert that are close to 30 years old, and still working fine. I'd be willing to bet some could last longer than 50 years.
Besides, this article is about using 1% of the silicon material that can absorb 96 percent of the peak visible light, so I believe that the technology will continue to improve immensely through this century. A friend has a revolutionary solar/wind controller that will hit the market this year, and increase efficiency by miles. I just have to think we'd be so much further ahead today, if we hadn't offshored so much renewable energy technology, when raygun ended the tax incentives in 1981, to appease BIG OIL and the rest of the fossil fuel industry!
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But that doesn't include the INESCAPABLE fossil fuel backup of Wind & Solar energy, nor does it include the effect of fluctuating Wind (esp) & Solar has on the backup power. Including that effect, Wind DOES NOT REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS."
--------------------
Don't you ever get tired of parroting the fossil fuel/nuclear energy propaganda in order to attack renewable energy? You just never stop......one endless, repetitious scratchy record.
The Distortion
If you build wind turbines you need backup generation
The Truth
Electric grid systems can handle a certain percent of wind power without needing additional generation. The grid is already designed to compensate for loss-of-load contingencies when large power plant units suddenly become unavailable
The Distortion
Because other electric generators need to be running at lower efficiencies in ‘spinning reserve’ they will actually pollute more than the avoided emissions from the wind turbines
The Truth
The fact is: electrical generating units are constantly varying their outputs, starting and stopping, as the demand for electricity rises and falls throughout the day. When not running or burning less fuel, they pollute less!
The Distortion
Other countries are reducing their subsides for wind power
The Truth
This is what is supposed to happen with any industry as it reaches a sustainable point in any market. E.g. Spain began to reduce subsides in 2002 and their wind generating capacity still grew 33% in the last two years. (in the USA fossil fuels still receive very large subsides despite overwhelming market penetration)
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislokota says: "... like both the solar and wind industries that have been growing 50% per year..."
Yes, from miniscule to slightly more than miniscule.
---------------------------
This is probably our greatest disagreement, since we can both agree that more energy will be needed in the future, and I see many different sources that will provide our needed energy, where it seems as if you want to put all your eggs in one basket.......nuclear, nuclear, and even more nuclear.
In order to replace our finite and dirty fossil fuel supply, we will need many different sources like wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and biofuels in the coming years. All of these different and specific industries will continue to create jobs and energy for the future, so we should definitely not limit ourselves to one or two sources.
The only nuclear we should be building today is 4th generation IFR's that would use the radioactive waste from the current LWR's as fuel, and newer thorium LFTR's that are much more efficient and do not produce plutonium. I certainly believe that we should begin retrofitting all the dirty coal boilers with nuclear like they did between 1963-1968 at Elk River Station, MN.
As Tim Steinbeck, manager of Elk River Stations said:
This site did host a nuclear generator unit that operated in parallel with the 25 MW pulverized coal boiler from 1963-1968. The nuclear unit was a primary steam generator with an oil-fired secondary superheater. Steam could be sent to the single turbine generator from either the nuclear unit OR the pulverized coal boiler; so it really wasn’t converted, but did demonstrate that a nuclear unit could be retrofit to a coal facility.
We definitely subscribe to the philosophy of don’t throw away a good thermal plant; convert it to a different fuel, be it biomass or nuclear.
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Wind Watch is an anti-windpower propaganda group that has a political interest in reducing the rate at which wind power is deployed..."
AWEO is not WindWatch. It is the site of Eric Rosenbloom who just happens to be someone who can see through the Wind Energy SCAM.
---------------------------
Aaaah.....rosenbloom is just another NIMBY propagandist, and all of his anti-wind ranting can easily be debunked. Wind Watch or Industrial Wind Energy Opposition -- no difference, same anti-wind propaganda!
In 2005, Rosenbloom joined a few dozen other individuals from ten different states for a conference at which National Wind Watch was founded. In 2006, he became president of NWW.
I just love these AWEO fictional statements:
Industrial wind turbines do not reduce the use of other fuels.
Wind power requires 200 acres per megawatt of output.
Wind turbine output is low, variable, and rarely coincides with demand.
Each easily debunked as simply rosenbloom propaganda!
You can't even read. AWEO is not WindWatch. It is the site of Eric Rosenbloom who just happens to be someone who can see through the Wind Energy SCAM" - dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If I had a bullet for every time some Conservadopian Loser claimed that something they didn't like was a "SCAM", there wouldn't be any Conservadopian Parasites infesting this planet.
Ya, wind energy is a scam Kause you read it on some Losers Internet Blog.
Doesn't that make you a Kook Fart?
"Now here you have serious problems with basic reading comprehension & arithmetic. The 3.23 AC kwh/day is for a 1 kwpk panel. AREA IS NOT A PART OF THAT CALCULATION." - dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I see. So you have no way of applying it to the surface area of a large front window which I estimated to be about 3 square meters.
Yet you persist in trying to do exactly that.
Doesn't that make you a Quack Fart?
vendicar9:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So you have no way of applying it to the surface area of a large front window which I estimated to be about 3 square meters."
-----------------------
The dude certainly has some unfounded hatred towards renewable energy, and goes to great lengths to demean PV manufacturing and energy production, as well as NIMBY wind energy propagandists.
Your 3 sq. meter window is about the size of 8 normal size PV panels @ 170 to 200 watts each, or up to about 1600 watts peak rated, which I could squeeze about 2 kW out peak, or about 4 to 6 kWh daily, depending on conditions. That would run an entire small home, albeit an efficient one -- much more than one 37-watt light bulb. He's delirious and obviously has an axe to grind.
lokota, the numbers I used are direct from NREL's solar calculator - PVwatts. You're in the Solar Business and you haven't heard of that (of course they don't know anything - you are the expert). And it gives Los Angeles - max summer output (in Aug) of 4.7 AC kwh per day avg. for a fixed tilt, south facing at latitude panel, 1kwpk panel. It yields peak 811 AC watts or 1053 DC watts under ideal conditions. The Solar Insolation is 6.68 kwh/m^2/day in Aug (best month) and that implies for a 10% efficient panel you will need 9.13 m^2 area, for a 1kw dc rated pk panel. Basic arithmetic - why are you unable to understand this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo for the 3.25 m^2 we will get 1.68 AC kwh/day or 70 AC watts avg over the day. So if you are 6 AC kwh/day max that would require a 6/1.68 * 10% = 35.7% efficient panel. You can't buy those dude. Unless you are using a two-axis tracking, in which case you would get 37% more (July best month). Which means 6/2.3 * 10% = 26% efficient panel. Top-of-the-line and very pricey - and requiring a two-axis tracking mount, also awkward & pricey. So don't B.S. me - these are NREL numbers for Los Angeles. Maybe you're in New Mexico and are talking peak on a perfect day - which is not relevant for this analysis, which is avg over the best summer month and worst winter month.
So it still stands, 3.25 M^2 - 10% efficient panel, flat roof mount, sunny Los Angeles, perfect roof (south facing at latitude), cleaned weekly, no shade trees or buildings and 80% round trip eff. batteries for overnight storage and you will get a pathetic 56 watts continuous summer, 37 watts continuous winter. Of course using a common 16% eff polycrystalline Solar Panel, would improve those numbers by 60% to 90 watts in summer.
And I certainly have no axe to grind. I just don't like your Bush/Cheney style ENERGY SCAMS, that you & venicar have bought into, because these are putting the Earth in Peril, and millions if not billions of people will die because of them. While you, on the other hand, are admitting to being a
Vested Interest, who makes a living selling SolarPV, so it's fairly obvious what your angle is.
And you still haven't explained the tiny thin little red line on top of Germany & Denmark's primary energy supply graphs, which is your Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal & Wave Energy all put together. And Germany has 1/2 the World's Total PV, with extraordinary subsidies of 60 cents per kwh - why do you need those? Compare with that big fat yellow line on France's primary energy supply graph - which is Nuclear.
"So for the 3.25 m^2 we will get 1.68 AC kwh/day or 70 AC watts avg over the day. So if you are 6 AC kwh/day max that would require a 6/1.68 * 10% = 35.7% efficient panel." - dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGosh, every day your calculations and results change radically.
But you claim to use NREL as a reference so OK... I'll do that too.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_january_dec2008.jpg
As you can see from the above chart, most of the U.S. has a capacity to generate about 4.5 kilowatt hours per day per square meter, or about 14.6 kilowatt hours per day for 3.25 square meters.
For a 10% efficient panel the total energy collectable is then 1.5 kwh per 3.25 square meter per day.
That is worst case average.
The best case comes in July when on average the amount of energy available doubles to about 3 kwh per day.
I run my house on 11 kwh per day, so in winter 3.25 square meters of panel at 10% efficiency would provide me with 13 percent of the power I consume, and in summer, 26% of the power I consume.
So a surface area of 8 * 3.25 square meters = 26 square meters would be enough to power this house during the darkest winter month during an average year.
If my house was properly oriented, it's sun facing roof, which has a surface area of 49 square meters, is 2 times larger than that needed to provide enough generating capacity to supply all of the electrical energy I consume in winter.
And in summer the same panels would produce twice the power I consume, which with the proper regulations in place, could be sold back to the grid. providing me with an income of about $100 a year - enough to purchase one additional 80 watt PV panel every 6 years or so.
The initial costs are large. And this of course is what is motivating the scientists to produce panels that use less silicon and produce it in a manner that is more cost effective.
Half the cost, and up the efficiency by 50% and solar is a no-brainer.
Whining about it and claiming that it's all a Liberal Scam, as you do is a Conservadopian no brainer.
dwbd, no, apparently you're the expert without any field experience, but I've known quite a few just like you throughout my entire life. You most definitely have issues, spewing the same anti-wind and anti-solar propaganda, and attacking renewable energy as a "scam."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I just don't like your Bush/Cheney style ENERGY SCAMS, that you & venicar have bought into"
The only energy scams by the bush/cheney regime was for the fossil fuel industry, as could be proven by the 2005 GOP Energy Bill, so quit the political rhetoric.
You know it all, and will continue the ad hominem attacks.
Hey dwbd, instead of posting one attack after another on all types of clean and green renewable energy, why not just call Eric Rosenbloom, President of National Wind Watch at: 802-472-5458, and you two can sit around for hours discussing new ways to attack all the things you hate, and how everything you dislike must be a scam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"…Gosh, every day your calculations and results change radically…"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo they don't. The same results as yesterday.
"…most of the U.S. has a capacity to generate about 4.5 kilowatt hours per day per square meter, or about 14.6 kilowatt hours per day for 3.25 square meters. For a 10% efficient panel the total energy collectable is then 1.5 kwh per 3.25 square meter per day…"
Not quite. I did say 4.5 DC kwh/M^2/day for Los Angeles in Jan. Mid USA - Kansas 3.7 in Dec, worst month. North Dakota down to 2.7 in Dec and Washington 1.26. So far you are correct for Los Angeles in Jan. But you didn’t include the 77% DC to AC derating factor, which NREL has consistently measured in Solar PV installations. And an 80% round trip charging efficiency to batteries, in order to supply a full days output. So that reduces your 14.6 kwh/day to 14.6 X .77 X .8 = 9.0 kwh/day or 37 watts - just what I said.
And it doesn't double in July. Check the Map or go to:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/code/pvwattsv1.cgi
It increases to 6.7 max in August for Los Angeles. A 50% increase, not double.
11 kwh is low for a home. U.S. avg is 31 kwh per day. So you will get 1.11 AC kwh/day Los Angeles in Jan or 10% of your consumption – not 13%. And maximum month in summer will be Aug and you will get 1.68 AC kwh/day or 15% - not 26%. So you would need 32 M^2 in Jan. Of course if you're going to use the Grid as your battery, the 20% charging loss will be reduced to maybe 5%, but then you are just asking the taxpayer to finance the energy storage that you aren't providing. Although, in fairness, Solar PV up to about 30% of the summer shoulder load, would only need another about another 8 hrs of storage to sustain it’s output through to 11 pm. So total loss from 20% down to about 12%.
At $7.5k per kwpk installed avg cost. And avg Los Angeles year round output is 167 AC watts per kwpk, fixed south at latitude = $44.9k per avg AC kw output - no storage. Use that money to pay down your 5%, 20 yr mortgage instead and you would have to be paid 40.4 cents per kwh by the utility to break even.
½ the cost and 50% higher efficiency would reduce that to 13.5 cents per kwh, for a perfect roof in sunny Los Angeles, no storage. Still pricey power that will be dead for a week or more in bad weather and won't be enough over the Winter. It won't work. Most of the World won’t hesitate one second - they will burn Coal at ½ cent per kwh - raw energy.
I am a Liberal. I hate crooked SCAMS. And that's what Solar is. It has Niche uses
The fossil fuel industry has been big promoters of the Solar & Wind scams, because they know it sucks away resources and investment from realistic solutions, and yet doesn't make a dent in Fossil Fuel consumption. Check those graphs again for proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon’t believe me, check out British Petroleum, and see how they support all the SCAMS. No mention of Electric Vehicles, Methanol or Nuclear:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7046901
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A/ALL_UK_heathrow_ADS.pdf
And take one look at all the full page pro-renewable ads from Shell Oil on SCI-AM. And wonder why Sci-Am (also known as Shell American) are so pro-Renewable energy and anti-Nuclear.
The Caltech group did not make a credible solar cell. I would like to see the IV curve of their cell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Of course, I'm no economist, and so I really don't know that much about economics"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is why (in large part) the Soviet Union failed; they too were not economists and yet arrogated to themselves the role of central economy management. The failure is in part caused by the role of economist -- observe and explain natural phenomenon; NOT try to create that phenomenon in the first place. There is too much "chaos" in the system for effective central management (IMO).
Vendicar9: "You might have noticed that Rational thought is in short supply at the moment."
Indeed. But really, I am unable to notice thoughts other than my own thoughts.
"Witness the QuackFart rantings of Conservadopian Americans."
Quackfart is someone on MySpace: www.myspace.com/quackfart
I fail to see any connection between Quackfart's rantings and photovoltiac panels. Google gave me no definition of Conservadopian so it must be really esoteric science jargon.
"The 3.23 AC kwh/day is for a 1 kwpk panel. AREA IS NOT A PART OF THAT CALCULATION." - dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicar answers: "Oh, I see. So you have no way of applying it to the surface area of a large front window which I estimated to be about 3 square meters."
He might not, but you can. Take the irradiance for your latitude in watts per square meter, multiply by the panel's efficiency rating, multiply again by the windows' transmission efficiency (80 percent or less) which you discover when you hook it up and try it, and reduce further by the off-axis reduction which is more than mere cosine of the angle reduction in my experience. My high power panels are VERY sensitive to direction and that is why some people mount solar panels on rotators; you can double your daily collection.
"Doesn't that make you a Quack Fart?"
Yes, it does not.
Assertion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndustrial wind turbines do not reduce the use of other fuels.
Wind power requires 200 acres per megawatt of output.
Wind turbine output is low, variable, and rarely coincides with demand.
Someone's attempt to debunk:
Each easily debunked as simply rosenbloom propaganda!
But this debunking is itself a logical fallacy. An assertion is true or false independent of who said it. The assertions must be examined on their merits, although I'll admit that I seldom use "realclimate.org" as an authoritative source for climate data, on the theory of probability -- I have limited time to invest in research and that reduces the value of agenda-driven sources.
As I travel around my state, I see windmills more often NOT turning, than turning. This suggests anecdotally that wind turbine output is indeed variable, which by definition means it will not always coincide with peak demand (ranging to rarely meets peak demand depending on the circumstances of each installation).
The other allegations probably depend on local conditions. It is true that tip vortexes and other phenomenon require more spacing between wind turbines than would seem necessary at first glance.
It is unlikely to be true that windmills fail to reduce fossil fuel consumption especially if they are grid-tied. As wind rises, the generating stations will see a reduction in demand. However, if the wind is highly variable, the generation stations might prefer NOT to have what looks like a huge varying load connected to them.
I would rather suggest the government to promote more of wind as opposed to PV. The technology spectrum, though evolving, is stable and concentrated, atleast in the market. Secondly, the PLF and CUF of wind farms are comparable, at times greater ,to solar based power stations and thirdly its cheaper! Cheaper by as much as 50% and that too at today's prices not in 2020 or 2030.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet more of those blades to energize the grid and market "green electricity" at the utility level rather than individual participation
@mggordon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough I agree that wind power is highly variable and difficult to schedule, the fact of the day remains that in terms of PLF or Plant Load Factors or the number of hours in a year that a power station produces electricity at peak capacity is higher in Wind as opposed to Solar.
Also talking of peak demands, Solar energy, the next biggest competing renewable source of energy at least in the market, is able to produce electricity though out the day rather than the evenings.
So conventional power plants with schedulable power capabilities will always remain the preferred base load power production sources but we need to understand that we need to start turning this scenario into a greener one and that means that we cant start comparing any of these renewable power sources to a typical demand curve, atleast for now. With better grid penetration (Denmark has reached 20% from wind power and they are managing it well) of these sources we might be able to mitigate the problems on a priority basis. Right now it would be cynical to call them off because they are variable.
Even if successful, This still uses finite resources to create the silicon blades ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be happy to have you up to my place in Oregon, dwbd. I'll show you my installation AND the receipts for all the hardware (did the installation myself). I've got just over 7kW (peak) of solar cells on my roof and 6 batteries 'recycled' from wrecked prius (prii?) for storage. Together with my 12 kW inverter the entire setup cost less than $5000 (well under $1/watt) and my power bills are usually negative even here in gloomy western Oregon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar can and does work in many if not all situations. The 'powers that be' hate decentrallized electricity though. If enough people had solar cells on their rooftops they could get together to form power co-ops and refuse to sell power back to the grid unless the price was right. PG&E (among others) is scared s***less by this concept.
Gizmo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Solar can and does work in many if not all situations."
---------------------
Yep, the naysayers like dweeb, just love to crunch the numbers they get from other sources in order to make a case against everything not nuclear. Never any hands-on experience like you and me, and I can say as an absolute fact, I'm still amazed every time I turn on the DC breakers in a PV combiner box on a new or reconfigured solar system.
I have a hybrid wind/solar installation that's completely off-grid, which allows me to generate as much power as possible, without any intentions of selling any excess back to the grid. Some day I'll add some micro-hydro, mostly from the snow melt in the spring, and start running some electric heaters!
These people that have a need to diss every type of renewable energy with nothing but poor propaganda, really disgust me!
Gizmo, I have to repeat myself for you to understand, basic reality:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisright now pro-Solar people are admitting that systems cost $7 per Wpk installed. As a matter of fact the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory lists the costs of Solar Installations in the USA:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf
"....The capacity-weighted average installed cost of systems completed in 2008 in terms of real 2008 dollars per installed watt (DC-STC)4 and prior to receipt of any direct financial incentives or tax credits was $7.5/Watt, a decline from $7.8/W in 2007 following several years (2005-2007) during which installed costs remained relatively flat. From 1998 to 2008, installed costs declined by about 3.6% (or $0.3/W) per year, on average, starting from $10.8/W in 1998.
Gizmo, I have to repeat myself for you to understand, basic reality:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now pro-Solar people are admitting that systems cost $7 per Wpk installed. As a matter of fact the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory lists the costs of Solar Installations in the USA:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf
"....The capacity-weighted average installed cost of systems completed in 2008 - in terms of real 2008 dollars per installed watt (DC-STC)4 and prior to receipt of any direct financial incentives or tax credits - was $7.5/Watt, a decline from $7.8/W in 2007 following several years (2005-2007) during which installed costs remained relatively flat. From 1998 to 2008, installed costs declined by about 3.6% (or $0.3/W) per year, on average, starting from $10.8/W in 1998.
Preliminary cost data indicates that the average cost of projects installed through the California Solar Initiative program during the first 8½ months of 2009 rose by $0.4/W relative to 2008..."
So what, Do-It-Yourselfers can build Solar Systems for $1/Wpk, not including their labor. Yeah, I've done some of that myself. A serious pain-in-the-butt that only the tiny fraction of people - techies with time to kill - will attempt. Now how does that change the harsh reality of supplying the World with low-cost, low-carbon energy in the post-Oil era? Why does Solar need enormous subsidies of 40-85 cents per kwh just to achieve some growth, and yet I showed you the tiny little red line on Germany's Energy profile. And Spain Solar efforts were a complete disaster after spending $26.4 billion to get a pathetic 450 MW avg output. Not including the inescapable backup power supply. The total primary Energy Supply of Spain:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/ESTPES.pdf
That tiny little red line on the top of the graph is all they achieved for there huge subsidies and all out efforts on Renewables. Notice the yellow line of Nuclear - which they showed almost zero interest in, but funny how it makes their total new renewables output look pathetic.
The facts on Germany & Spain's Solar Power BOONDOGGLE'S:
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/01/solar-lobbys-latest-propaganda-ending.htm
dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts on Germany & Spain's Solar Power BOONDOGGLE'S:
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/
------------------------
I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you and people like you, that have a need to search out nothing but propaganda that meets your preconceived ideology, especially from the blogosphere. Seems that rosenbloom would be proud of you!
I don't feel sorry for you. I feel anger and outrage at how selfish and irresponsible you are to the welfare of this Earth and our descendants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou and people like you, dupes of the fossil fuel lobbies, are doing your best to leave suffering, misery, death and destruction, as a legacy to the next generation.
A future without cheap, plentiful, available to anyone - anywhere, low emissions, rain or shine, 24/7 energy is the future you wish to bestow on the next generation. Even after you & yours selfishly wasted most of the World’s Fossil Fuels - dumping billions of tons of CO2 and other toxic emissions into the environment.
Your efforts, if successful, will leave a legacy of mass unemployment, worldwide poverty, starvation, energy wars, water wars, genocide, mass migrations, runaway global warming, a toxic, polluted atmosphere, and little funding available for such "luxuries" as quality education, universal health care, infrastructure maintenance, social security and public safety.