Letters to the Editor
-
Glad to see this posted
I'm there with you on the "don't laugh" part. I've always thought of it as a 9.6 on the "Duh!" scale. First:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_basics.html
Which I don't think is the page you're referencing as the terms, although afaik are the same, are not identical. The results are still similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
Also talks about how EROEI tends towards 10-30, depending on location, and I believe not too far from a typical fossil fuel plant. My solar install paid itself off energy-wise last November. I'd had it in for a little over two years in my terribly sunny climate and actually out-produced what the installer predicted.
The related costs of the manufacturing emissions is trickier, but still something we can track down. I will say, though, that in my conversations with anti-solar folks that while they question this part - assuming they "trust" me on the payback question - there is never a mention of the *huge* dumping of dangerous materials coal powered plants produce (and this without comment about the startup costs of said plant). I just finished up "Big Coal" by Jeff Goodell, and the next time someone passes over the non-CO2 emissions of most coal plants, it will be a tremendous accomplishment for me to not slap them silly.
(Which is not to say CO2 is no big deal, but geeeez... methyl mercury is harsh!)
-
Here's to the Sun!
And here's hoping that a new administration (with Al Gore in a cabinet post?) will nudge more Americans towards investing in solar energy!
-
Juliebird on Al Gore
... here's hoping that a new administration (with Al Gore in a cabinet post?) will nudge more Americans towards investing in solar energy!
No argument, mostly, except that Gore is doing just fine where he is.
Hopefully next year's Democratic president (keep your fingers crossed and your October schedule clear) will take advantage of the prodigious talent already out there and broaden the conversation.
The progressive movement has, or ought to have, such a surfeit of ability that it's possible to safely release to pasture any politician who's already had their day, without ever really missing them.
-
A question
Was the manufacture and disposal/recycling of the batteries taken into account?
-
Solar energy and photovoltaics are not necessarily synonymous
A more efficient (and less polluting to manufacture) technology is sun tracking point source reflectors (they use mirrors) that either drive Stirling engines or concentrate sunlight on smaller high output photovoltaics (rather then the big PV arrays). We should be covering our southern deserts with them. (San Diego is one of the few utilities to have one of these plants built for them.) If you're in the sun belt, kick your local utility in the butt, and ask them when they're going to start building them. Get info at http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp or http://www.solar.unlv.edu/saic_system.php or http://www.sdge.com/sunrisepowerlink/release3.html
-
Is that even a relevant question?
We could clone whales by the million and chop them up for oil too. But that's not really the direction we want to head in.
No the fact is that any long run solution is going to be a mixture of things just like it is now. A little solar a little fission, some oil/coal/gas, a little wind, a little algae and anything else they can come up with. That's the only rational approach. Anyone's who's waiting for the Gigantic Magical Monkeywrench is just delaying real solutions to engineering and economic problems for the sake of ideology. Does soalr pollute across its lifecycle?
EVERYTHING pollutes across its lifecycle. Anytime you make, break, process or recycle something you're creating some kind of pollute, waste or throwoff energy. Hells Bells, recycling paper uses mercury and sulfuric acid.
-
Batteries
Boko
This study is on grid-tied system (approximately 90% of PV is grid-tied these days). Such systems have no batteries because when the system is making less power than needed, it is bought from the grid. When the system is making more power than needed, it is sold to the grid.
John Q
On what basis you you say that solar thermal electric (Stirling engine) or CPV is less polluting overall? Both of these systems use a lot of materials, and in the case of Sterling engines, consumables (like motor oil and coolant).
In any event, different types of systems are useful for different applications. Solar thermal electric and CPV might be more cost effective than flat plate PV in powerplants in the long run (the jury is still out, despite hype to the contrary). Conversely, flat plate PV is definitely the best way to do distributed generation at the point of use - on rooftops and so on. These can be quite sizable systems when sited on big box stores, warehouses, etc. and directly displace peak load which is quite beneficial, economically and environmentally.
-
Solar where and how?
The endangered desert tortoise and other desert animals that are already struggling due to habitat loss will be a whole lot happier if we put most of the solar panels in our cities, instead of covering much of the wildlands they need to live.
Regarding Stirling, it doesn't look like it is the large-scale solar technology that is most likely to succeed, at least not any time soon. Serious questions have been raised in California Public Utilities Commission hearings about the commercial reliability (not efficiency) of the Stirling Energy Systems solar dish technology and questioning how SES will scale up from a handful of solar dish units at a national laboratory to the tens of thousands of units necessary to fulfill its contracts with Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. There is another solar facility in the Mojave that appears to be much closer to becoming a reality (Ivanpah) -- that one already is going through environmental review. As of last week, the Stirling Energy Systems projects for SCE and SDG&E had not yet filed their applications with the California Energy Commission, and the projected filing dates have been repeatedly delayed.
-
Hell and Frozen Over
And Electro Robot has provided an insightful, mostly constructive comment rather than the usual snark. Well done!
I agree with the first point absolutely. There is no "One Solution To Rule Them All" with regard to our current energy pickle. Arguing about whether PV or thermal solar is "better" is, in my opinion, a waste of time. They are both great and both need to become cheaper and scaled 10,000 fold. Let's not argue over the current 0.01% market share of solar; there is room, lots of room, for all viable technologies to grow.
I'm currently trying to form a community group to join together and buy some PV systems (inspired by: http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/03/18/how-a-south-bay-neighborhood-saved-thousands-on-going-solar/). Even with incentives and a negotiated discount, the economics of PV aren't that great yet in my area, but I'm tired of sitting around and waiting for grid parity. And yes, we're pursuing efficiency and conservation strategies as well.