Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
PV and wind both have an EROEI greater than one, with wind already beating out oil on some fronts. Sloppy rhetoric on his part. For someone whose views are 100% "doomer" he is strangely optimistic.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Aug 13th, 2007 at 09:26:29 PM EST
Sloppy rhetoric on his part.

I'll say.  To be fair, though, it seems he wrote this in the context of ongoing discussions in pre-existing threads.

Having said that, I wish he would have unpacked strange insinuations like the following:

... the same kind of leap of faith which Yoshie Furuhashi reminded us was the great French mathematician Pascal's definition of Christianity. ... As is clear from discussions on this List, some who might define themselves as Marxists also turn out when scratched to be made of different metal.

Doe he mean to imply that Marxism is just Christianity in another guise?

Whether or not sunshine is infinite, the earth is a closed entropic system

Huh?  I have a very limited understanding of energy issues, but how could the earth be considered a "closed entropic system" if Averaged over the entire surface of the planet, 24 hours per day for a year, each square meter collects the approximate energy equivalent of almost a barrel of oil each year, or 4.2 kilowatt-hours of energy every day.?

Fuel cells, PV's and biomass ethanol almost certainly are sinks, or else of almost no net benefit. ... so-called 'renewables', which in all cases anyway depend for their development on cross-subsidies from fossil fuels. All of this is well-known stuff by now.

This kind of hand-waving rhetoric always rings alarm bells.  Just how "well known" is this stuff anyway?

The energy payback time of photovoltaic (PV) cells has been a contentious issue for more than a decade. Some studies claim that the joule content of the energy and materials that were put into the process of making the PV cell, will be equaled by the joule content of the electrical output of the cell within a few years of operation. <...>

This review has concluded that the likely energy payback of a typical domestic sized rooftop grid connected PV cell is approximately four years. In addition, it was estimated that larger utility PV cell power stations would have a much longer energy payback period.

Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells



Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 07:44:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
'Closed entropic system' rang an alarm bell for me too

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 01:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, to be fair we have to note this was written in 2000 when we knew much less about the potential of solar and wind even though it was only 7 years ago.

I understand Jones won't be able to tell us whether his perspective on renewables would be different today. I am a little surprised he didn't think then that, although limited, the solar flux is great enough to provide all of our necessary needs and more ("a world with a damaged ecosphere, and very little usable energy (orders of magnitude less than now)" as long as we develop the technologies necessary to harness efficiently the energy provided.

I don't see a problem with his use of 'closed entropic system'. A closed system doesn't allow mass transfers with its surroundings but it permits energy transfer freely (by opposition to an 'isolated' system).

by Fete des fous on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 09:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wish he would have unpacked strange insinuations like the following:
... the same kind of leap of faith which Yoshie Furuhashi reminded us was the great French mathematician Pascal's definition of Christianity. ... As is clear from discussions on this List, some who might define themselves as Marxists also turn out when scratched to be made of different metal.
Doe[s] he mean to imply that Marxism is just Christianity in another guise?
No, he means that, just as Protestants and Catholics are essentially Christian, so Marxists and Capitalists are what De has called "Industrial Cornucopians". Both are Industrial-Revolution ideologies, and both believe in economic growth and productivity. If anything, "real" Communism has been more socially and environmentally destructive than Capitalism when it has embarked on mad dashes for progress and development.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 27th, 2007 at 03:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jones does not mention wind, which might be odd but the article was written in 2000 and wind has been growing rapidly the last few years.

PV has had a problem of getting EROEI greater then one, making it not unresonable that it was the case in 2000. Indeed I heard a lecture by a life-cycle analyst in 2002 (I think) were PV had EROEI smaller then one.

I must admit I have not seen resent calculations of the EROEI of PV. Do you happen to have any links?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 12:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
bruno-ken's link has some good data in it. I've seen EROEI numbers from 2 to 5 (bruno-ken's article is based in years for energy payback). It's not that great regardless, although I expect it to continue to improve. For power plants of any size, solar heat is probably a better method.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 12:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes the first out of laboratory cells were may be unable to pay back their enery a decade ago (and we're not even sure because we have no real lifetime data yet).

Wikipedia has many links to studies for payback time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_cells

The absolute worse we produce right now (or produced a few years ago) installed in a poor place has 5 years payback everything included (roof mounting, etc...). It's easy to get 1-2 year.

From what I understand from my readings the big thing to know is that the PV cell industry uses computer chip industry silicon and the computer chip industry couldn't care less about energy used during production since what they produce is worth way more than gold per kilogram on the market.

If/when the market for PV gets bigger, they'll move to silicon production dedicated to PV cells where energy input is likely to be way smaller and prices will go down big time too (since they won't compete with silicon-gold-chips for this ressource anymore).

The wikipedia timeline has many interesting information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_cells


# 1984 - 30,000 SF Building-Integrated Photovoltaic [BI-PV] Roof completed for the Intercultural Center of Georgetown University. At the time of the 20th Anniversary Journey by Horseback for Peace and Photovoltais in 2004 it was still generating an average of one MWh daily as it has for twenty years in the dense urban environment of Washington, DC.

Probably in the worst place (pollution, etc...) old technology PV are still working after 23 years.


# 1984 - Amoco Oil pulled factory loan to make brutal and unwelcome takeover of Solarex Corporation factory in Frederick, Maryland.
# 1988-1991 AMOCO/Enron used Solarex patents to sue ARCO Solar out of the business of a-Si, see Solarex Corp.(Enron/Amoco)v.Arco Solar, Inc.Ddel, 805 Fsupp 252 Fed Digest.

As with batteries and electric cars, intellectual property is used to gain a few decades of big oil profits and other pro global warning activities.


Section 8. The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Promote progress indeed.

by Laurent GUERBY on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 03:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If/when the market for PV gets bigger, they'll move to silicon production dedicated to PV cells where energy input is likely to be way smaller and prices will go down big time too (since they won't compete with silicon-gold-chips for this ressource anymore).

The problem is that chip production is so massively profitable that PV will have a hard time matching it, no matter how popular it becomes.

I'm not expecting PV to take off until/unless it starts using a less demanding technology. It really needs to drop maybe 90% of its current price to become a viable everyday power source - even assuming a significant drop in demand.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 03:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's study the to be built Victoria PV station, technology choosen being mirrors concentrating sun on small patch of satellite tech PV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_station_in_Victoria

It is announced at a price of 11.3 USD per installed effective watt (I took fx 1 AUD = 0.83 USD).

Effective watt = wh effectively produced over a year divided by hours in a year, here effective is 20% of rated watt-peak taking into account day/night/clouds/etc... according to their published data.

The published data from Jerome offshore windfarm:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/10/26/155548/15

378 millions euros for 120 MW peak, 40% load efficiency (from Jerome comment in the discussion) makes it to 10.7 USD per installed effective watt (1 EUR = 1.36 USD).

Price of installed effective watt does not take into account financing and maintenance.

So we have to compare maintenance cost over the next N years of an on-shore bunch of mirrors and off-shore wind farm. And also to compare photovoltaic expected lifetime (we know that old tech lasted 23 years in hostile polluted environment loosing only 10% of output and probably no maintenance at all) and the offshore windfarm lifetime.

Does that make 11.3-10.7=0.6 USD per installed effective watt? I think so.

So all in all I'd say according to published numbers concentrated solar PV can already be cheaper than wind.

by Laurent GUERBY on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 05:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Plus we're comparing first of its kind solar plant vs quite mature offshore wind farm technology so it's likely future prices will fall more on the solar side than for offshore wind.
by Laurent GUERBY on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 05:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PV using dedicated silicon wafers is starting about now. These wafers will have way more impurities than VLSI grade wafers, and the PV will go down a bit in yield, but the panels should be much cheaper after a couple of years (like 2-3 times per peak watt I expect). Also, they will be decoupled from VLSI economic cycles (by which production of PV basically stopped whenever their was an expansion of the microchip business, every 3 years or so)

Pierre
by Pierre on Tue Aug 14th, 2007 at 07:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, this is definitely the big next step for PV from an economic standpoint.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Aug 15th, 2007 at 01:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series