wind power

[turbo36]

Turbo36,

The reason I am skeptical of the 1.5 year energy payback claim is that, if it were true, they would be installed. Everywhere. The basic raw materials are quite cheap.

The total energy required is not the energy to run the machine that makes the substrate, and subsequent chip. The true energy hogs are the feedstock processing, along with the astoundingly low yield associated with effort to make the feedstocks. I suspect that someone used the heat of melting of silicon as a basis for that claim, and it has been propogated as an urban myth.

Again, I would like a reference to the specific article that supports the claim, if you have one, as I would like to study it. I may get my eyes opened. It would help me out a bunch.

Thanks for you help.
Chris

Research these articles to see the real and potential solar payback periods. Most of the studies showing long paybacks are 5-15 years old so they are not relevant when comparing today's technology.

According to Wikipedia:

Solar cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy payback is the recovery (period) of the energy spent for manufacturing of the respective technical energy systems, also called harvesting ratio (ISO 13602).
In the 1990s, when silicon cells were twice as thick, efficiencies were 30% lower than today and lifetimes were shorter, it may well have cost more energy to make a cell than it could generate in a lifetime. In the meantime, the technology has progressed significantly, and the energy payback time of a modern photovoltaic module is typically from 1 to 4 years[8][31] depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). Generally, thin film technologies - despite having comparatively low conversion efficiencies - achieve significantly shorter energy payback times than conventional systems (often < 1 year).[32] With a typical lifetime of 20 to 30 years, this means that modern solar cells are net energy producers, i.e. they generate significantly more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.[33][8][34]

Other sources:


http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Entropy Production: Solar Payback Period

Solar Urban Legends - greentechZONE

Alternative generation and storage methods
Technology Review: Solar without the Panels


China has more coal then we do but they are moving fast into renewable energy sources

China links coal use and birth defects - 02 Feb 2009 - BusinessGreen

Updated: China overtakes UK as top location for renewables investment - 19 Aug 2008 - BusinessGreen

China's rise in solar energy centered around polysilicon; LDK signs contract with Italy's Helios

Even the utilities are embracing solar

Duke Energy pushes for rooftop solar distributed power program

 

[turbo36]

I don't think you are comparing apples to apples here. While government grants have led to all sorts of discoveries and inventions that have changed our lives for the better, government subsidized industries have not.

Eddie

Eddie, almost everything in our lives has some sort of "Government Subsidy" think about our roads, Hospitals, firefighters, Sea Ports, Schools etc. etc. Their funding (all or some) come from the Government through collecting tax and redistributing it.

The real argument here is really about Co2 emission and the effect on our world, I know you do not believe in "Global warming" and so you just look at the immediate cost of coal fired energy generation. From my view point I look at the total cost including damage to the environment, whether it is Co2 emissions , mountain top mining, water pollution due to the spoils of mining and burning the coal, acid rain and all the other negative costs. I'm willing to pay 10-20% more for my energy in the short term to allow the technologies to advance quickly and reduce my cost over the long term.

 

[Egon]

Instead of debating without facts why does someone with interest not compile some hard dollar economic facts and post those.

 

[jdbower]

The cost to produce wind power in Massachusetts is "an additional 1.396 cents per kWh."
NSTAR: NSTAR Green

 

[turbo36]

Instead of debating without facts why does someone with interest not compile some hard dollar economic facts and post those.

Did you read any of the links? There are hundreds of studies done worldwide.

 

[dmccarty]

Actually Government money financed most of the basic research of the first computer systems and microprocessor ( Military applications) The firms you mentioned where just very bad at applying that technology in the private sector and that is why they failed (except for Apple).

IBM financed the PC using profits earned through many private and government contracts so yes some government money went into the development of the PC.

But that is not the same thing as direct and large tax credits to companies and individuals to promote a technology.

The ESD division that created PC was a huge money maker for IBM. It did not cost much money to start up and I have never heard that Feds gave money to IBM to go create a PC business.

The point of mentioning the companies was not that they failed but that they started up with their own capital. Woz or Jobs sold their HP calculator to help fund Apple. And they worked out of a garage. Never did I hear that Uncle Sam gave them any money to start a PC company.

PCs happened because people saw a need and a way to make money by providing a product that would sell. PC companies did not take tax credits and grants year after year to be successful like the solar power companies. Not even close.

To compare the PC business to the solar power business just does not wash.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

You are making the assumption that the only way to apply Solar power is through stand alone home owner units, I'm talking about large scale commercial units that feed the power grid. Much better efficiency.

Then you should say as much.

So you are talking about the commercial units that can take up many square miles of land? There was an article I think in WSJ about one such facility. Cant remember if it was built or planned but it would take up many square miles of land to create about 50% of what large Nuke and coal fire plants produced.

Now maybe land costs are cheap in the desert but it sure is not cheap in my area of the NC. What is the environmental cost of of putting in large solar arrays vs forest?

Putting solar arrays on roof tops is a better solution if the price ever gets affordable.

Later,
Dan

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie, almost everything in our lives has some sort of "Government Subsidy" think about our roads, Hospitals, firefighters, Sea Ports, Schools etc. etc. Their funding (all or some) come from the Government through collecting tax and redistributing it.

The real argument here is really about Co2 emission and the effect on our world, I know you do not believe in "Global warming" and so you just look at the immediate cost of coal fired energy generation. From my view point I look at the total cost including damage to the environment, whether it is Co2 emissions , mountain top mining, water pollution due to the spoils of mining and burning the coal, acid rain and all the other negative costs. I'm willing to pay 10-20% more for my energy in the short term to allow the technologies to advance quickly and reduce my cost over the long term.

I agree that government does spend money on our every day lives. Things like roads, and infrastructure are very good examples of government doing what they are supposed to do. I'm also in support of government grants to Universities and private industry to do research on new technology. These are what taxes are for and I support these things.

My point that you didn't respond to was the use of money to force technology on us that does not work, but it politically correct. Sort of like the ethanol disaster that we just went through. When government forces these things on us, it just delays the real research on developing that technology by removing the incentive to do so. Why make it work when you are making money on it anyway?

As for assuming that I'm for destroying the landscape or increasing pollution because I have never seen any evidence that humans are increasing the overall temperature of the planet, is just silly. You invented that position when I've never said anything like that. Nor do others who don't believe that the planet is getting warmer. Instead, we believe that NASA has demonstrated that the temperature of the planet has been decreasing for the last decade, that the polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing.

Those who believe in global warming have to rely in distortions and bad science. Both are proven wrong over and over again, but with all the money involved, those so called scientist keep pushing the doom and gloom regardless of how ofter they are proven wrong.

Two questions for those who believe in global warming. Why was the planet warmer in the past? One example is that the Romans grew grapes for wine in England, which is still too cold today for natural grapes to grow. You have to use genetically altered grapes to grow there because it's still too cold.

The other question is what benefits would we see from global warming? All they tell us is how bad it "might" be if the planet warms up. They ignore the fact that the planet has been warmer then it is now many times in the past and none of those things they predict ever happened, but what are the benefits? Will frozen area be able to grow crops? Will it rain more often because of increased evaporation in the oceans? Will the polar bears be able to eat more seals with less ice for them to hide in? hahaha

I'm all for a clean environment. As a hunter, I believe strongly that improving the habitat of our wildlife is VERY IMPORTANT!! I think that allot of these so called green alternatives actually do more harm then good. Saying that it's worth the sacrifice because in the long run, technology will make it better might work, but then again, it might not. It's wishful thinking at it's best.

How much damage and pollution to the planet are those pigtail light bulbs causing when they break? In some states, it's considered too hazardous to live in your home if one breaks. They are full of mercury. What is the long term damage of disposing of them? There is no energy shortage except what the government creates. There is plenty of known coal and oil to last us for centuries, yet we're not allowed to use it and have to use technology that uses MORE energy to create and operate then it generates. The stupidity is mind boggling yet that's what we're getting.

For what little energy we get from windmills, which is the topic of this post, what are we left with when those windmills fall apart? Altemont Pass in California has thousands of windmills. The owners of that windmill farm have changed hand numerous times. They all go bankrupt and now those windmills are falling apart. Some have even fallen over. What will it cost to clean up that mess? Who will pay for it? What was the cost to get the land, but the windmills, install them, maintain them and now dispose of them? Compare that to what they generated in electricity and I think you'll find it's not even close to breaking even. The proof is in the bankruptcy of the owners of those windmills and the fact that they are abandoned and left to fall apart.

Maybe being from California and going for excitement over the creation of the windmill farm where I lived, to hearing about the problems it was having and knowing those involved, to finally seeing it fail gives me a perspective that those who haven't seen it don't have. In time, you will.

Eddie

 

[dynasim]

Turbo36,

I read through the several of the articles(pro and con, but mostly pro) last night, and this morning, and have come to the conclusion that the claim of 1.5-2 year energy payback is unsupportable, even with the most optimistic of assumptions.

I would suggest reading the articles thoroughly, and evaluating their methodology. They are quite eye opening, results based analysis.(I know the results I want, how do I calculate them).

If you would like to discuss this off of this forum(as it is off-topic), I would love to. My conclusions may be wrong.

Thanks for your response.

Chris

 

[Chuck52]

As for assuming that I'm for destroying the landscape or increasing pollution because I have never seen any evidence that humans are increasing the overall temperature of the planet, is just silly. You invented that position when I've never said anything like that. Nor do others who don't believe that the planet is getting warmer. Instead, we believe that NASA has demonstrated that the temperature of the planet has been decreasing for the last decade, that the polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing.

Those who believe in global warming have to rely in distortions and bad science. Both are proven wrong over and over again, but with all the money involved, those so called scientist keep pushing the doom and gloom regardless of how ofter they are proven wrong.

Eddie

Eddie,

You've cited this NASA data more than once in this and other threads. I'd like to read the original where some NASA person says that the "polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing", but all I come up with from NASA sites say the opposite, The only thing I found about increasing ice was about how there is of course new ice during the winter months, but that it is thinner and "saltier" than the previously lost long term ice. The second paragraph seems to be based on a really remarkable type of conspiracy theory, since my reading on the topic suggests that the great majority of scientists in fields concerned with the subject believe the data supports global warming, and the majority of those scientists also believe Man's activities are involved. These scientists are from countries around the world, and believing that somehow it is in their economic interest to lie suggests ..... I don't know....some kind of huge international conspiracy? They may be wrong, scientific knowledge increases in a rather jerky, sporadic manner, and there are numerous past errors that can be cited, but suggesting that all the evidence in support of their opinion is distortions and bad science is basically ridiculous.

Chuck