Exactly my point 8-11 years is a long time for a solar cell not to be damaged. One hail storm birds dropping rocks (it really does happen) not to mention trying to keep them clean and cool. You can put them under glass but you drop in efficiency. when you do that. Also the 8-11 year data assumes perfect sun. so if you are not setting these up on a highland desert somewhere the years to payback grows much higher. They have been saying they drop to 3.5 years for 5 years now still hasn't happened.Jon wrote:Well, as it turns out, I did look it up. The question is, did you? Take a look at this:flynfrog wrote: look up the energy payback of PV Cells and you can see why this is a terrible idea. Most of them take more energy to produce then they can payback before they are written off.This is just from a simple Wikipedia article, and it took me about 3 minutes to google for and read. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovolta ... evelopmentLife-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years[79], but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems[73].
Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[73] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and the geographic location of the system.[80]
Where did you get your figures from? Please provide a source.
Any other objections for this technology?
So why did our beloved brother-people demand our two xemplary functional Barsebäck nuclear reactors to be shut down,hollus wrote:No, no, no, they are not idiots!
Nuclear is a realistic proposition, recuces CO2 compared to carbon, is a mature technology and it is BIG! I put the emphasis on BIIIG. One person or a small group can profit from building one central, or operating one nucelar central in a small parcel of land. That's one person or a small group controling a multi million dollar bussiness. Good business practice.
The problem for solar is that it is inherently small scale unless one owns lots of land. We are talking of many small installations, each one only producing modest (economic) returns in the long term.
Nuclear is BIG bussiness, and can move the necessary capital, hence the technology is highly evolved.
Solar is, today, small bussiness, so nobody shows much interest and the technology progresses at a slower pace.
I honestly believe that is the main difference right now.
Huh?flynfrog wrote: Exactly my point 8-11 years is a long time for a solar cell not to be damaged. One hail storm birds dropping rocks (it really does happen) not to mention trying to keep them clean and cool. You can put them under glass but you drop in efficiency. when you do that. Also the 8-11 year data assumes perfect sun. so if you are not setting these up on a highland desert somewhere the years to payback grows much higher. They have been saying they drop to 3.5 years for 5 years now still hasn't happened.
The thin films are more durable but last I looked into them they were pushing it to get 5% out of them. It took .5meters to charge a cell phone as long as you didn't talk on the phone. Multiply that out to SQ meters to power a city. Solar PV is great for satellites not so much for terrestrial stuff.
Being generous to you, I'll take that "Most of them..." means 50% plus 1. Well, it's just not like that, fact. Since at least the year 2000, the expected life of these PV cells is at least 20 years, with energy payback being about one half into it's life. TODAY, these figures yield much better ratios. Again, let me quote wikipedia:look up the energy payback of PV Cells and you can see why this is a terrible idea. Most of them take more energy to produce then they can payback before they are written off.
1 year under perfect conditions for Thin film....but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems[73].
Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).
Again, why not? Just take a look at this exciting bit, also from that Wikipedia article:In the last few years development on this front has been furious. This technologies are now commercially viable. That means that just a little more, and it can be general-public viable. So, why not focus on it?
85% of absorption efficiency!!! Wow, I'm amazed, considering the current market leader's efficiency is 23.4%.A March 2010 experimental demonstration of a design by a Caltech group which has an absorption efficiency of 85% in sunlight and 95% at certain wavelengths (it is claimed to have near perfect quantum efficiency).
How long do you think a solar cell will last? It has gotten cheaper to produce cells in the last few years but the technology is at a stand still. No big jumps have been made. The sunpower A300 is probably the best cell for you house. In the last 8 years they have gained one point of efficiency. not exactly a stunning leap. I still stand by my claim that most will not pay back there energy. 8 to 10 years of perfect sun does not exist. In reality it will be more like 15-20 years if the cell lives that long. Even if we use your quote of 50% of its life that is still terrible compared to other power generation methods. Solar is great if there is no other means of generation available like in space or a cabin in the woods.Jon wrote:Huh?flynfrog wrote: Exactly my point 8-11 years is a long time for a solar cell not to be damaged. One hail storm birds dropping rocks (it really does happen) not to mention trying to keep them clean and cool. You can put them under glass but you drop in efficiency. when you do that. Also the 8-11 year data assumes perfect sun. so if you are not setting these up on a highland desert somewhere the years to payback grows much higher. They have been saying they drop to 3.5 years for 5 years now still hasn't happened.
The thin films are more durable but last I looked into them they were pushing it to get 5% out of them. It took .5meters to charge a cell phone as long as you didn't talk on the phone. Multiply that out to SQ meters to power a city. Solar PV is great for satellites not so much for terrestrial stuff.
Did you read what was posted? What I linked to? 8 to 11 years was the estimate in the year 2000. I'll have to check but I believe we are now living in the year 2010.
And that was not your original point. You said, and I quote:Being generous to you, I'll take that "Most of them..." means 50% plus 1. Well, it's just not like that, fact. Since at least the year 2000, the expected life of these PV cells is at least 20 years, with energy payback being about one half into it's life. TODAY, these figures yield much better ratios. Again, let me quote wikipedia:look up the energy payback of PV Cells and you can see why this is a terrible idea. Most of them take more energy to produce then they can payback before they are written off.1 year under perfect conditions for Thin film....but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems[73].
Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).
And of course there are maintenance costs associated with this tech. As there is with any single machine in this world. But this has already been factored into this calculations.
Now, let's go back to what I said initially. Here, let me quote myself:Again, why not? Just take a look at this exciting bit, also from that Wikipedia article:In the last few years development on this front has been furious. This technologies are now commercially viable. That means that just a little more, and it can be general-public viable. So, why not focus on it?85% of absorption efficiency!!! Wow, I'm amazed, considering the current market leader's efficiency is 23.4%.A March 2010 experimental demonstration of a design by a Caltech group which has an absorption efficiency of 85% in sunlight and 95% at certain wavelengths (it is claimed to have near perfect quantum efficiency).
I ask again, why not focus on this technologies? Why not invest heavily on this?
What? Mate, are you even reading what I write? Or are you just deciding to ignore the information? Please, read carefully, or just tell me you are not bothering, so I can do the same.flynfrog wrote: How long do you think a solar cell will last? It has gotten cheaper to produce cells in the last few years but the technology is at a stand still. No big jumps have been made. The sunpower A300 is probably the best cell for you house. In the last 8 years they have gained one point of efficiency. not exactly a stunning leap. I still stand by my claim that most will not pay back there energy. 8 to 10 years of perfect sun does not exist. In reality it will be more like 15-20 years if the cell lives that long. Even if we use your quote of 50% of its life that is still terrible compared to other power generation methods. Solar is great if there is no other means of generation available like in space or a cabin in the woods.
95% is great no denial here but I doubt we ever see it outside of a lab
You ask why not invest heavily because its an inefficient way to produce power and its expensive and in the end its not that clean.
Solar maybe publicly viable but it will never be economically viable. When people have to pay for this them self they will go running back to coal.
They last at least 20 years, and currently can go for as long as 30 years.How long do you think a solar cell will last?
No it is not at a standstill. The market average ranges from 12 to 18% efficiency. The market leader is, currently, at 23.4%. Current R&D labs have reached 42%. Caltech achieves between 85 and 95%. You call that a standstill?It has gotten cheaper to produce cells in the last few years but the technology is at a stand still.
Where do you get this numbers from?I still stand by my claim that most will not pay back there energy.
Again, where do you get these figures from? Why are you still talking about 8 to 10 years? That's not the case with modern tech. Today, the year 2010, you only need one (1) year of perfect sunlight. One. Year. ONE. And, again, in prefect conditions, the cell will live for 29 more years. 29. That is TWENTY NINE.8 to 10 years of perfect sun does not exist. In reality it will be more like 15-20 years if the cell lives that long. Even if we use your quote of 50% of its life that is still terrible compared to other power generation methods.
Yes, it is highly inefficient today. But maybe, with proper funding, we can make that 85 to 95% a reality. So that would be a very clean energy source, at 95% efficiency. Sounds attractive, doesn't it?You ask why not invest heavily because its an inefficient way to produce power and its expensive and in the end its not that clean.
Solar maybe publicly viable but it will never be economically viable. When people have to pay for this them self they will go running back to coal.
See?Grid parity, the point at which photovoltaic electricity is equal to or cheaper than grid power, is achieved first in areas with abundant sun and high costs for electricity such as in California and Japan.[60]
Grid parity has been reached in Hawaii and other islands that otherwise use fossil fuel (diesel fuel) to produce electricity, and[61][62]most of the US is expected to reach grid parity by 2015.
General Electric's Chief Engineer predicts grid parity without subsidies in sunny parts of the United States by around 2015. Other companies predict an earlier date:[63] the cost of solar power will be below grid parity for more than half of residential customers and 10% of commercial customers in the OECD, as long as grid electricity prices do not decrease through 2010.
That's exactly my point mate. Today, that is not possible. But remember, the current production numbers were not possible 20 years ago. But what stops us from increasing efficiency? Physics? No. The will? I don't think so. The investment? Hmmmm...xpensive wrote:What the hell are you guys discussing anyway, draw me a map of a theoretical 1700 MW solar plant, on a sunny day that is,
comparable to Olkilouto 3 EPR now being built in Finland and I might pay some attention.
Stand still yes. Those numbers a less then a full percentage point about where we were 10 years ago. The 95% in a lab is really nothing important it will never be viable outside of the lab. Why don't we invest money in dogs on treadmill with enough money we could make it more efficient too.Jon wrote:What? Mate, are you even reading what I write? Or are you just deciding to ignore the information? Please, read carefully, or just tell me you are not bothering, so I can do the same.flynfrog wrote: How long do you think a solar cell will last? It has gotten cheaper to produce cells in the last few years but the technology is at a stand still. No big jumps have been made. The sunpower A300 is probably the best cell for you house. In the last 8 years they have gained one point of efficiency. not exactly a stunning leap. I still stand by my claim that most will not pay back there energy. 8 to 10 years of perfect sun does not exist. In reality it will be more like 15-20 years if the cell lives that long. Even if we use your quote of 50% of its life that is still terrible compared to other power generation methods. Solar is great if there is no other means of generation available like in space or a cabin in the woods.
95% is great no denial here but I doubt we ever see it outside of a lab
You ask why not invest heavily because its an inefficient way to produce power and its expensive and in the end its not that clean.
Solar maybe publicly viable but it will never be economically viable. When people have to pay for this them self they will go running back to coal.
They last at least 20 years, and currently can go for as long as 30 years.How long do you think a solar cell will last?No it is not at a standstill. The market average ranges from 12 to 18% efficiency. The market leader is, currently, at 23.4%. Current R&D labs have reached 42%. Caltech achieves between 85 and 95%. You call that a standstill?It has gotten cheaper to produce cells in the last few years but the technology is at a stand still.
Where do you get this numbers from?I still stand by my claim that most will not pay back there energy.
Again, where do you get these figures from? Why are you still talking about 8 to 10 years? That's not the case with modern tech. Today, the year 2010, you only need one (1) year of perfect sunlight. One. Year. ONE. And, again, in prefect conditions, the cell will live for 29 more years. 29. That is TWENTY NINE.8 to 10 years of perfect sun does not exist. In reality it will be more like 15-20 years if the cell lives that long. Even if we use your quote of 50% of its life that is still terrible compared to other power generation methods.
Yes, it is highly inefficient today. But maybe, with proper funding, we can make that 85 to 95% a reality. So that would be a very clean energy source, at 95% efficiency. Sounds attractive, doesn't it?You ask why not invest heavily because its an inefficient way to produce power and its expensive and in the end its not that clean.
Solar maybe publicly viable but it will never be economically viable. When people have to pay for this them self they will go running back to coal.
Solar is already economically viable mate. If you had read that Wikipedia article, you would know that:See?Grid parity, the point at which photovoltaic electricity is equal to or cheaper than grid power, is achieved first in areas with abundant sun and high costs for electricity such as in California and Japan.[60]
Grid parity has been reached in Hawaii and other islands that otherwise use fossil fuel (diesel fuel) to produce electricity, and[61][62]most of the US is expected to reach grid parity by 2015.
General Electric's Chief Engineer predicts grid parity without subsidies in sunny parts of the United States by around 2015. Other companies predict an earlier date:[63] the cost of solar power will be below grid parity for more than half of residential customers and 10% of commercial customers in the OECD, as long as grid electricity prices do not decrease through 2010.
Mate, come on, think a bit for yourself...do I really need to spell every single detail for you to get the picture?xpensive wrote: Right, on a sunny day, just like those stupid windmills will produce power on a windy day, that is not reliable energy for the future when every invested MW must be equalled by the very same investment in something reliable for a cloudy day or dead calm.
So, if perfect conditions mean one year...let's say imperfect conditions require, what...three times longer? So, that's three years...hmmm...and that's with current technologies, imagine what we could ach...oh wait, I forgot, you already know for a fact that 95% is impossible to achieve. My bad.flynfrog wrote: Stand still yes. Those numbers a less then a full percentage point about where we were 10 years ago. The 95% in a lab is really nothing important it will never be viable outside of the lab. Why don't we invest money in dogs on treadmill with enough money we could make it more efficient too.
Sigh. If you say so...would it be too much to ask for any sources again?
Back to the claims of getting an energy payoff. Most of those figures are based on perfect sun with a tracking system. If I were to put panels on my roof. I live in a high altitude desert. On a great sun day I am going to only get about 45% of sun since I don't have tracking and cant because my house is in the way. Now if you are sticking these panels in lower altitudes in places that don't get 300 days of sun a year think how much longer it will take to pay back the cost. The ratings given by most cell manufactures for pay off assume you are putting the cells in Mohave. In the real world they take much longer to pay off.
Well, thanks, captain obvious. Now tell me why you ignored the rest of the quoted figures for the continental USA.flynfrog wrote:The only reason that solar is grid equivalent in Hawaii is because of the cost of shipping fuel out there and the lack of fuel processing.
How much storage? How will you store sufficient energy to run the EU for a day or two if conditions aren't conducive to full scale energy production?Jon wrote:
Oh, not enough? Have you heard about energy storage? Hmmm...
Oh wait, I just tought of something grounbreaking...what about A MIXED PRODUCTION? OMG!!! I just fell backwards with my own amesomeness! Imagine having PV cells producing power AND windmills!!! And what if we add storage facilities??? OMG!!!!!
I'm off to patent this idea...
