First off, let me premise this discussion in that it will only consider
ONLY the most up to date current and future trends. (Inefficient,
wasteful, and obsolete technologies have no place in our energy
future.)
Modern PV cell tech uses silicon wafers with thicknesses under 200um.
Density of Si is around 2.33g/cm^3
The standard PV cell dimensions are 125mm *125mm * thickness..
Thus a kilogram of silicon yields a square block approximately
12.5cm (W) * 12.5cm(L)* 2.75cm(H).. "
some prelim calc figures..
or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.3mm == 91.6 cells (10.9g per cell)
or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.2mm == 137.5 cells (7.3g per cell)***
or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.15mm == 183.3 cells (5.45g per cell)
Notes:
12.5cm^2 solar cell is exposed to 15.6 watts at std
isolation(1000W/m^2 ) *.15(15% conversion eff) == 2.35 watts..
Ribbon process doesn't involve any wafer splitting.
Ignot source requires wafer cutting, but wafers thickness is down to
150 to 200um range, with cutting process consuming 70 to 100um of Si
material(recycled).
***Using mid range tech of 0.20mm cell thickness, (recycling waste Si)
2.35watts per cell * 137.5 == 323watts per kg.
===========
Average flat panel solar flux for the US lower 48 angled at latitude
is 4.6 kWh/M^2/day.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/208.GIF
(Flat Plate Tilted South at latitude.)
Only a fool would construct them in a location with below average solar
flux or mount them in horizontal flat orientation. (Covering maximum
surface area is NOT a requirement NOR is it desirable).
The following chart/map when compared to the others demonstrates how
much energy production one would loose by making a substandard mounting
decision.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/325.GIF
(Flat plate oriented horizontally with the earth.. no tilt)
A significantly better location for large scale PV energy production is
the desert SW with 9 to 10kWh/M^2/day of tracked solar flux(annual).
(323 watts of PV @ 9kWh/M^2/day == 2.9kWh day/kg of Sit.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/169.GIF
(Flat plate with dual axis tracker.)
(Notice the large area in the SW with 8 to 10 kWh/M^2/day production.)
In the end.. the energy payback for the initial SiO2 ->mgSi step using
tracked PV in desert SW is somewhat less than a week.. (3 to 5 days
depending on tech used)...
Wasteful, ultra pure IC grade silicon used for PV production is being
phased out for cheaper alternatives. (It's really not needed
anymore).
=====
As for carbon consumption..
To replace the 3883 billion kWh (2003) of electricity generated in
US(2003) would require a ONE TIME investment of 3883e+9 kWh/ 365 /
(2.9 kWh/kg) == 3.6 Million metric tons of refined Si..
Carbon (coal) needed to refine this amount of SI from SiO2 would be
3.6e+9 kg /28 * 12 == 1.5e+9 kg C or 1.5Million metric tons..
1.5 Million metric tons of C represents..(0.026%) or less than ONE
THOUSANDTH of the US's annual carbon consumption.
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Spreadsheets/Table11_04.xls
"U.S. Carbon Emissions from Fossil Energy Consumption"
2003..... 5,781.4 Million Metric tons of Carbon.
Imagine that... Just ONE day's worth of carbon usage dedicated towards
PV manufacturing could chop US annual carbon emissions by more than
40%. A little conservation(*) and transitioning to EV's could chop
off another 40%. (Using 15% of 3883B kWh PV output would propel 150
Million EV's for ~20K miles per year. (@~194wH per mile) ).
Notes:
Huge amounts of raw materials & energy, (consumed by the existing
fossil fuel industries), would be conserved.. (ships, mines, ports,
drilling rigs, pipelines, trucks, tankers, railroads, fueling stations,
and other infrastructure.. mostly gone.. reduced by 90%.. and with any
luck.. recycled).
* We will still have other forms of renewable energy production (wind,
hydro), plus backup storage in the forms of, anticipatory load
management, excess EV battery capacity, and combined cycle gas turbine
plants fueled by H2.
H2 can be efficiently produced using a two step process, which
combines a high yielding solar thermal energy component (60%), with a
greatly reduced electrical energy input(~40% 0.6v) per unit of energy
embodied in H2.
=======
Lastly... Long term PV production is a based on a renewable energy
source. Very little mass of a large scale PV plant (>10GW peak) is
consumed(lost) during a PV panel's/trackers operational lifetime..
Some erosion, some grease for the gears on the tracking mechanism, and
some makeup oil for hydraulic pump & piston.
At the end of PV panel lifespan, ALL of it can all be recycled, on
site, making new panels and trackers.
Collection and transportation energy costs near zero !
Separation energy costs near zero..
Clear PV grade Glass. ~80% energy savings..
Aluminum. ~95% energy savings.. (verses ~15kWh/kg for new Al
production.)
Silicon.. ~90% energy savings..
etc..
I.E. Higher initial energy investment (*),
but long term energy production sustainability (>100 years)
shifts dramatically towards the side of renewables. EROEI greater than
200 to 1....
* -- (Depends where the materials come from.. Each year the US
misplaces 48% or 0.633 million metric tons of Aluminum used to make
soda cans because someone was too lazy to recycle them.)
http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/News_and_Stats/Statistics_Reports/Facts_At_A_Glance/factsataglance05.pdf
=====
In summary.. PV as useful energy source that is progressing at a rapid
rate..
Ultimately, It may not take on the exact characteristics as
described in this post.
But, I suspect, it will take a similar form...
The long term EROEI aspects of this solution(>100years) most likely
precludes day to day profit driven entities(mega corps) from being part
of the solution.
Thus it is up to the citizens of the world to force our governments
to act on our behalf for the COMMON GOOD and our future generations.
PV is fine as far as it goes but it is inefficient as only a narrow
band of wavelengths from the sun are turned into electricity, the rest
of the wavelengths are wasted producing heat. A 5 terawatt
geostationary orbit solar furnace could produce enough hydrogen to fuel
the world. If the output of the furnace was aimed at a diffraction
grating the wavelengths could be separated. Each wavelength could be
used where it is most effective, some would even go to PV cells.
T.Keating wrote:
> First off, let me premise this discussion in that it will only consider
> ONLY the most up to date current and future trends. (Inefficient,
> wasteful, and obsolete technologies have no place in our energy
> future.)
> Modern PV cell tech uses silicon wafers with thicknesses under 200um.
> Density of Si is around 2.33g/cm^3
> The standard PV cell dimensions are 125mm *125mm * thickness..
> Thus a kilogram of silicon yields a square block approximately
> 12.5cm (W) * 12.5cm(L)* 2.75cm(H).. "
> some prelim calc figures..
> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.3mm == 91.6 cells (10.9g per cell)
> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.2mm == 137.5 cells (7.3g per cell)***
> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.15mm == 183.3 cells (5.45g per cell)
> Notes:
> 12.5cm^2 solar cell is exposed to 15.6 watts at std
> isolation(1000W/m^2 ) *.15(15% conversion eff) == 2.35 watts..
> Ribbon process doesn't involve any wafer splitting.
> Ignot source requires wafer cutting, but wafers thickness is down to
> 150 to 200um range, with cutting process consuming 70 to 100um of Si
> material(recycled).
> ***Using mid range tech of 0.20mm cell thickness, (recycling waste Si)
> 2.35watts per cell * 137.5 == 323watts per kg.
> ===========
> Average flat panel solar flux for the US lower 48 angled at latitude
> is 4.6 kWh/M^2/day.
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/208.GIF
> (Flat Plate Tilted South at latitude.)
> Only a fool would construct them in a location with below average solar
> flux or mount them in horizontal flat orientation. (Covering maximum
> surface area is NOT a requirement NOR is it desirable).
> The following chart/map when compared to the others demonstrates how
> much energy production one would loose by making a substandard mounting
> decision.
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/325.GIF
> (Flat plate oriented horizontally with the earth.. no tilt)
> A significantly better location for large scale PV energy production is
> the desert SW with 9 to 10kWh/M^2/day of tracked solar flux(annual).
> (323 watts of PV @ 9kWh/M^2/day == 2.9kWh day/kg of Sit.
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/169.GIF
> (Flat plate with dual axis tracker.)
> (Notice the large area in the SW with 8 to 10 kWh/M^2/day production.)
> In the end.. the energy payback for the initial SiO2 ->mgSi step using
> tracked PV in desert SW is somewhat less than a week.. (3 to 5 days
> depending on tech used)...
> Wasteful, ultra pure IC grade silicon used for PV production is being
> phased out for cheaper alternatives. (It's really not needed
> anymore).
> =====
> As for carbon consumption..
> To replace the 3883 billion kWh (2003) of electricity generated in
> US(2003) would require a ONE TIME investment of 3883e+9 kWh/ 365 /
> (2.9 kWh/kg) == 3.6 Million metric tons of refined Si..
> Carbon (coal) needed to refine this amount of SI from SiO2 would be
> 3.6e+9 kg /28 * 12 == 1.5e+9 kg C or 1.5Million metric tons..
> 1.5 Million metric tons of C represents..(0.026%) or less than ONE
> THOUSANDTH of the US's annual carbon consumption.
> http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Spreadsheets/Table11_04.xls
> "U.S. Carbon Emissions from Fossil Energy Consumption"
> 2003..... 5,781.4 Million Metric tons of Carbon.
> Imagine that... Just ONE day's worth of carbon usage dedicated towards
> PV manufacturing could chop US annual carbon emissions by more than
> 40%. A little conservation(*) and transitioning to EV's could chop
> off another 40%. (Using 15% of 3883B kWh PV output would propel 150
> Million EV's for ~20K miles per year. (@~194wH per mile) ).
> Notes:
> Huge amounts of raw materials & energy, (consumed by the existing
> fossil fuel industries), would be conserved.. (ships, mines, ports,
> drilling rigs, pipelines, trucks, tankers, railroads, fueling stations,
> and other infrastructure.. mostly gone.. reduced by 90%.. and with any
> luck.. recycled).
> * We will still have other forms of renewable energy production (wind,
> hydro), plus backup storage in the forms of, anticipatory load
> management, excess EV battery capacity, and combined cycle gas turbine
> plants fueled by H2.
> H2 can be efficiently produced using a two step process, which
> combines a high yielding solar thermal energy component (60%), with a
> greatly reduced electrical energy input(~40% 0.6v) per unit of energy
> embodied in H2.
> =======
> Lastly... Long term PV production is a based on a renewable energy
> source. Very little mass of a large scale PV plant (>10GW peak) is
> consumed(lost) during a PV panel's/trackers operational lifetime..
> Some erosion, some grease for the gears on the tracking mechanism, and
> some makeup oil for hydraulic pump & piston.
> At the end of PV panel lifespan, ALL of it can all be recycled, on
> site, making new panels and trackers.
> Collection and transportation energy costs near zero !
> Separation energy costs near zero..
> Clear PV grade Glass. ~80% energy savings..
> Aluminum. ~95% energy savings.. (verses ~15kWh/kg for new Al
> production.)
> Silicon.. ~90% energy savings..
> etc..
> I.E. Higher initial energy investment (*),
> but long term energy production sustainability (>100 years)
> shifts dramatically towards the side of renewables. EROEI greater than
> 200 to 1....
> * -- (Depends where the materials come from.. Each year the US
> misplaces 48% or 0.633 million metric tons of Aluminum used to make
> soda cans because someone was too lazy to recycle them.)
>
http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/News_and_Stats/Statistics_Reports/Facts_At_A_Glance/factsataglance05.pdf
> =====
> In summary.. PV as useful energy source that is progressing at a rapid
> rate..
> Ultimately, It may not take on the exact characteristics as
> described in this post.
> But, I suspect, it will take a similar form...
> The long term EROEI aspects of this solution(>100years) most likely
> precludes day to day profit driven entities(mega corps) from being part
> of the solution.
> Thus it is up to the citizens of the world to force our governments
> to act on our behalf for the COMMON GOOD and our future generations.
If the U.S. stops burning coal and oil, it will make coal and oil far
cheaper for the rest of the world to consume. The rest of the world will
then use as much as the U.S. is using today if not more. So while the U.S.
can feel better about itself, I doubt it will change any planetary dynamics.
But then I am quite the pessimist.
-mike
> PV is fine as far as it goes but it is inefficient as only a narrow
> band of wavelengths from the sun are turned into electricity, the rest
> of the wavelengths are wasted producing heat. A 5 terawatt
> geostationary orbit solar furnace could produce enough hydrogen to fuel
> the world. If the output of the furnace was aimed at a diffraction
> grating the wavelengths could be separated. Each wavelength could be
> used where it is most effective, some would even go to PV cells.
> T.Keating wrote:
>> First off, let me premise this discussion in that it will only consider
>> ONLY the most up to date current and future trends. (Inefficient,
>> wasteful, and obsolete technologies have no place in our energy
>> future.)
>>
>> Modern PV cell tech uses silicon wafers with thicknesses under 200um.
>> Density of Si is around 2.33g/cm^3
>>
>> The standard PV cell dimensions are 125mm *125mm * thickness..
>>
>> Thus a kilogram of silicon yields a square block approximately
>> 12.5cm (W) * 12.5cm(L)* 2.75cm(H).. "
>>
>> some prelim calc figures..
>> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.3mm == 91.6 cells (10.9g per cell)
>> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.2mm == 137.5 cells (7.3g per cell)***
>> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.15mm == 183.3 cells (5.45g per cell)
>>
>> Notes:
>> 12.5cm^2 solar cell is exposed to 15.6 watts at std
>> isolation(1000W/m^2 ) *.15(15% conversion eff) == 2.35 watts..
>> Ribbon process doesn't involve any wafer splitting.
>> Ignot source requires wafer cutting, but wafers thickness is down to
>> 150 to 200um range, with cutting process consuming 70 to 100um of Si
>> material(recycled).
>>
>> ***Using mid range tech of 0.20mm cell thickness, (recycling waste Si)
>> 2.35watts per cell * 137.5 == 323watts per kg.
>>
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> Average flat panel solar flux for the US lower 48 angled at latitude
>> is 4.6 kWh/M^2/day.
>>
>> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/208.GIF
>> (Flat Plate Tilted South at latitude.)
>>
>> Only a fool would construct them in a location with below average solar
>> flux or mount them in horizontal flat orientation. (Covering maximum
>> surface area is NOT a requirement NOR is it desirable).
>>
>> The following chart/map when compared to the others demonstrates how
>> much energy production one would loose by making a substandard mounting
>> decision.
>>
>> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/325.GIF
>> (Flat plate oriented horizontally with the earth.. no tilt)
>>
>> A significantly better location for large scale PV energy production is
>> the desert SW with 9 to 10kWh/M^2/day of tracked solar flux(annual).
>> (323 watts of PV @ 9kWh/M^2/day == 2.9kWh day/kg of Sit.
>>
>> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/169.GIF
>> (Flat plate with dual axis tracker.)
>> (Notice the large area in the SW with 8 to 10 kWh/M^2/day production.)
>>
>> In the end.. the energy payback for the initial SiO2 ->mgSi step using
>> tracked PV in desert SW is somewhat less than a week.. (3 to 5 days
>> depending on tech used)...
>>
>> Wasteful, ultra pure IC grade silicon used for PV production is being
>> phased out for cheaper alternatives. (It's really not needed
>> anymore).
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>> As for carbon consumption..
>>
>> To replace the 3883 billion kWh (2003) of electricity generated in
>> US(2003) would require a ONE TIME investment of 3883e+9 kWh/ 365 /
>> (2.9 kWh/kg) == 3.6 Million metric tons of refined Si..
>>
>> Carbon (coal) needed to refine this amount of SI from SiO2 would be
>> 3.6e+9 kg /28 * 12 == 1.5e+9 kg C or 1.5Million metric tons..
>>
>> 1.5 Million metric tons of C represents..(0.026%) or less than ONE
>> THOUSANDTH of the US's annual carbon consumption.
>>
>> http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Spreadsheets/Table11_04.xls
>> "U.S. Carbon Emissions from Fossil Energy Consumption"
>> 2003..... 5,781.4 Million Metric tons of Carbon.
>>
>> Imagine that... Just ONE day's worth of carbon usage dedicated towards
>> PV manufacturing could chop US annual carbon emissions by more than
>> 40%. A little conservation(*) and transitioning to EV's could chop
>> off another 40%. (Using 15% of 3883B kWh PV output would propel 150
>> Million EV's for ~20K miles per year. (@~194wH per mile) ).
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> Huge amounts of raw materials & energy, (consumed by the existing
>> fossil fuel industries), would be conserved.. (ships, mines, ports,
>> drilling rigs, pipelines, trucks, tankers, railroads, fueling stations,
>> and other infrastructure.. mostly gone.. reduced by 90%.. and with any
>> luck.. recycled).
>>
>> * We will still have other forms of renewable energy production (wind,
>> hydro), plus backup storage in the forms of, anticipatory load
>> management, excess EV battery capacity, and combined cycle gas turbine
>> plants fueled by H2.
>>
>> H2 can be efficiently produced using a two step process, which
>> combines a high yielding solar thermal energy component (60%), with a
>> greatly reduced electrical energy input(~40% 0.6v) per unit of energy
>> embodied in H2.
>>
>> =======
>>
>> Lastly... Long term PV production is a based on a renewable energy
>> source. Very little mass of a large scale PV plant (>10GW peak) is
>> consumed(lost) during a PV panel's/trackers operational lifetime..
>> Some erosion, some grease for the gears on the tracking mechanism, and
>> some makeup oil for hydraulic pump & piston.
>>
>> At the end of PV panel lifespan, ALL of it can all be recycled, on
>> site, making new panels and trackers.
>>
>> Collection and transportation energy costs near zero !
>> Separation energy costs near zero..
>> Clear PV grade Glass. ~80% energy savings..
>> Aluminum. ~95% energy savings.. (verses ~15kWh/kg for new Al
>> production.)
>> Silicon.. ~90% energy savings..
>> etc..
>>
>> I.E. Higher initial energy investment (*),
>> but long term energy production sustainability (>100 years)
>> shifts dramatically towards the side of renewables. EROEI greater than
>> 200 to 1....
>>
>> * -- (Depends where the materials come from.. Each year the US
>> misplaces 48% or 0.633 million metric tons of Aluminum used to make
>> soda cans because someone was too lazy to recycle them.)
>>
http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/News_and_Stats/Statistics_Reports/Facts_At_A_Glance/factsataglance05.pdf
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>> In summary.. PV as useful energy source that is progressing at a rapid
>> rate..
>>
>> Ultimately, It may not take on the exact characteristics as
>> described in this post.
>> But, I suspect, it will take a similar form...
>> The long term EROEI aspects of this solution(>100years) most likely
>> precludes day to day profit driven entities(mega corps) from being part
>> of the solution.
>> Thus it is up to the citizens of the world to force our governments
>> to act on our behalf for the COMMON GOOD and our future generations.
>
XML site map
> ONLY the most up to date current and future trends. (Inefficient,
> wasteful, and obsolete technologies have no place in our energy
> future.)
> Modern PV cell tech uses silicon wafers with thicknesses under 200um.
> Density of Si is around 2.33g/cm^3
> The standard PV cell dimensions are 125mm *125mm * thickness..
> Thus a kilogram of silicon yields a square block approximately
> 12.5cm (W) * 12.5cm(L)* 2.75cm(H).. "
> some prelim calc figures..
> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.3mm == 91.6 cells (10.9g per cell)
> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.2mm == 137.5 cells (7.3g per cell)***
> or 27.5 mm (H) / 0.15mm == 183.3 cells (5.45g per cell)
> Notes:
> 12.5cm^2 solar cell is exposed to 15.6 watts at std
> isolation(1000W/m^2 ) *.15(15% conversion eff) == 2.35 watts..
> Ribbon process doesn't involve any wafer splitting.
> Ignot source requires wafer cutting, but wafers thickness is down to
> 150 to 200um range, with cutting process consuming 70 to 100um of Si
> material(recycled).
> ***Using mid range tech of 0.20mm cell thickness, (recycling waste Si)
> 2.35watts per cell * 137.5 == 323watts per kg.
> ===========
> Average flat panel solar flux for the US lower 48 angled at latitude
> is 4.6 kWh/M^2/day.
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/208.GIF
> (Flat Plate Tilted South at latitude.)
> Only a fool would construct them in a location with below average solar
> flux or mount them in horizontal flat orientation. (Covering maximum
> surface area is NOT a requirement NOR is it desirable).
> The following chart/map when compared to the others demonstrates how
> much energy production one would loose by making a substandard mounting
> decision.
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/325.GIF
> (Flat plate oriented horizontally with the earth.. no tilt)
> A significantly better location for large scale PV energy production is
> the desert SW with 9 to 10kWh/M^2/day of tracked solar flux(annual).
> (323 watts of PV @ 9kWh/M^2/day == 2.9kWh day/kg of Sit.
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/169.GIF
> (Flat plate with dual axis tracker.)
> (Notice the large area in the SW with 8 to 10 kWh/M^2/day production.)
> In the end.. the energy payback for the initial SiO2 ->mgSi step using
> tracked PV in desert SW is somewhat less than a week.. (3 to 5 days
> depending on tech used)...
> Wasteful, ultra pure IC grade silicon used for PV production is being
> phased out for cheaper alternatives. (It's really not needed
> anymore).
> =====
> As for carbon consumption..
> To replace the 3883 billion kWh (2003) of electricity generated in
> US(2003) would require a ONE TIME investment of 3883e+9 kWh/ 365 /
> (2.9 kWh/kg) == 3.6 Million metric tons of refined Si..
> Carbon (coal) needed to refine this amount of SI from SiO2 would be
> 3.6e+9 kg /28 * 12 == 1.5e+9 kg C or 1.5Million metric tons..
> 1.5 Million metric tons of C represents..(0.026%) or less than ONE
> THOUSANDTH of the US's annual carbon consumption.
> http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Spreadsheets/Table11_04.xls
> "U.S. Carbon Emissions from Fossil Energy Consumption"
> 2003..... 5,781.4 Million Metric tons of Carbon.
> Imagine that... Just ONE day's worth of carbon usage dedicated towards
> PV manufacturing could chop US annual carbon emissions by more than
> 40%. A little conservation(*) and transitioning to EV's could chop
> off another 40%. (Using 15% of 3883B kWh PV output would propel 150
> Million EV's for ~20K miles per year. (@~194wH per mile) ).
> Notes:
> Huge amounts of raw materials & energy, (consumed by the existing
> fossil fuel industries), would be conserved.. (ships, mines, ports,
> drilling rigs, pipelines, trucks, tankers, railroads, fueling stations,
> and other infrastructure.. mostly gone.. reduced by 90%.. and with any
> luck.. recycled).
> * We will still have other forms of renewable energy production (wind,
> hydro), plus backup storage in the forms of, anticipatory load
> management, excess EV battery capacity, and combined cycle gas turbine
> plants fueled by H2.
> H2 can be efficiently produced using a two step process, which
> combines a high yielding solar thermal energy component (60%), with a
> greatly reduced electrical energy input(~40% 0.6v) per unit of energy
> embodied in H2.
> =======
> Lastly... Long term PV production is a based on a renewable energy
> source. Very little mass of a large scale PV plant (>10GW peak) is
> consumed(lost) during a PV panel's/trackers operational lifetime..
> Some erosion, some grease for the gears on the tracking mechanism, and
> some makeup oil for hydraulic pump & piston.
> At the end of PV panel lifespan, ALL of it can all be recycled, on
> site, making new panels and trackers.
> Collection and transportation energy costs near zero !
> Separation energy costs near zero..
> Clear PV grade Glass. ~80% energy savings..
> Aluminum. ~95% energy savings.. (verses ~15kWh/kg for new Al
> production.)
> Silicon.. ~90% energy savings..
> etc..
> I.E. Higher initial energy investment (*),
> but long term energy production sustainability (>100 years)
> shifts dramatically towards the side of renewables. EROEI greater than
> 200 to 1....
> * -- (Depends where the materials come from.. Each year the US
> misplaces 48% or 0.633 million metric tons of Aluminum used to make
> soda cans because someone was too lazy to recycle them.)
>