Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

New PV System being considered - Page 5

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Eeyore on September 2, 2008, 1:28 am

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

http://www.ipcrystalclear.info/Shared%20Documents/Project%20publications/SP6%20paper%20for%20MRS%20Fall%20Symposium%202007%20 (UU,%20Alsema%20and%20ECN,%20de%20Wild).pdf

Broadly in line with my / our rough estimate.

So how come they need so much less energy to manufacture now ? Nanosolar isn't
publishing any real-world figures so far AFAIK.


Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on September 2, 2008, 1:54 am
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:28:46 +0100, Eeyore

publishing any real-world figures so far AFAIK.

I don't believe they included any data from the proprietary Nanosolar
process in their analysis of 2006 data.

They credit improvements in

Silicon consumption (reduction)
Energy input in silicon feedstock production
Cell efficiency
Energy efficiency in casting and other process steps


Posted by dold on September 2, 2008, 2:04 am
There are studies from good sources that put the energy payback at 2 to 4
years.  Just a few, in alphabetical order:


Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA  GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Posted by T. Keating on September 5, 2008, 10:29 am
 On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 02:04:48 +0000 (UTC), dold@40.usenet.us.com wrote:

(1 page paper.. for europe )

(no specific references, ref one workshop paper)

(better, references material presented in 2006 )

(somewhat dated.. references 1991 to 2000.)

(some what dated.. 1999 report..references 1991-1998)

(References not included. assumptions too conservative.. 25 year

Studies usually fail to include.

Using optimal locations instead of national average solar flux.
    (2 to 3x output improvement)
Single or Dual axis tracking..  (instead of fixed angle mounting..
~40% output improvement)
Recycling.. (Virtually nothing is consumed during operation. 3 to 4x
improvement in EPBT)
Extended service lifetime. (I've got Solar panels that are still in
service after 30 years.)

Overall effect reduces EPBT to well under a year.

Posted by Mauried on September 2, 2008, 2:10 am
 On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:23:34 +0100, Eeyore

And herien lies an interesting conundrum.
The introduction of ETS around the world is intended to increase
artificially the cost of electricity thats produced by polluting power
stations like coal.
The intended consequence is that electricity produced from renewables
like solar and wind will then become more attractive.
However, the above assumes that the costs of producing solar panels
and building wind generators themselves dont also rise.
Solar panels need lots of electricity to make , and wind generators
need lots of iron and steel and concrete.
Currently, all the worlds existing Solar Cell manufacturing plants are
powered from the grid , not from renewables.
Making iron and steel and concrete is also an intensive CO2 emiiting
If CO2 is taxed at say $0 a tonne,what will be the price increase in
the costs of solar cells and windmills.
I betcha no one knows , because it hasnt been thought thru properly.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread