... or maybe not?
Emailed in by Ben Jamin' and Physiocrat, article by Euan Mearns
A new study by Ferroni and Hopkirk [1] estimates the ERoEI of temperate latitude solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to be 0.83. If correct, that means more energy is used to make the PV panels than will ever be recovered from them during their 25 year lifetime. A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity.
Worse than that, all the CO2 from PV production is in the atmosphere today, while burning coal to make electricity, the emissions would be spread over the 25 year period. The image shows the true green credentials of solar PV where industrial wastelands have been created in China so that Europeans can make believe they are reducing CO2 emissions.
Please note, the article refers to solar panels at temperate latitudes such as Europe. Solar panels might well be net energy generators in very sunny areas - the question is, how far from the Equator is the break-even point at which the return turns negative?
UPDATE: Bayard in the comments:
"A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity."
but only if no renewable energy was used to make the PV panel. While that is probably true, it ain't necessarily so."
I didn't bother with that scenario because that would be an equally stupid thing to do - using up 1 unit of PV energy to generate another 0.83...
Nemesis casts her cold eye on the Great Leap Backwards
37 minutes ago
13 comments:
Osborne on Twitter:
"We'll cut business rates for local newspaper offices and clamp down on taxpayer-funded council freesheets"
https://mobile.twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/729982223848443905?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Apparently they are "printing taxpayer funded propaganda sheets delivered free to households." What like the EU leaflet? Hypocrisy at its finest.
Every environmental policy implement has turned out to have outcomes opposite to that for which it was designed. Added to which in most cases have very undesirable unintended consequences. Apparently even the the Alberta forest fire is due to their meddling. Changing traditional forestry practices and making them more environmentally friendly, supposedly so, made them more susceptible to fire.
On the bright side, the really bad local environmental pollution like mercury, nitrous oxide, particulates and the strip mining for rare earth metals happens in China and our pristine environment gets spared :-)
R, good one.
A, not all of them. Clean air acts, banning CFCs and lead in petrol achieved their intended purpose with no big negative effects, higher petrol duties = car engines have become more efficient. All good stuff.
But this latest wave of solar panels, bio fuels, windmills, favouring diesel over petrol (for a decade), banning dredging of rivers etc has all been a complete disaster.
M, that is true, but as the author says, a tad hypocritical.
A, the forest fire thing has been known about for decades. The problem is that you either have regular small fires, or you log. Now both are unacceptable, the result is occasional huge fires.
Now that very few think that they can save the world through prayer, solar PV in temperate latitudes is vital to the new religion that is Global Warming so that ordinary people can feel they are doing their bit. Rather like people cutting down railings for scrap for the war effort in WWII, metal that was never needed and after the war just dumped. Anyway, PVs make good money for lots of people, the customers are happy to have them, what's not to like?
It would be interesting to have a latitude break-even point for solar. It would make the PV game too transparent though - people might start getting technical.
Reading through the responses on that article there's a ton of pushback to the paper he cites. He admits as much.
"A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity."
but only if no renewable energy was used to make the PV panel. While that is probably true, it ain't necessarily so.
"I didn't bother with that scenario because that would be an equally stupid thing to do - using up 1 unit of PV energy to generate another 0.83..."
Well, not really. PV panels produce electrical energy, coal does not. Coal has to be burnt to produce heat and that heat has to be converted into mechanical energy via a steam turbine and then into electrical energy via a generator. At each stage there are losses. Not sure what they are, but I wouldn't be surprised if only 10% of the energy in the coal is converted to electricity. Therefore if solar-generated electricity is partly used to make the PV panels, then the 1:0.83 ratio no longer applies, as PV is effectively 100% efficient, there being no cost to the input energy.
B, true. Go do the numbers and we can have a think.
Yay! You have found the secret of perpetual motion, Bayard! Go for it!
RR, B is not proposing 'perpetual motion', the extra energy that comes in is from the Sun. All he is saying that in sunny areas, the amount of solar power needed to make more PV panels might show a positive return (which is likely true).
The article is about the futility of PV in temperate latitudes i.e. Europe etc.
Bah! Humbug...
Post a Comment