+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14486
Total Topics: 265
Most Online Today: 7
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 6
Total: 7

Author Topic: Photvoltaics (PV)  (Read 8997 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31421
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Photvoltaics (PV)
« Reply #270 on: March 29, 2018, 10:01:42 pm »
Quote
AG: Solar Power Energy Payback 💵 Time Is Now Super Short

March 25th, 2018 by Jake Richardson

This article is part of our “CleanTechnica Answer Box” collection. In this collection of articles, we respond to dozens of common anti-cleantech myths.

Some solar power critics 🐉🦕🦖😈 seem to enjoy trying to point out that the energy payback time for solar power is too long, and therefore this form of renewable energy is not valid. Those critics have not kept up with the times or are simply lying to you.

EPBT is important because that is the way you can calculate how much energy will be needed for the Transition to renewables. This is critically important because it is a HUGE amount of energy, which will not be available due to Peak Fossils during the latter stages of the transition, leaving society with not enough energy to function.  It also has all the problems of pollution-producing CO2.

This is the table of EPBTs for two of the technologies used in PV:

from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf


Note that the best 2 of the four are "anticipated" figures, so are only estimates.  Since these reduce the multicrystalline figures from 3.7 to 2.1 years - a 44% decrease, and for thin film 3.0 to 1.1 - a 64% decrease, one is forced to ask:  How are these decreases to be achieved?

Note also that a significant part of the figure is "Balance of System" and this is not defined.  It should include (but doesn't) the energy cost of putting electrical contractors up on your roof to do the installing, so should include how far they have to travel to get to your roof.  Also missing are how far the raw materials/PV panels have to be transported from silica mining to manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer.  This is called cheating on system boundaries.

The assumed lifetime of the panels is 30 years although you probably won't get a guarantee of that, but an EPBT of 3.7 on a Lifetime of 30 Years means an ERoEI of 8.1, which is about 3 times as good as is generally believed to be the case. An EPBT of 1.1 means an ERoEI of 27.3, or about 10 times the common estimates.

The NREL article says:
Quote
Based on models and real data, the idea that PV cannot pay back its energy investment is simply a myth.

But this is a straw man argument, NOBODY is suggesting the ERoEI is less than 1.

I don't know about you, but my suspicious mind is beginning to doubt the authenticity of this NREL document, so looking at the metadata of the PDF file, we find it was written by S. Renfrow in 2004.  The article AG posted was by Jake Richardson, whose website contains nothing but some nice photographs of rainforests, which I thoroughly approve of.

So the chain of authenticity is: an article written in ?unknown? by someone who likes rainforests, citing a 2004 paper by S. RenFrow and misleading on system boundaries, is reprinted in CleanTechnica in 2018, and it claims (incorrectly) to substantiate that anti-PV people are lying, so AG likes that and posts it to DD without reading or understanding it.

Palloy is wrong AGAIN. For YEARS, including by RE himself on this very forum, MANY people were claiming PV systems COULD NOT generate more energy during their useful life than that required to manufacture them.

AND, though the figures for payback do not extend to 30 years (BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO!), there is PUBLISHED EMPIRICAL evidence of the SHORT energy payback time making them SUPERIOR to dirty energy, as the article you failed to completely quote makes CRYSTAL CLEAR!

I find it absolutely telling that Palloy could not resist posting on this, while he continues to be quiet as DEATH about the pollution costs of fossi lfuels that make their published ERoEI figures a sick joke. I guess Palloy thinks pollution costs are "irrelevant". LOL!

Hypocrite!  :emthdown:

And let us not forget Palloy's TYPICAL attempts to cast DOUBT on the veracity of published data on efficency of renewables, as he tries to do in regard to PV systems in the article I posted.

This  is exactly the MO used by the fossil fuel industry. You are SO predictatble, Palloy.   

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 06:22:16 pm

Comic Relief by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 06:21:02 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 06:14:30 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 06:02:36 pm

Wild Cats can be Small as well as Large by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 04:38:56 pm

1984 by George Orwell: Crash Course Literature 401 by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 03:41:30 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 01:24:47 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 12:57:20 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
December 14, 2019, 12:07:21 pm

Creeping Police State by Surly1
December 14, 2019, 06:55:14 am