C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Lot of talk, any numbers to back that up?
I'll conceede the 100 year claim. Seems that was
hyperbole on my part. Sorry.
Here are the stats:
http://www.nd.edu/~techrev/Archive/Fall2001/a2.html
"Thin film amorphous (uncrystallized) silicon cells are a second
inexpensive alternative to single crystal cells. Amorphous silicon
can be mounted on materials such as glass or metal, thus
facilitating mass production. Thin film cells such as these are
most commonly found on commercial electronics such as wristwatches
and pocket calculators. Unfortunately, these cells are quite
inefficient, converting only 6 to 7 percent of the sun's energy
in commercial applications. Also, thin film amorphous cells
degrade with time, losing up to 50% of their efficiency as they
are exposed to sunlight."
.....
"Unfortunately, GaAs cells are extremely expensive to
manufacture (gallium is rarer than gold). Also, arsenic is
poisonous, and many are concerned with the toxic wastes
associated with the production of GaAs cells."
http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm
"2.58 ... years ... to ... 5.07 ... years" [to recoup energy costs]
Say 3.6 years to recoup the initial energy cost required to make
them, and then a couple more years for the buyer to recoup
the cost involved in making them. So all in all, it'd take about a decade
to recoup all the total costs...
And here's more info:
http://pub9.ezboard.com/fbabylon5techma ... =300.topic
"From the July/August 2002 issue of Engineering Dimensions (a magazine put out by Professional Engineers of Ontario)
"In the March/April 2002 issue, a picture of a photovoltaic panel
appeared on p.29 with the caption suggesting they may soon
become a standard feature on new homes. It's a nice futuristic
thought but the reality is that these panels are not as energy
efficient, or as environmentally clean, as most people believe.
I did some checking in my hometown of Thunder Bay and an
80-watt panel typically costs about $760 (including taxes).
Adjusting for things like cloud cover, etc. over a 25-year
peiod the power cost works out to 34 cents per kWh, way
above the average of 10 cents per kWh from the grid. The
actual cost is much higher once you add in other factors like
installation, additional equipment like inverters, energy
losses due to conversion (batteries, inverters), and of course
the interest cost. On a new home, financed at 7 per cent over
25 years, every $1,000 of additional cost results in a net
payback of $2,098. However, at leat the power is clean and
environmentally friendly, right? Sorry, but that is a common
myth not borne out once you look at all the facts.
The reason for the high cost of photovoltaic (PV) power
becomes clear once the total energy cycle is examined.
The higher efficiency panels require computer grate silicon
wafers as a base material, which is a very energy-intensive
technology, using a lot of electricity. Add up the total BTUs
of power needed to manufacture and transport the panels
and compare that to how much energy you get back over
25 years. You would end up actually getting back less
energy than you initially put in. (You have to include the
total energy cycle, for example, fossil-fuel-powered
electrical power plants are only about 40 per cent
efficient due to fundamental laws of thermodynamics).
A PV-powered solar home in its early years actually accounts
for more net carbon dioxide, sulphur, etc. emissions than
does a normal house connected to the grid. It only seems
clean because the fossil fuels burned to produce the
electricity to manufacture them have been released at a
different location. Electric cars are also not as clean as
is commonly thought, for the same reason.
Reducing the cost of PV panels will not occur just through
the usual assumptions (economies of scale due to mass
manufacturing). It will require a fundamentally new
manufacturing process, which lowers the energy consumption
by an order of magnitude. Unless I have missed some new
breakthrough announcement, I don't see PV panels coming
down in price by a factor of five as the author suggested.
PV panels under present manufacturing methods are neither environmentally clean, nor energy efficient but do have some
applications. They are economically feasible when you're in a
remote location and can't connect to the local electrical grid.
However, PV panels on the roof of every new home would still
require a major technological breakthrough, and is not
something we are going to see in the near future.
Gordon Scott, P.Eng.
Thunder Bay, ON."
*******************
So basically, solar cells are a rather shitty investment. The solar
cells made with non-toxic materials burn out pretty fast, while
the more sturdier, longer lasting ones utilize lots of industrial waste
to manufacture them, and that waste has to go somewhere. Ooops.
Also, it costs $10,000 in California for a 1,000 Watt system before
government rebates. After rebates, it's $4,000.
Lets check out that fossil-fueled standby:
http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN ... OID=348134
Coleman Powermate Features:
5000 running watts, and is portable, for only $499!
Now let's size the energy needs for your house!
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/gen/sizing.html
Central Air Conditioner 10,000 BTU (A necessity in Washington DC)
1,500 Watts 2,200 Starting Watts
BZZZZT, your Solar powered system just went dead.
Refrigerator, Average 600 watts, 2,200 Starting watts
Again, your Solar powered system went dead.
Coffee Maker 850 watts.
Wow, that's about 50% of your 1,600 watt system....
VCR 50 watts
Television - Color 300 watts
Geez, 21% of your 1,600 watt load.
Admit it, Solar power just doesn't work, unless it's
for a hunting lodge that you don't want to lug
gallons of diesel up there while you're staying there...