Jack of all trades"The up-front energy investment in renewable energy infrastructures has not been visible as a hurdle thus far, as we have had surplus energy to invest (and smartly, at that; if only we had started in earnest earlier!). Against a backdrop of energy decline—which I feel will be the only motivator strong enough to make us serious about a replacement path—we may find ourselves paralyzed by the Trap."
Nebulous Menace (Sandy B.)@jackofalltrades Good news! Even in 2011, it took less than 18 months for a solar panel to generate enough energy to make and install another solar panel and all the associated hardware. (I don't know the energy cost these days, but the financial panel cost has dropped by a factor of 4 and money cost is a very rough approximation of energy cost.)
@nebulousmenace Money cost is a very poor approximation of the material / energy cost, as it doesn't take into account environmental damage or the time it takes for nature to replenish used resources.
Our industrial civilization depends on continuous destruction of nature and exploitation of limited resources.
That's why it's very hard to come up with the real cost of renewables. Their production depends on a global industrial machinery that for the most part still runs on fossil fuels.
@jackofalltrades Most of the financial cost [in 2011] was paying for energy, and there are clear physical improvements in solar panels since then. [I went WAY over 1000 chars. Details available on request.] And the 2011 energy payback time was less than a year; you could double solar every year based on energy cost THEN.
Most of the raw material is still sand.
There are a lot of things that could be problems for our society- phosphorus for fertilizer, cropland salination, microplastics, whatever- but I'm not expert on those. In 2011 solar, specifically, was at 70 GW worldwide (per wikipedia), and in 2022 we broke the 1000-GW mark. The world looks different when solar is 4% of electricity, today [3], than it did when solar was 0.3% of electricity, 2011.I'm going to check what Prof. Murphy's beliefs look like today.
RD@nebulousmenace @jackofalltrades
>Most of the raw material is still sand.<
"Manufacturing solar panels’ silicon requires a handful of energy-intensive, toxic waste-emitting processes.2 First, pure quartz gravel, pure carbon (i.e., Tar Sands’ petroleum coke) and wood are transported to a smelter kept at 3000° Fahrenheit (1649° Celsius) for years at a time. Since smelters can explode if delivery of electricity to them is interrupted, neither solar nor wind (which provide only intermittent power) can fuel a smelter.3 Typically, smelters and refineries are powered by natural gas, coal and/or nuclear power. To produce 20,000 tons of polysilicon, one smelter (of several refineries) consumes enough power as 300,000 homes.4"
https://katiesinger.substack.com/p/do-i-report-what-ive-learned-about
references:
2. Troszak, Thomas, "Why Do We Burn Coal and Trees for Solar Panels?" (2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels
3. Troszak, Thomas, “The hidden costs of solar photovoltaic power,” NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence, No. 16., Nov. 2021. https://www.enseccoe.org/data/public/uploads/2021/11/d1_energy-highlights-no.16.pdf
4. Bruns, Adam, “Wacker Completes Dynamic Trio of Billion-Dollar Projects in Tennessee: ‘Project Bond’ cements the state’s clean energy leadership,” 2009
Do I report what I’ve learned about solar PVs— or live with it, privately?
Years ago, I told an engineer that I want to cause minimal ecological harm. This man knew that I had my own car, refrigerator, washing machine, phone, Internet access and electricity available 24/7. He took a deep breath and explained to me that every manufactured item requires multiple processes from the extractive, energy-guzzling, water-guzzling, toxic waste-emitting global super-factory. He connected my material goods with ecological degradation—the degradation I want reduced.
@nebulousmenace @jackofalltrades
"All modern technologies are based on the non-renewable fossil fuels and fossil energy that made them possible. Solar photovoltaic (solar PV) technology is no exception. For example, every step in the production of solar PV power systems requires an input of fossil fuels - as the carbon reductants needed for smelting silicon from ore, to provide manufacturing process heat and power, for the intercontinental transport of materials, and for on-site deployment. The only "renewable" materials consumed in PV production are obtained by deforestation - by burning large areas of tropical rainforest for charcoal (another carbon reductant) and to provide the wood chips that are necessary for all silicon smelters to function. Additional mineral resources and fossil energy are needed for constructing factories, process equipment, and maintaining the PV manufacturing infrastructure itself. Silicon smelters, polysilicon refineries, and crystal growers all require uninterrupted, 24/7 power that comes mostly from coal and uranium. Both media and journal claims that solar PV can somehow "replace" fossil fuels for power have not addressed the “non-renewable reality” of the global manufacturing supply chains necessary for the mining, manufacturing, and distribution of PV power systems. Some previous accounts of solar PV production have omitted the raw materials and silicon smelters from the PV “supply chain” picture, which obscures the profoundly non-sustainable, fossil-powered basis of PV technology. A more complete overview of commercial PV production is presented herein, from the sources of raw materials to the deployed array. >38 references from published articles and industry sources are cited."
