Electronic Components

No link or citation?

It's trivial, you can accept it without any link or reference.

Solar panels are never GREEN, though we feel those green. To make the panels you consume fossile fuels, to make the machines to make the panels, you consume the fossile fuel. To make the machines to make the machines to make the panels, you consume the fossile fuels.........

So what really happens is you consume more fossile fuel today, to make tomorrow GREEN.

If you want to be really GREEN, reduce your needs of power, water, paper and every thing.

And don't forget, to make the machines to extract and refine the fossil fuels to make the machines to make the machines to make the solar panels, you also need to consume fossil fuel.

Absolutely

Well, you could say the same about Windmills!

I like the way you guys put things together; to make this and to make that.

While I do agree that all manufacturing process requires fossil fuel in one form or another, I guess the poster "Are Solar Panels Really Green?" perhaps was thinking about during its use.

My answer is a definite NO! It requires a storage device called BATTERY to keep its unused energy for later use.

First of all, everyone knows that most if not all batteries aren't echo friendly, and they have a limited shelf-life that sooner or later render them useless. Further they're not 100% efficient either.

And like I said it at another forum discussion:

"we should try save as much as we can of the current energies in order to prolong them as long as possible until we may find the suitable type of renewable energy which I believe is still light-years and not miles away.

To find the reliable source of renewable energy is just a concept, like finding the fountain of youth, as far as I can see, because they're both would be nice but, are they humanly achievable?

The reason why I say HUMANLY achievable because the current energy resources we have weren't invented by us either."...just think about it!

Did we really invent or manufacture any of the fossil fuels, which we handle so wastefully?

What'll happen if we run out of them before we find the perfect renewable energy, heading to another habitable planet that we haven't even found yet?

Not all solar power systems are attached to a battery. Some residences have net metering. Some panel solar power plants use compressed air to store the energy.

At the present time with the present manufacturing processes, I think nothing we do in the US is green because everything we buy, sell, or trade is sent on a truck that gets 3-5 mpg.

I think nothing we do in the US is green because everything we buy, sell, or trade is sent on a truck that gets 3-5 mpg.

Not disagreeing with you. But I am curious when MPG numbers are thrown around, how many people actually think about how efficient it is to use a truck that gets 3-5 MPG and can haul a load that would take a heck of a lot of smaller trucks getting 15 - 18 MPG?

Let's say we could do it with 10 pick-ups that get 15 MPG.

This would average 1.5 MPG to haul the freight. You would have 40 tires on the road instead of 18. Ten drivers instead of 1. If they are team driving then there would be 20 for the little trucks and 2 in the road tractor.

If I am seeing this incorrectly then please someone tell me. It just seems that people spouting green do not think through what it is they are spouting. Then again maybe I am not listening as well as I should be.

I was not disputing that a truck on 18 wheels is much better than many smaller trucks with 40 or 50 wheels. I was just stating that trucks burning diesel fuel hauling the solar panels are not green in any way and most trucks only get 3-5 mpg. Most of the reports on solar panels that I have seen left out or underestimated the transportation of them and all materials necessary to make them. Solar panels may be carbon neutral, but what about NOx or VOCs or particulate matter or dioxins or other toxins or other HAPs?

Like I said, I am not disagreeing with you.

I just was curious if much consideration had been made to the comparison. I only posted as a reply to your post so my post would make sense to others as they read the thread.

Solar electricity sounds great and should be pursued and developed. Solar hot water / heat is greener and more readily set up with a faster return on the investment. I plan on building portable panels to heat my pool. Simple two wheel carts with hoses to connect each in series. I intend to connect them to the return in the pool wall. When the pool no longer needs the boost of heat I can simply roll them to the barn for storage until fall.

The only truly green solution is to abandon life as we know it and go back to wooden spears sharpened on rocks. Of course PETA would complain unless you were using the spears to pick up apples.

People that have several panels installed and are putting electricity back into the grid are getting a credit for their electricity production.

I think in that respect, after the initial investment, it does start to pay for itself and save the consumer money. If the consumer is using less electricity from an outside source and at the same time contributing in that regard I can see it as being a green source.

You may be rite that the setup after it pays itself off can start to go green but, it is still runing in the shade of the grid that is vastly powered by fossil.

We're should be looking at something as a complete stand alone renewable power supply that can run without grid or other fossil powered back up.

Otherwise we are staring into a very uncertain dark future as far as our energy supply is concerned.

Each panel is good for about 12v. Each panel has a storage batter and a converter.

That means you need about 10 panels to be completely self-sufficient.

If on a grid the power that you're not using is supplying an outside source and you'll be awarded a credit on your electric bill.

If you're awarded a credit then you might be saving energy somewhere else.

The same thing would also apply to the hybrid auto mobiles and electric cars. People think they are saving money until they have to replace the batteries.

I don't think anything is really all that green, I think what we have are a lot of trade offs. These trade offs fool people into a false sense of security into thinking they're green.

Probably the only way to really be green is to live in a cabin in the mountains like a hermit and live off the land.

"Probably the only way to really be green is to live in a cabin in the mountains like a hermit and live off the land."

The way we live and the rate at we use our resources it'll forces us to do it sooner or later anyway.

The majority of solar arrays installed in Oregon that receive the energy credits are not attached to batteries. They are connected to the power grid through net metering. People in remote areas or that want to be off-grid would probably use batteries for storage. For most systems the power grid is the perfect storage solution. I think distributed energy such as solar where we produce power to operate our homes and possibly cars is a great way to be green while maintaining our life-style and keeping the economy going. Shivering in the dark with tree-huggers doesn't sound good to me.

This had been proven out already. From what I've been reading (propaganda from the solar industry) manufacturers are diligently looking to fix or have fixed the problem.

Evergreen Solar for example claims to have a low energy manufacturing process in addition to extended cell lifespans. However based on it's un-profitable financials, it appears to have a bleak future.

The "greenness" of any technology ultimately depends on its application. If you need to provide modest power for an application not currently attached to the "grid", then photovoltaic panels might make cents or pence or marks (oops, I mean Euros). If your abode is already on the grid, I think it is absolutely foolish push electrons using our friend Sol. Much more efficient to use Sol to heat or at least pre-heat your domestic hot water or supplement the heating system. Del can wax eloquently on the merits of such use.

Money is much better spent on insulation and mitigation of excessive air leaks before doing anything else. A few tubes of caulking and a can or two of that expanding foam stuff will pay for themselves in the first month but you will need to do some Sherlocking to find the sources of your air leaks.

I'm assuming that the term "solar panel" here was referring strictly to photovoltaic arrays. You make a good point that solar panels have a larger scope.

Solar hot water heaters are very cost effective and simple. They basically provide real cheap energy. Why bake your roof when you can use that energy to heat your home and water? I build a small system that reduced my water heater electric consumption by ~20%. The payback on my DIY system was exactly 1 year.

It used to be that PV solar panels took about twenty years to pay back the electricity used to manufacture them. This was a major stumbling block for various schemes to put solar cells in space or on the moon and manufacture them there; it would take centuries to make enough cells using their own power to make more, and by then the original cells woulod have failed.

Surely things have improved. Can anyone provide current data on the energy used to make a PV cell vs. the output of the cell in use?

Yes - several studies can provide that data.

A very concise summary and analysis of many of these can be found here:

Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells

by Colin Bankier and Steve Gale

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219

The conclusion by these authors was that payback is, on average, 2-8 years (generally a 25-30 year life-span is accepted for PV cells).

Note that it is possible to have the system never pay back its embodied energy, although the only study to have concluded this looked at a large installation that required significant new structural work (i.e. as opposed to a PV cell mounted on an existing building). Apparently to build the entire installation including PV cells and structural work consumed more energy than the cells could produce over their effective life.

My only gripe about this is the use of the term energy payback. To the uninformed reader (unfortunately a majority in this country) what gets read is "payback" and the thought immediately is "cost payback". Of course we know that in most cases that happens somewhere out in the 15-20 year timeframe, not far from the life expectancy of the system. If folks want to put PV cells on their roof because it makes them feel good, fine. If someone does it thinking it's a good investment, then a quote (incorrectly) attributed to P.T. Barnum applies here.

It has already been said that it is more important to reduce energy requirements than make more energy available. If you rely on solar, as I do, you very quickly get into the habit of being energy efficient. Although current propaganda is pushing everyone to be "greener", it will always be the $ that will swing the day. Solar panels are expensive and so very few people have an abundance of same. The consequence? Almost everyone on solar power is a ammeter watcher.

For people on the grid, put the tax on kW up and subsidise insulation schemes with the revenue gained.

Regards

Chas

do u live in a camper van in sunny Spain?

I live in a part of the world where there are still a lot of off-grid sites requiring power, from private residences to commercial concerns. Some of my commercial clients pay about $1000 per kW per year to have diesel delivered by boat to their site. We have studied virtually every concept presented in the literature for alternative energy (solar, wind, mini hydro, "bathtub nukes", ocean energy), and, with the possible exception of some ocean energy schemes, nothing so far offers RELIABLE, constant energy in the capacity as required by these operations at anywhere near a cost-competitive price, when one looks at total system requirements (storage, backup, switching gear, etc.). While a private residence may be more tolerant of power shortages, a remote hotel can not afford the risk. "Green" has nothing to do with the issue, and although the customers that pay me to do these studies would dearly love to consider "green" solutions, it is the economics that ultimately dictate the final solution...

To begin with I dont quite understand "$1000 per kW per year to have diesel delivered by boat to their site" what it means.

If, what I think it is, then shouldn't it vary as the price of diesel oil does? That sounds terribly expensive nd I just wonder if it is worth it at all since living like that must cause a lot of financial hardship on people.

Just like everybody else here, I too say sometimes things like this or that isn't green enough but as one of the posters from Spain was saying he has no choice but to rely on solar energy. I must say that in lot of places it could still be one of your prime choices to use.

We always say that solar at the moment isn't green enough but it is mainly because of the battery however, I say to hell with every dumb claim like that. As long as there are places where you can return them for recyle after their life is over than it is a green enough step until something better comes along.

Meanwhile you should use whatever green energy is available and use it sparingly or wisely. The reason why these things became such hot issues lately because people want more and more energy.

We live in a consumer carzed world where everybody is spoiled and no longer knows when enough is enough.

Having unquenchable desire for energy means that things in moderation won't be satisfactory, but it should be 'coz sooner than later the fossil resources will dry up and there will be nothing.

By getting started to use energy in moderation would help us to learn to appreciate the current humble energy we can harness from existing renewables so in future we could rely on less energy. And as the saying goes 'good things come in small doses/packages' and it's true.

Most people even here, at the CR4 forums, think it is crazy to suggest it but getting used to this idea gradually now, should be less difficult than when suddenly all hell goes loose.

Air is cheaper than diesel fuel. Set up one or more wind turbines. Let the wind turbines drive air compressors. Air is easy to store. If the location is next to deep water, a "balloon" or open-bottom tank can be tethered where the hyrostatic pressure of the water contains the air. Otherwise, a cave or, at worst, a steel tank will do. Use the air to drive the diesel of the diesel generator. Converting a diesel to a "steam engine" is fairly easy. With stored air, a constant energy supply can come from an inconstant source. Things like air conditioning compressors can be driven directly by air, without generating electricity. The efficiency of the system can be improved by cooling the compressors with water (US Patent 5,832,728), and the free byproduct is distilled, potable, water, and warm water for bathing.

I would like to see some actual numbers of:

What does it cost to make a solar cell vs. life time output of the solar cell;

What is the energy input (to include total energy inputs) to make a solar cell verses the mean energy output;

And what are the waste outputs from making a solar cell per watt?

Energy values determined by an independent non bias party. Just to limit green wash

Personally I don't see how a solar cell can be made that doesn't take more energy to make than it can produce. Evergreen my be the exception to this with their ribbon technology if the machine tools are not to costly energy wise to make.

What I do see is when power cost to the consumer is high enough or lacking infrastructure, the power is used at a manufacturing plant a lower cost per unit to build a product that costs less to use where the power rate would be much higher. That is offsetting costs not more efficient.

Brad

I remember over 10 years ago at an exhibition I was told UV panels cost roughly $10/W.

A year later due to the closure of an electronic store a $240.00 panel was sold apparently at cost price $70.00.

I think due to high mark ups it is hard to know what is a realistic figure for a solar panel to pay for itself and then start to enjoy its free energy.

Hi U V,

See my post #33 above, or jump straight to this site:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219

...which will then lead you to 16 studies giving the answers you seek. (Analysis & summary of the 16 studies is provided on that page if you want a quick skim).

Happy reading,

Robert

Thanks I'll reference it

Brad

I think that if the solar manufacturing facilities built their own solar power system in order to use solar power to manufacture more solar systems, it would greatly reduce the environmental footprint of the facility and could reduce the cost to manufacture the systems and possibly reduce the price per unit for the customer (if the reduction was passed on).

"I think that if the solar manufacturing facilities built their own solar power system in order to use solar power to manufacture more solar systems, it would greatly reduce the environmental footprint of the facility and could reduce the cost to manufacture the systems and possibly reduce the price per unit for the customer (if the reduction was passed on)."

If it takes X years to recover the energy used to make the solar panel (x used to be about 20), the solar manufacturing facility likely could not make enough panels to keep their own factory going (given that panels are not immortal), with none left to sell to customers. If panel lifetime gets to be much more than x, the factory might, in a century or so, be able to sell solar panels, but it would be a lousy investment, and would involve an awful lot of unproductive capital tied up in "trying to lift the plant by its own bootstraps." It's a bit analogous to building a pumped water hydro facility and then expecting the falling water to power the pumps.

Any capital a government would invest to improve solar panels would be money better spent than waste it on the stock exchange by giving it to cowboys.

Besides, it won't take 100s of years to deplete the current fossil resources we still have, and then what?

This time we don't have much time to switch to moderate power use.

We should speed up the research for solar energy and for other alternative renewable energies.

You cannot rely on energy companies to solve this problem because they only looking at their immediate return and that eventually won't make any renewable a viable source of energy.

However, you could still make it a viable one by start using it in homes first and leave the energy companies power supplied for commercial use primarily.

This should be done through a gradual transition.

If it takes X years to recover the energy used to make the solar panel (x used to be about 20), ...

This is for the consumer. The consumer pays on average $7 per Watt (provided by Inovateussolar.com contact) installed before the $2 per Watt federal tax incentive. Once we remove the transport, sales commission, and warehouse expenses of all of the middle people, I would be willing to bet they would only cost the manufacturer below $2 per Watt installed. Most manufacturers are being hit with a power factor charge as well as kWh usage. This would make the payback period probably closer to 5 - 8 years (rough guess without a full evaluation of a facility). The facility keeping 1 out of every 5 panels created would allow the facility to still have an income during this time.

"If it takes X years to recover the energy used to make the solar panel (x used to be about 20), ..."

The point isn't the dollar cost of the PV panel, but the energy cost. You may be able to make the panels for $2 per watt if the energy is nearly free, but if the energy yield from the panels is not enough to make more panels, don't use them to power your factory.

I suspect that someday we'll have very inexpensive, probably organic, thin film solar cells, but they won't be inexpensive it they take a lot of energy to make. I used to be involved with research for more efficient PV cells for spacecraft. From the spacecraft's point of view, the power was "clean and free", but making the cells was neither inexpensive nor ecologically "green." I would never advocate them, the GaAS super cells, for wide-scale terrestrial use.

Let me bring few bad news t the guys who things solar panel is green. Soalr panel has following items

1. Front silver which has leaded glass as high temperature binder amount of lead used in glass formation is not much but Lead oxide is enough when we discard the panel will contamiante envirnament

2. Silver in the solar panel is not yet has feasibility to recover and will cause silvarosis and still we think is green technology

3. It has ribbon to move electricity from generation point to use point which is charge battery and they contain lead. Is this make solar panel green technology

4. In the back we have aluminum boron coating that also contain leaded glass but we say it is green technology

5. Metallic silicon is not good for health and is not green but we say is green technology

6. All these materials are mixed with organic system and is non green

7. Thermal processing used fuel to manufacture and source of that produces lot on Nox and sulfer in atmospher but we say this is green technology.

In engineering by defination of green technology is what we shipped out does not have components like lead, arsenic and others as well as it meets RoHS and WEEES needs and in my opinon current materials used in solar manufacturing is every thing but not even close to green

Wow! based on what you just said then solar panels are highly toxic products.

What about the flexi versions are they any much less toxic?

Here's a better question...should we wait until we find a perfect energy source to try to become more green? Which is more green, the solar cell or coal? Solar technology isn't perfect...it dosen't address our entire energy need and has obvious shortcomings not the least of which are up front costs and energy storage. But i believe it's better to invest in greener technology now, than to continue with business as usual, until we find something better.