Hi Ken and Hakan,

I have been reading your arguements about the energy it takes to build an energy producing plant. I founded Solar Technology Inc. in 1975 and started making 20 watt solar panels using 36, 3" dia. silicon cell that I produced by a low cost, low energy consumption process. In 2005, thirty years later, the company I started, located in Camarillo, CA, is now owned by Royal Dutch Shell. The product produced now is a 120 watt panel using 36, 6" dia. silicon solar cells. This plant is the largest solar cell and panel production plant in North America, making about 75 megawatts (peak) of solar panels per year. 100% of these panels are sold, around the world, to users who connect the generators for various uses in remote and now local grid connected applications. You questioned the amount of energy it takes to make a solar panel compared to the output of power in a year from the panel in normal sunlight. In California (a good location) it takes less than 12 months to pay back all the energy input to build the panel. This includes the poly-silicon purification which is the largest energy input, the glass, the plastic encapsulation, the aluminum frames and structures to install the panels, EVERYTHING. These energy calculations are published in many papers for NREL written by Terry Jester of Shell Solar (before that it was called ARCO Solar, then Siemens Solar). The calculations and assumptions are open and simple to understand, nothing is hidden.

At a new company I am starting in Santa Clara, CA, www.solaicx.com we are making the silicon wafers with a new crystal grower and wafer sawing process that is continuous and reduces energy consumption by a factor of 5X.

Another company in the San Diego area, http://www.jcschumacher.com/Schumacher.html, has built a pilot poly silicon plant using a fluid bed process, again continuous, which reduces the energy from 90 kwhr/kg of silicon to 15 kwhr/kg of silicon output. When we use this new silicon in our continuous crystal grower this will reduce the payback time to less than 3 months. The company is called Diamond Cubic on the web site.

Another new company funded by T.J. Rogers of Cypress Semiconductor is called SunPower Corp. http://www.sunpowercorp.com/html/ and is now producing silicon cell panels with their 21% efficient silicon cells. This year they will produce and ship 25 megawatts (starting up in 1994). Next year they are expanding to 100 megawatts according to published plans. Our energy calculations include similar energy requirements to the SunPower Corp. cells.

These megawatt production levels are very small compared to the US electric energy requirements. Where the solar panels are being used now is in California with a panel and inverter being installed on every house in new subdivisions that have air conditioners. These kind of installations generate power in the summer when AC is on and cause the utility companies to not have to turn on their gas turbine back up systems when the local temperature goes up. Analysis has shown this is the most cost effective use of solar panels, not making all the power for California, but cutting off the peaks due to sunlight. Of course most of these new houses also incorporate passive solar design to minimize energy losses. In Japan, Sharp is offering complete kitchens using efficient microwave and inductive cooking appliances, liquid crystal thin TV sets, and super efficient lighting along with solar panels to power the whole thing. The Japanese probably live in a little more frugal situation than we, but I use our Sharp Microwave oven to cook a lot of our food.

Sharp is the largest producer of PV panels, and probably produced 400 to 500 megawatts (peak) of solar panels in 2004. The world-wide production in 2005 is expected to be one gigawatt and growing at a rate of 35% per year (for the last 12 years). When this type of powerplant is installed on location where the power is being used, as in houses or building, no transmission lines are required and no losses for starting and stopping the generators.

Bill Yerkes   [EMAIL PROTECTED]





----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Riznyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?


Hakan,
Your argument that conservation would eliminate the
need for building nuclear power has merit but does not
speak to the use of fossil fuel as a reason to scrap
nuclear.
The problem is that many people do not care to
conserve. Look at the facts - Bush's "energy plan" is
simply to drill for more oil. Energy conserving tax
benefits have been scrapped - gone is the program to
provide insulation for houses for the poor, the tax
break for hybrid autos is gone while the tax break for
the big suv's is extended. The tax breaks for using
renewable energy are almost all gone. We are living in
a country where driving a Hummer is an inalienable
right and damm everyone else.

Ken

--- Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ken,

I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving
of
energy nullifies the need to build nuclear power
stations. The potential saving of energy, without
noticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%,
that is the size of the energy waste.

Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build a
nuclear power station, a program for energy saving
will always outperform the nuclear alternative in
time, return of investment and job creation. The
problem is that it would add less to GDP, in the way
we now is measuring GDP. This is one example
of the flaws with including energy in GDP.

Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will make
true improvements, compared to a shifting of
problems
with nuclear.

It is a question of investment priorities and it
should
be a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until the
investment opportunities in energy efficiency and
renewable are no longer available.

Hakan


At 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:
>The argument that coal is used in the production of
>uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to
green
>house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to
>eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have
to
>do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you
are
>running your biodiesel in was manufactured using
large
>amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power
all
>the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer
to
>check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to
see
>it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed
to
>stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush
the
>toilet was pumped to my house using electricity
that
>was generated by coal.
>Ken
>
> >   Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous -
and
> > Uneconomic
> >
> >         By Dr. Helen Caldicott
> >
> >         Among the many departures from the truth
by
> > opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most
> > invidious is that nuclear power is "clean" and,
> > therefore, the answer to global warming.
> > However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is
> > nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the
planet
> > with long-lived radioactive waste, it
significantly
> > contributes to global warming.While it is
claimed
> > that there is little or no fossil fuel used in
> > producing nuclear power, the reality is that
> > enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to
mine,
> > mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a
> >   nuclear power plant, as well as to construct
the
> > enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a
nuclear
> > power plant must operate for 18 years before
> > producing one net calorie of energy. (During the
> > 1970s the United States deployed seven
> > 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its
> > uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich
much
> > of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the
> > equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in
> > preparation and construction before the first
switch
> > is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant
> > must operate for almost two decades.
> >   But that is not the end of fossil fuel use
because
> > disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their
30-
> > to 40-year operating life will require yet more
vast
> > quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by
> > radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its
> > surrounding infrastructure is a massive
operation:
> > Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol,
diesel,
> > and electricity that would be used if the Sydney
> > Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the
scale
> > we're talking about. And that is not the end of
> > fossil use because much will also be required
for
> > the final transport and longterm storage of
nuclear
> > waste generated by every reactor.
> >   From a medical perspective, nuclear waste
> > threatens global health. The toxicity of many
> > elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived.
> > Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless,
odorless,
> > and invisible and remains radioactive for 600
years.
> > Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the
> > mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the
body,
> > where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and
> > lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer,
> > leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children
are
> > 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the
carcinogenic
> > effects of radiation than
> >   adults.
> >   Plutonium, the most significant element in
nuclear
> > waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically
half a
> > kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in
> > everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million
years,
> > it enters the body through the lungs where it is
> > known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the
body,
> > migrating to bones, where it can induce bone
cancer
> > or leukemia, and to the liver,      where it can
> > cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the
placenta
> > into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide,
> > causes gross birth deformities. Finally,
plutonium
> > has a predilection for the testicles, where it
> > induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans
and
> > other animals that are passed on from generation
to
> > generation.
> >   Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel
for
> > a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has
> > generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium. So,
nuclear
> > power adds to global warming, increases the
burden
> > of  radioactive materials in the ecosphere and
> > threatens to contribute to nuclear
proliferation. No
> > doubt the Australian government is keen to
assist
> > the uranium industry, but the immorality of its
> > position is unforgivable.
> >
> >   NOTE: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founding
president of
> > Physicians for Social Responsibility.
> >
> >
> >   Regards,
> >   Bob.>
>_______________________________________________
> > Biofuel mailing list
> > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >

http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000
> > messages):
> > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
> >
> > Search the Biofuels-biz list archives:
> > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/



_______________________________________________

=== message truncated ===




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Reply via email to