Elan Shapiro was asking if the new, low cost PV panels slated to go into commercial production within a year are good news.
The answer is "it depends". I will try to summarize a recollection of the arguments, some fairly informative, that went on in the slashdot thread which chewed on this news a few weeks back. 1. At a dollar per watt to produce, yes, this is a breakthrough but when it reaches break even depends on your local cost per KWH of electricity. 2. you can assume electricity from the power companies, if they go on as they are with carbon burning, will have to cost ever more for the energy but if you look ahead that far, you have to also consider other parameters of the break-even equation that change with time: money costs if you borrow to build the PV system into your domestic supply and longevity of the system. There is a characteristic aging of PV panels in which their efficiency per unit area declines with age. so... 3. you have to know what the as-installed efficiency of conversion will be and you have to have integrate under the curve of the decaying output for the amount of time you hope to use the system. Typical amortization periods discussed are on the order of 10 years but longer or shorter periods could be equally realistic ...it all depends on your finances as much as on the productive life of panels made by this less expensive new process. [Answers I am sorry I do not have for you.] Some of the discussion in /. thought it would pay off, some said the money costs of installed systems would wipe out the benefits unless the panels don't age as fast as what is now sold. It is a complex problem for which a slightly better informed engineer than me could probably gin up an adequate mathematical model that could spit out a thumbs up/down. Such a model would require you to enter the aging function, the money costs, the projected cost increase of the power company's product, maintenance and installation costs, tax breaks and "profit" of excess kilowatts, if any, sold back to the power company over the life of the system. There is also a more long term kind of question I have never heard raised but on a list like this it ought to be asked: what kinds of metals, and inorganic materials go into these PV systems? In particular, when they have reached replacement or obsolescence age, will they be a disposal or recycling burden such as our old computers and TV sets have become? Are some PV technologies inherently more environmentally sound than others? I would assume disposal costs should be part of total life cycle and a requisite part of the thinking if we really are all about sustainability. e.g. are articles such at this<http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=14865>a bit too uncommon and not being read by industry and investment leaders? [and what consumers even give that a thought? Are electric bills and payback periods the end of the average consumer's considerations about renewables? ] I kind of expect there are 10 good answers awaiting me and a range of opinions on the degree of renewability of various options. BTW, a good, and nowadays nearly constant ,source of news about emerging technologies in energy is the Technology Review published by MIT. In recent articles there have covered: - the mentioned CSU researcher's development - new super-efficient methods [in the 40% conversion range which really cuts down your payback period] - nano-particle tricks, winning hydrogen directly from algae soup [you get methane too, and biodiesel] among other hopeful but distant possibilities. -George Adams -- freedom is not more important than fairness and much easier to fake. _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
