Charles Hall is known for his multiple and important contributions in the field of sustainability, and in particular for having introduced the concept of Energy Return on Energy Investment, EROI or EROEI. He is now emeritus and still active in research; among other things as chief editor of the new Springer journal: “Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, BERQ. Here, he intervenes in the recent debate on the EROI of photovoltaic systems, sending me this note that I am happy to publish.
by Charles Hall
The EROI of our various energy options, and its associated issues, may be the most important issues that will face future civilizations. The present discussion tends to vacillate between people who accept (or advocate) very high EROIs for solar vs people who accept (or advocate) very low such EROIs. I trust only one study, the one I did with Pedro Prieto, who has a great deal of real world experience and data. This study attempted to (conservatively) estimate all the energy used to generate PV electricity in Spain by following all the money spent (per GW) and using physical analysis where possible, and energy intensity of money where necessary. We found that the panels and inverters, which are the only parts measured in most studies, were only about a third of the energy cost of the system. As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results.
We recognize that subsequent studies to ours would probably have generated higher EROIs because of using panels of lower energy costs or higher efficiency. But there are many ways that it might be lower too. For example Ferroni and Hopkirk, who (despite, perhaps, some issues) have done us a good service by attempting to get actual lifetimes for modules, which were much closer to 18 years than infinity. This agrees with what happened in Spain when, due to post-2008 financial turmoil, manufacturers did not honor their guarantees and legally “disappeared”, leaving broken systems unfixed. (And what happened to all those “surplus” Chinese panels that were never used? Should we factor in their energy costs, as we factor in dry holes for oil analysis?) My point is that we need to include empirical, not theoretical, estimates of ALL the energy used to make these systems work.
This is what Prieto and Hall did, imperfectly I am sure, using conservative assumptions of energy costs, many of which now appear too low. Mostly I do not see others doing this, so I mistrust their analyses. I do not know whether Bandhari et al. included only studies using appropriate boundaries, but I would guess that many are for just the panels (and maybe converters), not the whole system required to deliver the electricity. Another way that we were conservative was to not include the (pro-rated) distribution system, as Ferroni and Hopkirk did (i.e. EROIpou, for point of use). It seems to me that we should do this routinely, at least as sensitivity analysis. If you are really analyzing the EROI of solar you need to get the electricity to the factory, the gravel and panels to the installation site etc. etc,
There are at least three reasons that EROI estimates appear much wider than they probably really are:
1) They are often done by advocates one way or another, not by experienced, objective (and peer reviewed) analysts.
2) a common protocol is not followed. Murphy et al. 2011 should be followed or good reasons given for not doing so. They recommend that all investigators generate a “standard EROI (EROIst) so that different studies can be compared, but then suggest that investigators may define in addition other criteria/boundaries as long as they are well defined and the reason for their inclusion given. This protocol is being updated at this time to deal with various concerns.
3) Related to above appropriate boundaries are often not used. For a start “follow the money” as money is a lien on energy. Where there is controversy (e.g. include labor or not, and how) this should be dealt with through sensitivity analysis. Energy quality (e.g. electricity vs fossil) also needs to be considered, as Prieto and Hall did in their final chapter.
The largest problem with EROI studies is that although the concept has been around and even lauded since at least 1977 it has essentially never been supported by legitimate and objective funding sources such as the US National Science Foundation (which however has recognized this as a large failure and is starting a new program on EROI.) As any investigator knows it takes money to do a good job, and this we have not had. Most of the best work has been done on a shoestring or pro bono. This appears to be changing now, especially in Europe, and we hope to see some kind of objective, high-quality Institute/Program in the future. We also need better governmental statistics on energy use and the development of appropriate energy I-O analyses to get a better handle on energy costs. These had been done to high quality in the US 40 years ago but the official Bureau of Census energy use data has degraded, and we have ceased undertaking appropriate energy I-O analyses while the real experts have retired or died.
If these issues can be resolved, which is not too difficult at least in principle, and if the protocols are followed, then I think we will narrow the range of published EROI estimates considerably. In the meantime I have done a fair amount of sensitivity analysis (e.g. Guilford et al 2011; Prieto and Hall 2012) that suggest that at least for the studies I have been involved with the range of uncertainty is well within plus or minus 25 percent (except when using the assumptions of using the energy cost of the full salary of labor or electricity is multiplied by a quality factor of three, in which case the range is two to three). At this time, we do not recommend either of those two factors for general use. This range of uncertainty is much less than the EROI range among the different technologies, as shown in Euan Mearns most recent post.
Go Speed Racer on Thu, 26th May 2016 6:49 am
Is EROEI of 2.4 : 1 the right estimate?
Isn’t that sort of terrible awful?
Bet a coal plant is about 10,000 : 1
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 7:46 am
Go Speed, I doubt it, where would their cost be then? Oil is relatively expensive, when compared to coal right now, and they are losing money at $10 dollars a ton, and they have increased mechanization and decreased manpower year after year. It takes a lot of fuel to blast millions of tons of debri and then remove them to get at the fuel, which is itself further down the EROEI scale than the coal that started the industrial revolution.
So he is basing this on 8 year old panels??
Davy on Thu, 26th May 2016 8:07 am
PM, Speeder is the board jester that likes to joke around to keep us uptight assholes from getting too serious so laugh or cry when he posts. That’s the best we can do with what’s coming and what a combination laughing and crying makes. It is interesting to see the meaning and the order. If you cry then laugh it shows sadness tinged with acceptance. If you laugh and then cry it indicates one funny MTF’r.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 8:15 am
Alright, I took the bait because I could see a coal company trying to push that number on the public.
Survivalist on Thu, 26th May 2016 8:52 am
I use a simple PV that I bought from a hardware store for a very good price. Made in China. I use it to charge a 12V car battery. I then use the car battery to run an underwater light.
http://m.ebay.com/itm/281760607810
Puts a lot of fish in the boat! The Fish Return on Energy Invested is huge!!
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:06 am
Dont worry, monsanto and the drug companies will save us.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/feeding-antibiotics-farm-animals-may-worsen-climate-change-n580406
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:12 am
So many young minds breathing in crappy urban air, impeding their ability to solve the plethora of life or death challenges their environment may have for them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0525/Urban-air-quality-is-getting-worse-says-UN.-How-can-we-improve-it
http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Poor-indoor-air-quality-hinder-child-s/story-29194191-detail/story.html
Indoor plants can make the next generation smarter, instead people will probably opt for some powered plastic air cleaner that will add to the problem on a macro scale.
numbersman on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:26 am
Ignoring the carbon issue for a moment, Lets say coal is 100:1 and solar pv is 2:1. Doesnt it make sense to use the 100:1 to produce solar, thereby getting 200:1 ?
And another point: The life satisfaction per watt consumed can skyrocket if you begin to take pride in conservation and efficiency. Ghung probably watches his watts like the carrots in his garden and finds great joy in getting the most efficient use from them.
When power seems cheap, or almost free, we abuse it like cooling a 4000 sq ft house all day while we are at work. But when our daily purpose and satisfaction switches to self sufficiency and high energy efficiency, we can get by with 100x less and yet find greater pleasure.
Factor that into 2.4:1 !
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:52 am
numbersman,
“Ignoring the carbon issue for a moment, Lets say coal is 100:1 and solar pv is 2:1. Doesnt it make sense to use the 100:1 to produce solar, thereby getting 200:1 ?”
If not for the carbon issue, why not just burn coal? You might want to rethink your numbers as well. That would be using 100:1 coal for a 2:1 EROEI.
shortonoil on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:54 am
“As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system.”
Again the problem of EROI as a function of place, and time emerges. The EROI of a barrel of 37.5° API crude at the well head (what we define as ERoEI), the refinery exit gate, and to the end user now (2016) varies between 8:67:1, 1.95:1 and 1:79:1. If Hall is calculating the EROI at the distribution junction, and that can be considered analogous to the refinery exit gate, solar now has a better energy return on energy invested than oil.
That, of course, begs the question as to why (if the EROI of solar is higher than oil) hasn’t solar replaced oil at this junction of oil’s depletion cycle. There are two possible explanations for this phenomena:
1) Hall’s estimates are incorrect. If Hall, in his attempt to use an economic analysis, has disregarded the time/ BTU relationship of $s and energy his estimates could be widely in error. Over the twenty five year life span of his solar panels the energy it produces, in $ terms, would have deteriorated by 68%:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_008.htm
The decline in BTU/$ terms has been 78,290 twenty five years ago to 5,406 at present. This would have put a large margin of error into the final determination.
2) The EROI is being calculated at the wrong point in the energy production cycle to make a reasonable comparison. To be useful to the economy energy must be available to the end user when, and where needed. Because oil has a very high energy density, and can be stored for long periods of time it handily fulfills those criteria. Energy produced from solar has to be stored in batteries, or with other fairly inefficient methods. To be useful as a comparison between energy sources the EROI must be computed at the end user at the time of its consumption. Anything else is apples and oranges.
We certainly agree with Hall on one critical point; more and better research is very badly needed in this area; and soon!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:07 am
Short, I think you underestimate how much big business hates localized energy. The shareholders of all of the big oil cos did just vote against their offspring having a future. It makes sense that the EROEI on ff would be plummeting as renewables steadily rise.
You can get raw thermal energy in a sunny area in the US way cheaper threw the sun than threw localized oil, case and point that huge install in the middle east where they are using parabolic troughs inside greenhouses to conduct steam recovery. The EROEI on solar must have been comparable years ago because from the beginning of the frack boom I saw an article on here about drillers using solar to power work lights instead of diesel, seems like something those folks would not have given a speck of financial support to unless it made sense.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:08 am
* just oil not localized oil
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:26 am
Practical,
I am currently weighing all of my options for a PV system for my home. No matter which way I look at it, grid tied, standalone, etc., a solar system in my location has a cost break even point of over 20 years. That does not include battery or parts replacement, and is assuming the panels retain 100% of their initial power output. This is fine if a person has the funds available, but the vast majority of people today here in NA are living pay check to pay check, and cannot afford to pay for their next two decades worth of electricity up front. Millions are going into debt attempting to live month to month.
sunweb on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:42 am
Not the only studies
A paper recently published in Energy Policy by Ferrucio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk and titled Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation. They used a similar methodology thart Charles Hall and Pedro Prieto used in their study for 4 GW in Spain. That is, they considered not only the usual energy inputs for modules and its components and/or some immediate accesories to them, but also some societal sine qua non energy input expenses for solar systems and concludes that in these regions (countries like Germany and Switzerland), the EROI is 0.85:1.
Scientific studies show it takes years to payback the energy used in solar electric devices. EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) says it takes energy – mining, drilling, refining, transporting, installing, maintenance, and replacement parts – to make the devices necessary to capture solar energy.
Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment by Prieto, Pedro A., Hall, Charles 2013.
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-1-4419-9436-3
and http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
and B o o k R e v i e w : E n e r g y i n A u s t r a l i a – P e a k O i l , S o l a r P o w e r , a n d A s i a’ s E c o n o m i c G r o w t h by G r a h a m P a l m e r http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-3-319-02939-9
Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution presents the first complete energy analysis of a large-scale, real-world deployment of photovoltaic (PV) collection systems representing 3.5 GW of installed, grid-connected solar plants in Spain. Prieto and Hall conclude that the EROI of solar photovoltaic is only 2.45, very low despite Spain’s ideal sunny climate. Germany’s EROI is probably 20 to 33% less (1.6 to 2), due to less sunlight and efficient rooftop installations.
“Solar advocates can learn from this analysis . . . “ Not looking at the reality of EROI “is not good science and leads to wasted money and energy that could have been better spent preparing more wisely for declining fossil fuels in the future.”
This study does not detail the environmental destructive mining, toxic chemicals or air and water pollution necessary to get the materials for manufacturing and installing solar devices. It is the sun not the devices that is renewable, green and sustainable.
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:42 am
And also Practical,
I am looking at a battery bank with an initial cost outlay of around $7000, with a useful lifespan of around 8-10 years, which in of itself would cost me more per month than the amount of electricity that the system would provide when compared with current hydro electric rates. I would also need a back-up generator for periods of time when there isn’t enough sunlight to maintain the batteries. There is much more to consider here than simple EROEI. It is also a matter of economics. Just as it is with oil.
sunweb on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:44 am
view the videos before responding:
The whole picture needs to be included not just the installed devices. I am not a supporter of fossil fuels or nuclear. I am concerned about continuing business as usual and its devastation of the earth and humanities future.
Solar and wind energy collecting devices and their auxiliary equipment have an industrial history. They are an extension of the fossil fuel supply system and the global industrial infrastructure. It is important to understand the industrial infrastructure and the environmental results for the components of the solar energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable.
This is a challenge to ‘business as usual’. If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs. They are not made with magic wands.
These videos are primarily concerning solar energy collecting devices. These videos and charts are provided by the various industries themselves. I have posted both charts and videos for the solar cells, modules, aluminum from ore, aluminum from recycling, aluminum extrusion, inverters, batteries and copper.
Please note each piece of machinery you see in each of the videos has its own industrial interconnection and history.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/solar-devices-industrial-infrastructure.html
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 10:58 am
“The whole picture needs to be included not just the installed devices.”
The very reason why it costs money to buy a solar system in the first place. If not for the energy and resources used to produce these devices in the first place, they would be free, and they would provide free energy. They are not, and they do not. They are products of modern industrialism, and by extension, products of the burning of fossil fuels.
shortonoil on Thu, 26th May 2016 12:13 pm
Very good comments; this is an issue that will personally touch almost everyone here. As we have mentioned the petroleum industry will require huge bail outs over the next few years to stay operational. How and where that money will be spent will be a political decision, not an engineering one. We are now at the stage where any capital raised will come from the consumption of existing assets. This will be a one shot, one time choice. If we choice badly Modern civilization will most likely come to its end!
Davy on Thu, 26th May 2016 12:36 pm
I am not worried about the eroi of my solar purchases. There is something called OTFG. If you guess what that is I will give you a prize.
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 12:44 pm
“I am not worried about the eroi of my solar purchases.”
Nor am I. Billions, OTOH, do not have the financial means, or even the space required to install them.
sunweb on Thu, 26th May 2016 1:02 pm
I agree GregT:
without constraints on electrical usage (toys and tools) then the gross energy inequality globally will continue with solar and wind energy underwriting it. (below find Excel spread sheet info) Without constraints on energy use solar and wind devices and their auxiliary accessories are elitist equipment of the entitled.
There are two critical questions of the energy/electricity that we are requiring. How do we bring more equitable distribution of energy resources? Is this imbalance and the consequent strife our destiny and our demise?
Secondly, what do we need the energy for? This must be one of the mantras for survival now and tomorrow. Imagine beginning at the earth resources –the mine and the well- and the subsequent flow of these products. This creates a tremendous picture in motion of “energy” and resources flowing around the world. It is a Catch 22; we can’t live with it and can’t live presently without it.
I took the table from this site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
I copied it to an Excel spread sheet. I rank ordered the least energy use to the most and then did an accumulation of population from least energy use to most. I could then look at what 50% or 80% of the world’s population used compared to the US of A.
Caveat: these figures are approximate however, realistic.
Caveat: These per capita figures are misleading
because the wealthy get the “lion’s share.”
– 50% of the people in the world use only 9% of the electricity generated globally (see caveat above)
– people living in countries in the top half of “energy-per-capita consuming countries” consume more than 90% of all electricity consumed (or more than 1.8 times an equitable share);
– people living in countries in the top 20% of “energy-per-capita consuming countries” consume almost 57% of all electricity consumed (or roughly 2.8 times an equitable share);
– people living in countries in the top 10% of “energy-per-capita consuming countries” consume almost 40% of all electricity consumed (or roughly 4 times an equitable share); and
– people living in countries in the top 5% of “energy-per-capita consuming countries” consume about 25% of all electricity consumed (or about 5 times an equitable share).
Even that is misleading, because all the products made elsewhere
and shipped to the USA add to the electrical (and total energy)
available for our consumption.
See more at: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/07/electrical-constraint-and-inequality.html
Anonymous on Thu, 26th May 2016 1:57 pm
Prof. Bardi raises an important point. Namely, that EROEI, or full lifecycle analysis has not received the attention it deserves. I think he might not fully appreciate why this is the case though. When it comes to energy production, or consumption, uS capitalists prefer to use dollars as the only measuring stick, or ‘profitability’ as the sole criteria. EROEI, or any kind of LCA however, tends to make a great many uS capitalists schemes(scams really) look at lot worse than their proponents can or will admit to.
Even relatively crude analysis of EROEI, or LCA of uS scams like, ‘Bio-fools’, or tesla’s EVs, or ‘hydrogen’, cars or vertical farming,’ to use some examples consistently show the same thing. They are all a lot less efficient, and in many cases *worse* than the current systems whose shortcomings widespread adoption of these various ideas are supposed to fix.
BUT, if you use DOLLARS to measure the ‘efficiency’ of these, and other ideas like it, suddenly all their very real physical shortcomings (ie they will never actually solve the problems they are supposed to), can be swept neatly under the rug. Measuring dollar profitability over actual physical energy and material use, is a great way to ensure almost *any* kind of dodgy scheme can be made to look good,on paper at least. Oil is another example, heavily subsidized with paper dollars, oil, is turn, is then used to provide energy subsidies to schemes like bio-fools-from-corn, or algae-fuel whatever’s, in the americant empire. Schemes that produce little, if any new net energy and would turn, collapse overnight if not subsidized by both dollars AND oil. But these schemes consume huge amounts of both dollars and resources\energy. But someone(s),somewhere, is getting rich though so who gives a rats if no new actual energy is being produced. Because only dollars spent\earned are being analyzed and not much else.
Its not just what you measure, but how. And capitalists far prefer dollars over energy inputs. In the empire, they can still print infinite dollars(for now) to support schemes that will never work in real world, be it hydrogen cars, or fuel from High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup. But you cant print energy and EROEI tends to highlight that in a big way. A problem most people would prefer never comes up in polite conversation.
We can see this at work in solar. Advocates point out how much prices for solar have fallen recently. A good thing? Sure, will it actually ‘solve’ anything. Solar may be dirt cheap compared to years past these days, but locally, I still have yet to see solar deployed on ANY scale. Well, ok, not entirely true. The local sprawl-shit hole’s city hall was looking at installing solar powered, electronic parking meters a while back I read. Wonder what became of that idea….
Which make me wonder, what is the EROEI of solar powered electronic parking meters, whose only purpose is to extract parking fees from oil powered cars?
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 3:01 pm
Trying to formulate an argument back against you guys and am finding it very difficult, but here is what I can come up with. I think a true unbiased EROEI analysis of any industry is incredibly difficult, I am pretty skeptical of an eroei of under 1. Secondly, if this is true large changes can be made, if a large portion of the embodied energy is within the aluminum, replace it with wood that will last, my former neighbor had a pretty sweet ground mount array, wood framed, seasonal tilt, and perfectly south facing on a hillside, in the winter when the field was snow covered im sure the thing cranks. Another fact is that the EROEI of renewables is heading up vs the decline of ff, I know some premium high wind spots may be somewhat saturated with turbines but good solar areas cover a lot of land mass, many of which have not begun to be developed. Last but not least our households are becoming easier to utilize dc directly, IMHO. Led lights, dc motors, heating and cooling systems can be run on dc, and our electronic devices, the cell phone that replaces an entire library, ties perfectly to solar.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 3:03 pm
I remember someone telling me there was more energy invested in a prius than a land rover, and they had read studys to back it up. Did they factor in building a new assembly line into the first year of prius or something? I understand batterys are environmentally and energy demanding, but a freaking land rover?? Heavy aluminum intensive ect.
Apneaman on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:06 pm
What temperature do you need to get to to melt that sand to make the panels?
Rick Bronson on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:17 pm
May be in 2008, Solar PV was that low.
As per this webpage, its 3.9 : 1 in Germany.
http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/
Still all this # looks dubious. If we say that EROEI is 4:1, then does it mean that 6 1/4 years of power production from solar panels is needed to get the amount of energy needed to produce it. Presuming the life of panel is 25 years.
1 KW of Solar panels can produce 1,600 KWh / year even if it operate at 20% capacity factor. So in 6 1/4 years, it will produce 10,000 KWh. Does it take 10,000 KWh to manufacture, and deliver the panels.
If this is true, then it will cost $1,000 for the consumption of just 10,000 KWh of electricity. But then a solar panels cost / KW is less than $600.
Somewhere something is wrong in the whole calculation. If these calculations are correct, then the price of panels will not be this cheap.
http://pv.energytrend.com/pricequotes.html
makati1 on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:18 pm
Ap, I looked into that a while ago to point out that glass is a very energy intensive product.
“Glass making is an ancient craft. Mother Nature can make glass when lightning strikes a sandy beach. Sand is the compound silicon dioxide, and at temperatures of around 1,760 degrees Celsius (3,200 degrees Fahrenheit), it melts to create a form of glass called quartz. Pure silicon melts at 1,414 degrees Celsius (2,577 degrees Fahrenheit), but glassmakers use sand rather than pure silicon.”
NOT going to be made in anyone’s garage. LOL
shortonoil on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:19 pm
“What temperature do you need to get to to melt that sand to make the panels?”
2577 °F.
Rick Bronson on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:22 pm
Hello PracticalMaina
It was a comparison between Prius & Hummer-H2 by Rand group that said that Hummer-H2 is more fuel efficient than Prius.
They presumed that Hummer-H2 will last 300,000 miles.
They presumed that Prius will last only 100,000 miles since its battery is guaranteed for 100,000 miles. And they calculated that it will take more energy to make 3 Prius cars to run the distance of Hummer-H2.
This is false because many Prius Taxi’s have done 300,000 + miles with the highest being an Australian Taxi driver @ 620,000 miles (1,000,000 km).
This is how they calculated that Hummer-H2 is more energy efficient than Prius.
This whole calculation is a sham and finally the entire Hummer line up of H2, H2-SUT, H3, H3-SUT went down to trash bin while Prius continues to sell with more than 5 million units sold worldwide.
makati1 on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:22 pm
BTW: Steel actually takes lower temperatures:
“Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).”
WIKI
makati1 on Thu, 26th May 2016 5:26 pm
Rick, at 5 million per year, it would take 50+ years to just replace all the cars in the US (or never, because of replacement as older cars are junked). And soon selling even 5 million new cars of any type, per year, is going to be history.
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Thu, 26th May 2016 6:30 pm
I wonder what the ratio of retards returned on retards invested is for this pathetic website?
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 6:39 pm
Why not go hang out somewhere else, with others at your same level THALB. Doesn’t sound like you’re enjoying yourself much here.
sunweb on Thu, 26th May 2016 6:44 pm
Here is a video, pictures and charts on making glass.
Glass is a wonderful product. Float glass for windows (along with screens) improves homes and other buildings enormously. Think about what your home would be without glass. So this is not an essay against glass. It isn’t even an essay against using glass for solar energy collecting devices whether they are for heating hot air, hot water or making electricity.
These devices use low iron hardened stippled glass. It is important to understand the components of the energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable. This essay looks at the energy, equipment and the economies of scale in making float glass.
This is an essay challenging business as usual. The earth and those born today can’t take any more business as usual.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/03/making-glass_8.html
Practicalmaina on Thu, 26th May 2016 6:52 pm
Makati, I will make a rig to prove it’s possible, might lose a retna but might win a disagreement on a technicality, it may be worth it lol. Those concentrating mirrors can be sketchy as that concentrating tower fire just proved. Tiny scale is my friend 🙂
makati1 on Thu, 26th May 2016 7:35 pm
Practical, ALL of those toys you mention rely on oil to exist. A solar panel is worthless if there is nothing that needs it’s electric. You don’t look at the whole picture, just the pieces you want to see.
ghung on Thu, 26th May 2016 8:35 pm
How many of you have north-facing windows. I wonder what the ERoEI of those is.
makati1 on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:02 pm
ghung, north facing is preferable in the most populated countries, like the Ps, India, southern China, etc. ^_^
GregT on Thu, 26th May 2016 9:13 pm
“Tiny scale is my friend”
Again Practical. Good for you for thinking outside of the box. Others here, including myself, are attempting to do the same. Tiny, and local. Neither have any hope at all of supporting the continuation of BAU.
Dustin Hoffman on Fri, 27th May 2016 3:11 am
Solar works for me, especially when I hang my wet cloths out to dry.
Folks will be in for a rude awakening with these systems. Just a big money pit that help already rich look like good fellas.
Been around back in the good old days of
The 1970’s when ‘Mother Earth News’ was in its prime. Yep, much grey matter and research went into figuring out solar.
I live here in Florida, the Sunshine State. I can count on ONE hand the number of solar water heaters on homes.
Now, this is the low hanging fruit.
Enough said.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 27th May 2016 8:01 am
Makati, 100% true, with the exception IMHO on the led lights, I am very far from an expert but I suspect those have a much lower embodied energy than any other form of lighting, especially if it is plugged right into a low voltage dc source. This is the biggest improvement out there IMHO, a lower embodied energy bulb, no vacuum, no mercury, ect. that last much longer than conventional, and uses a fraction of the power. Also look at the amount of junk that Americans will have to pick over for electronics, if there is no EMP. With most people without power suddenly you can trade a loaf of bread for almost anything electronic. Think about the dc devices you can scrap out of a car, plenty of those will be useless other than maybe some shelter or a little season extending greenhouse type deal.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 27th May 2016 8:05 am
alright so you are still correct on leds still have embodied oil, but a much lower initial demand, IMHO, and an important enough device I think we will find a way to continue to produce them on some level. Like the guy Ghung told us about making a nice little business charging people to use his pv to charge their phones in Africa, solar may not power a heavy industry world, but it may keep many out of the dark, and give them the ability to communicate.
makati1 on Fri, 27th May 2016 8:26 am
Practical, do you know where the ingredients for LEDs come from? If it is not sourced locally, it is not likely to exist. There will be no international trade after. Not being smart, just asking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp
I really appreciate being able to source any info I want on the internet. That is what I will miss most when it goes. And it will.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 27th May 2016 8:44 am
Makati, well played, but on that wiki page I do not see anything referring to an led not running off the grid. It is in my novice opinion that something like an led headlight or anything designed for a 12v dc system is going to be rather significantly less complicated because you no longer need as many parts to rectify, step down, clean up and whatever else…
Harquebus on Fri, 27th May 2016 8:55 am
Pollution caused by the manufacture of renewables is never factored.
“There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.”
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
“Polysilicon production produces about four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste for every ton of polysilicon produced.”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31478-china-s-communist-capitalist-ecological-apocalypse
“Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t feasible.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
“new Green technologies designed to save humanity from CO2 may kill humanity through energy starvation”
“If we used more energy to get the energy we need to survive then we will surely perish.”
“ERoEI = energy gathered / energy invested” “net energy = ERoEI-1”
“An inevitable consequence of this aspect of human nature commonly known as greed is that we have already used up the highest ERoEI fossil fuel resources and as time passes the ERoEI of new resources is steadily falling.”
“The greatest risk to human society today is the notion that we can somehow replace high ERoEI fossil fuels with new renewable energies like solar PV and biofuels.”
http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
“Models often limit their life cycle or EROI analysis to just the solar panels themselves, which represents only a third of the overall energy embodied in solar PV plants. These studies left out dozens of energy inputs, leading to overestimates of energy such as payback time of 1-2 years (Fthenakis), EROI 8.3 (Bankier), and EROI of 5.9 to 11.8 (Raugei et al).”
“Solar has too many energy costs and dependencies on fossil fuels throughout the life cycle to produce much energy. It’s more of a fossil-fuel extender because PV can’t replicate itself, let alone provide energy beyond that to human society.”
http://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
“despite a string of optimistic choices resulting in low values of energy investments, the ERoEI is significantly below 1. In other words, an electrical supply system based on today’s PV technologies cannot be termed an energy source, but rather a non-sustainable energy sink or a non-sustainable NET ENERGY LOSS.”
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf
peakyeast on Fri, 27th May 2016 9:07 am
@Go Speed Racer: At the coal plant expenses one should also calculate the vast destruction of life quality and mass killings from the exhaust.
Millions upon millions has died from fallout from fossil fuels – but since there is not a bullet hole the killings not attributed to the killer and then we havent even included the millions with diseases stemming from the pollution.
Suddenly fossil power is very expensive…
peakyeast on Fri, 27th May 2016 9:09 am
@Practical: Concerning 12VDC – you can only source the power a very short distance (few meters) before the losses become unacceptable – and that only with very expensive thick cabling. That is why High Voltage is always used for distribution.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 27th May 2016 9:17 am
electronics are fascinating, trying to figure our if I spoke too soon about the simplicity of an led. Apparently Gallium is usually sourced as a bi-product of processing ores, aluminum and zinc are most common. So I guess if industrial smelting were to go away, the semiconductor base would be hard to come by. But that is also kind of cool that an important part of many electronics is made from a material that would otherwise just be waste.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 27th May 2016 9:21 am
Peakyeast, very true, but I am referring to a low amount of power that would not demand much wire, and a small home based system, where the transmission distance and loss would be negligible.
peakyeast on Fri, 27th May 2016 10:23 am
Practical:
Take my house: It is 22m x 6 m
Distribution from center outer wall of house. So 11 meters (ideal position).
Lets just say a load of 24W at each end of the house at the same outer wall. I would say that is pretty low consumption. And a very optimistic positioning.
Thick alu cable: 2.5mm2
Losses would already be reach almost 10%