On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:07:36 +0000 Dan Eumurian <cen09460@centurytel.net>
writes:
> in reply to Vandergraaf, Chuck wrote:
> >
>
> Chuck, Glenn and list,
>
> I picked a link, conveyed the question, and received this reply.
> Hope it
> sheds some light.
>
> Dan Eumurian
> hope4you@CenturyTel.net
>
> Subject: Re: Total costs of solar energy
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From: John Michael Byrne <jbbyrne@UDel.Edu>
> To: hope4you@centurytel.net
> CC: Jon R Rosales <jrosales@UDel.Edu>
>
> Dear Mr. Eumurian,
>
> Thank you for your inquiry. I would welcome the lyrics of "Use It
> Again,
> Sam!"
>
> I have tried below to answer the questions posed by your colleague.
> I
> have
> also copied one of our doctoral students, Jon Rosales, who is
> currently
> in
> Minnesota. He can elaborate on my comments. Please let me know if
> you
> find
> that responses, as they often do, generate more questions. Regards,
> John
> Byrne
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Byrne, Director Phone: (302) 831-8405
> Center for
> Energy & Environmental Policy FAX: (302) 831-3098
> University of Delaware E-mail: jbbyrne@strauss.udel.edu
> Newark, DE 19716-7301 USA Website: http://www.udel.edu/ceep
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Snip>
> > "What are the costs, financial and environmental, of
> producing the
> > photovoltaic panels (including the energy required in
> production of
> > the silicon cells, handling and disposing of the wastes
> generated in
> > the production of the panels),
>
> REPLY: By conventional measures of cost, PV panels cost about $5 per
> peak
> Watt of electricity supplied. Throughout most of the US, this would
> be
> equivalent to $0.20 per kWh, compared to dirty coal plants which can
> produce electricity at $0.05 per kWh ... and warm the planet. As
> long as
> the latter is not a cost that we address (and currently we don't),
> dirty
> coal plants are more "economical."
>
Snip
The cost in dollars, IMO, is not as relevant as the energy cost to
produce the PV panels (or other renewable source)versus the output. If it
takes more energy to produce and install than is produced in its
lifetime, it's a losing battle, especially since the energy required for
production probably comes from fossil fuels. As an analogy, consider the
use of ethanol to replace petroleum. I understand that it works pretty
well in Brazil, where most of the work in producing sugar cane is done by
inexpensive human labor. There are many workers and relatively few
drivers, so the production is relatively energy efficient. In addition,
it is easier to pay local help than to come up with hard currency for
importing oil. In contrast, ethanol in the States is produced from corn,
using large quantities of diesel fuel and little human labor. Given the
cost of labor, it would be much worse economically to place many workers
in the fields to cut down on the use of petroleum. But this is energy
inefficient. In fact, I think I recall reading that it takes more energy
to produce ethanol from corn than can be recovered by burning it. There
may be other reasons for using ethanol or gasohol, but it is not energy
efficiency in the States.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 22 2000 - 16:28:47 EDT