3 ms·

I wonder, "Even solar panels require fossil fuels" what parts in solar panels are from fossil fuels?

realreality 8y ago
How is the aluminum mined and smelted? How is the tempered glass made? How are the other trace elements mined, transported, and refined? Once they’re manufactured, how do they travel to their installation location? There have been lots of studies on the carbon footprint of solar panel manufacturing. Generally, they’re considered to “pay off” in terms of energy production after about 5 years. (They have a 25year lifetime, btw) In a world where the economy must be carbon neutral to negative, none of that manufacturing and transportation infrastructure can be run on fossil fuels.
- deftnerd 8y ago
  To be fair, they usually have a warrantied lifespan of 25 years... and as solar cells start degrading, their output drops off in a gradual linear fashion. At 25 years, solar panels still produce between 80% and 87% of their manufactured capacity. At 50 years, they should still produce between 60% and 75% of their manufactured capacity. It's quite possible that solar panels could have much longer life spans. There isn't a lot of data yet, but there are some indications that they'll be performing well. A 33W solar panel (Arco Solar 16-2000) actually outperformed it’s original factory specifications 30 years after it was manufactured World`s first modern solar panel still works after 60 years Kyocera has reported several solar power installations that continue to operate reliably and generate electricity even though they are nearly 30 years old The big problems in longevity at the moment are batteries and inverters that typically have to be replaced every 5 to 10 years. When I build my off-grid solar system, I'm planning to use NiFi batteries (Nickel Iron) that have lifespans in the hundreds of years with minimal maintenance. They're larger and hold less capacity, but don't damage themselves when over/under charged and use materials a lot more available than modern high-density battery storage technologies. I haven't seen a long-life inverter yet and that's frustrating. Inverter manufacturers have thin margins and competition, so they focus on lowering costs rather than redundancy and hardening.
  - realreality 8y ago
    I used Nickel Iron batteries in an off grid system. They were already 30years old. Unfortunately, they were too difficult to work with, requiring non standard voltages and maintence. You’ll need charge controllers and inverters that understand the different chemistry. I know of two other people who used them and eventually switched to lead acid batteries. (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?)
    - mrep 8y ago
      >> (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?) I didn't downvote you but a lot of your claims come off as over the top fearmongering and/or ignorant. I'll try and counter with your 2 main points that I see: > In order to fulfill the Paris agreement of limiting warming to 2°C (which would already be a global catastrophe) This one I just haven't really heard about how a 2°C temperature increase would be a global catastrophe. I've read that it will improve certain countries farming and hurt others. Overall, not much out of speculation how it will affect humans in the grand scheme of things. (I agree that it will be really bad for other species like the great barrier reef which I am really sad about but most people don't care about that, they just want to improve their own life and cheap energy is massively beneficial to people which currently outweighs the cost even if it is currently costing the plant). > If you want to convert all of the ICE cars on the road to electric cars, where will the energy come from to do that? Manufacturing the cars requires fossil fuels. No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies. We just don't do it because it is too expensive to switch all at once. However, if renewables and batteries keep improving like they do, fossil fuels get too expensive once we run out of ones to cheapy extract, we will end up that way (the latter which is guaranteed no matter what happens as fossil fuels are limited). Pretty much every government even china and the Saudis recognize this which is why everyone is subsidising/investing in renewable energy and taxing fossil fuels to get renewables cheaper.
      - realreality 8y ago
        Regarding 2° being a catastrophe — that’s how James Hanson described it. The Paris Agreement picked 2° as some kind of politically attainable goal. It’s not a safe limit for human civilization as we know it. There’s also this recent paper which got a lot of press http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 > No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies I said that it currently requires fossil fuels. In order to build “renewable energy” systems, you need to bootstrap it by expending fossil fuels today. Even if you could somehow mine iron ore with electric bulldozers, that’s not currently how iron is mined (and transported, refined, etc). So, you have to convert every link in the supply chain. Some people have already calculated that, in order to completely convert our electricity system to 100% renewable, we’d have to burn more fossil fuels today than would be allowable under the carbon budget outlined in the Paris agreement. Others have calculated that the transition will simply take too long (and the rate it has to happen increases all the time). Can you outline how it’s possible to convert our industrial system to 100% renewable energy, using real numbers and timelines? Does your model also include economic growth (and therefore growth in energy consumption)?

How is the aluminum mined and smelted? How is the tempered glass made? How are the other trace elements mined, transported, and refined? Once they’re manufactured, how do they travel to their installation location? There have been lots of studies on the carbon footprint of solar panel manufacturing. Generally, they’re considered to “pay off” in terms of energy production after about 5 years. (They have a 25year lifetime, btw) In a world where the economy must be carbon neutral to negative, none of that manufacturing and transportation infrastructure can be run on fossil fuels.

deftnerd 8y ago
To be fair, they usually have a warrantied lifespan of 25 years... and as solar cells start degrading, their output drops off in a gradual linear fashion. At 25 years, solar panels still produce between 80% and 87% of their manufactured capacity. At 50 years, they should still produce between 60% and 75% of their manufactured capacity. It's quite possible that solar panels could have much longer life spans. There isn't a lot of data yet, but there are some indications that they'll be performing well. A 33W solar panel (Arco Solar 16-2000) actually outperformed it’s original factory specifications 30 years after it was manufactured World`s first modern solar panel still works after 60 years Kyocera has reported several solar power installations that continue to operate reliably and generate electricity even though they are nearly 30 years old The big problems in longevity at the moment are batteries and inverters that typically have to be replaced every 5 to 10 years. When I build my off-grid solar system, I'm planning to use NiFi batteries (Nickel Iron) that have lifespans in the hundreds of years with minimal maintenance. They're larger and hold less capacity, but don't damage themselves when over/under charged and use materials a lot more available than modern high-density battery storage technologies. I haven't seen a long-life inverter yet and that's frustrating. Inverter manufacturers have thin margins and competition, so they focus on lowering costs rather than redundancy and hardening.
- realreality 8y ago
  I used Nickel Iron batteries in an off grid system. They were already 30years old. Unfortunately, they were too difficult to work with, requiring non standard voltages and maintence. You’ll need charge controllers and inverters that understand the different chemistry. I know of two other people who used them and eventually switched to lead acid batteries. (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?)
  - mrep 8y ago
    >> (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?) I didn't downvote you but a lot of your claims come off as over the top fearmongering and/or ignorant. I'll try and counter with your 2 main points that I see: > In order to fulfill the Paris agreement of limiting warming to 2°C (which would already be a global catastrophe) This one I just haven't really heard about how a 2°C temperature increase would be a global catastrophe. I've read that it will improve certain countries farming and hurt others. Overall, not much out of speculation how it will affect humans in the grand scheme of things. (I agree that it will be really bad for other species like the great barrier reef which I am really sad about but most people don't care about that, they just want to improve their own life and cheap energy is massively beneficial to people which currently outweighs the cost even if it is currently costing the plant). > If you want to convert all of the ICE cars on the road to electric cars, where will the energy come from to do that? Manufacturing the cars requires fossil fuels. No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies. We just don't do it because it is too expensive to switch all at once. However, if renewables and batteries keep improving like they do, fossil fuels get too expensive once we run out of ones to cheapy extract, we will end up that way (the latter which is guaranteed no matter what happens as fossil fuels are limited). Pretty much every government even china and the Saudis recognize this which is why everyone is subsidising/investing in renewable energy and taxing fossil fuels to get renewables cheaper.
    - realreality 8y ago
      Regarding 2° being a catastrophe — that’s how James Hanson described it. The Paris Agreement picked 2° as some kind of politically attainable goal. It’s not a safe limit for human civilization as we know it. There’s also this recent paper which got a lot of press http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 > No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies I said that it currently requires fossil fuels. In order to build “renewable energy” systems, you need to bootstrap it by expending fossil fuels today. Even if you could somehow mine iron ore with electric bulldozers, that’s not currently how iron is mined (and transported, refined, etc). So, you have to convert every link in the supply chain. Some people have already calculated that, in order to completely convert our electricity system to 100% renewable, we’d have to burn more fossil fuels today than would be allowable under the carbon budget outlined in the Paris agreement. Others have calculated that the transition will simply take too long (and the rate it has to happen increases all the time). Can you outline how it’s possible to convert our industrial system to 100% renewable energy, using real numbers and timelines? Does your model also include economic growth (and therefore growth in energy consumption)?