Posts Tagged ‘Solar Power’
October 20th, 2011 | 
Author: 
Posted in Greencon, Greencon Design Update, Greencon Environmental Research, Greencon Local Energy Update, Greencon Product Range, Greencon Solar Technology Update, Greencon Technology Update | 
Tags: Emission Reductions, Environmental Responsibility, Green Building, Greencon, Solar Power, Solar Water Heating Systems | 
No Comments »
I recently came across this article in a Solar Thermal Journal – and it really struck me how the problems facing the implementation of solar thermal technology in First World countries like the US were a carbon copy of the situation here in South Africa. I really encourage you to read the article below about the potential for solar water heating in the US – just do yourself a favour and replace the every reference to “New York” with South Africa and you will have a good picture of the potential here and the hurdles we face.
Article by D Appleyard.
By unveiling a solar heating and cooling programme that could create 25,000 new green jobs, generate US$2.6 billion in revenue and see 2 GW of new solar thermal capacity installed in the state over the next decade, New York has revealed its ambition to become America’s national leader in solar heating and cooling.
Setting out its solar thermal roadmap, which was published at the NYSEIA conference in May 2010, the Solar Thermal Consortium (STC) plan focuses on improving uptake of solar thermal technologies through consumer education and incentives, installer training, promotions to attract manufacturers, investments in R&D, and permitting improvements.
Developed by more than 130 industrial, academic and governmental representatives, the Solar Thermal Roadmap creates a path to move New York State toward the equivalent of 1 million solar hot water collectors, or half a million residential systems, by 2020.
While these figures are still dwarfed by the German market, where around 200,000 solar hot water systems are installed annually for example, the measure is deeply significant in the US, where so far federal efforts have largely foundered and, as in many other nations, solar thermal is still the neglected poor cousin of other renewable energies like wind and solar PV.
With individual states left to devise and implement their own renewable energy programmes, the solar thermal plan for New York stands out.
The logic behind such a scheme is irrefutable, the New York Solar Energy Industries Association claims. ‘Sixty percent of the energy consumed in New York State buildings is to provide heat and hot water’, said its president, Ron Kamen, who noted that with the Roadmap: ‘New York is moving to become the national leader in the research, development, deployment and manufacture of solar thermal technologies.’
Focused on solar heat and hot water applications for buildings in New York State, the Roadmap is modeled on global best practices, as well as new ideas from the consortium. Its goal is to develop the New York State solar thermal industry so that the total installed statewide capacity grows from its current estimated level of 6 MWth to 2000 MWth by 2020, with 70% coming from residential and 30% from commercial installations.
The Roadmap’s proposed implementation would save an estimated 6 million US gal. (22.5 million litres) of oil, 9.5 million ft³ (270,000 m³) of natural gas and displace 320 GWh of electricity production annually by 2020, translating into consumer savings of more than $175 million per year, the STC claims.
Barriers To Implementation
While the total U.S. installed solar thermal capacity of some 7.6 GWth is close to the German installed capacity of 8 GWth, the majority of this capacity is derived from swimming pool heating rather than domestic hot water or space heating. On a per capita basis, the contrast is stark, with 100 Wth/person installed in Germany and 0.3 Wth/person installed per person in New York State, a factor of close to 1000. Indeed, the Roadmap acknowledges that the state lags the world in terms of solar thermal usage.
Nonetheless, despite the small base, since heating and cooling makes up around 30% of the total energy use in the U.S., and current total installed solar thermal capacity equates to approximately 0.06% of the entire U.S. energy consumption, there is an opportunity for solar thermal to make a significant impact.
Solar thermal has certainly seen growth in cold climates such as those encountered in the region. For example, in 2008 Canada installed 40 MWth of solar thermal capacity for both space and water heating. Even so, the report does recognise that levels of adoption and market growth are a result of many factors, including energy cost, governmental regulations, aggressive marketing and educational programmes, and incentives.
In New York State the authors contend that solar thermal systems can provide 50%–70% of the domestic hot water used in a typical residence and that the state has an opportunity to expand this sector of the economy and position itself for a strong export base. However, there are significant hurdles to overcome. For example, the technology and its benefits are not widely known by consumers. Furthermore, sufficient industry knowledge and certified installers to support successful installations are lacking, and there are gaps in the value chain from materials to end-user. In addition, potential bar
riers to development of the industry in the state include poor awareness and perception based on experiences from the 1970s and 1980s. At that time the systems were perceived to be unreliable and with short life expectancies. Poor system integration and installations were primarily to blame for these experiences, the STC says.
Public sector support is also required in order for large-scale solar thermal adoption levels to be achieved. A public education campaign will require the support of both industry stakeholders and public officials to be successful. Governmental support is required initially to make the systems cost effective and to attract manufacturing capability to the state. This requires an educational and lobbying effort on the part of the industrial partners targeted at state, federal and national officials.
The development of a trained workforce is also critical to achieve the goals of the Roadmap. It is vital that the quality of installations is high and that the systems function properly. An installation workforce needs to be developed and trained to ensure that this occurs. Courses are available which can provide this training, but few are currently located in the state.
System costs are another significant barrier to widespread adoption. While there is a segment of the market that identifies environmental issues as the primary driver for adoption, the Roadmap goals cannot be achieved by this segment alone and current system and permitting costs need to be addressed to grow the industry significantly.
The ability to fully realise the potential of solar thermal technologies is currently further limited by long-term technology development. Advanced technologies such as solar assisted cooling, integrated PV/solar thermal systems, and low temperature solar thermal electric generation are potential areas of opportunity. Thermal storage is also an area that, if effectively solved, would allow for additional advancement of the industry.
Costs of Solar Thermal in New York State
The rationale for developing a strong solar thermal industry in New York State comes from three areas: end-user energy cost savings, environmental impacts, and economic development through job creation systems and industry sales.
A model for direct hot water (DHW) systems was developed
to determine the potential impact of the adoption of solar thermal technologies, and to investigate incentive and growth levels needed to reach the roadmap goal. Based on industry input, systems were modeled with initial installed costs of $8000 for residential systems and $18,000 for commercial systems. The costs were held fixed for three years and then reduced at an annual rate of 5% thereafter on the basis of increased competition and supply, as well as future technological improvements.
The price of energy in New York State is among the highest in the USA. In 2009, electricity averaged 17.8 US cents/KWh and a four person ‘model’ family would be expected to spend between $390 and $1100 (depending on the fuel source) to provide domestic hot water in 2010. Over the past 10 years energy prices in New York State have increased at a substantial rate averaging 9% and 11% annually for fuel oil and natural gas respectively. A conservative 8% annual escalation in fuel prices is assumed in the model, which by 2020 drives the cost for heating hot water to between $620 and $170
0 per household, again depending on the fuel source.
In this analysis, assuming the 8% annual increase in energy prices, by 2020 the savings for a four person model family supplying 50% of their water heating needs from solar are projected to increase to between $310 and $850 annually. Fuel savings, from residential DHW applications alone, show the potential for a dramatic reduction in emissions too. In 2010 the model family with a solar thermal system could save approximately 100 US gallons of fuel oil, 125 therms of natural gas or 3100 KWh of electricity.
According to the model, combined residential and commercial sales start at $5 million in 2010 and rise to $629 million in 2020. Total revenues from 2010–2020 are projected to be $2.6 billion. Furthermore, the analysis is based only on the development of a state-wide domestic hot water market. The potential impact is obviously multiplied when other technologies such as solar space heating, ‘combi’ systems and solar assisted cooling are considered, as well as potential opportunities elsewhere in the US and overseas.
Job creation associated with the solar thermal market development is modeled using current job levels in Europe as a basis. And in Europe, one job is created and sustained for every 1000 ft² (93 m²) of newly installed panel area, the Roadmap states. These jobs include manufacturing, installation and maintenance, and under the developed growth model, in total approximately 24,000 jobs will be created and sustained by 2020, significantly up from the current estimated level of some 36 solar thermal employees. Clearly, the im
pact of a vibrant solar thermal market is significant to the state.
Solar Thermal Roadmap Recommendations
Recommendations set out in the Roadmap aim to address market barriers in a logical, cost effective manner and are grouped into five main categories including organization; awareness and marketing; institutional issues; workforce development; and, research and development.
The key recommendations are to:
- Create a state-wide educational campaign and electronic resource to inform consumers about solar thermal and its benefits;
- Initiate a solar thermal financial incentive programme to encourage installations by shortening payback time;
- Promote New York State as a location for manufacturers;
- Invest in research and development to create a scientific base which systematically develops next generation technologies; and,
- Clarify permitting procedures and union jurisdiction to simplify installations.
Funding for these solar thermal-focused efforts could come from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), the New York State Public Service Commission or similar programmes, the authors say.
Addressing public awareness, the roadmap recommends that a solar thermal website should be created to provide a central resource in the state. And, in order to track consumer awareness and satisfaction, it is recommended that a consumer survey be conducted each year focused on installers, consumers, and the general public. Data from the surveys will be used to determine market conditions — for instance the number of installs, system costs and such like — as well as an indication of consumer satisfaction, and the effectiveness of the marketing campaign.
Furthermore, growth in sales can also lead to job increases beyond installation jobs through increased manufacturing capability within the state, the report’s authors argue. For example, they say, interactions with European manufacturers during the course of developing the Roadmap have indicated their desire to locate manufacturing capabilities within the US.
In order to take advantage of these growth opportunities, it is recommended that within three months a committee led by economic development organizations be formed to develop a statewide marketing plan, for the expansion and attraction of manufacturing capabilities into the state. The marketing plan should address state and US market potential, state incentives, the existing workforce capability and industrial base, as well as R&D capabilities.
Current tax incentive programmes (30% federal, 25% state) for solar thermal systems provide a payback period for the average system of about 11–15 years for modelled residential systems. Payback for commercial systems can be significantly shorter due to accelerated depreciation. It is recommended that an incentive programme be combined with the current tax rebate programme to reduce the payback term further. It is additionally recommended that all available incentives be tied to an installer certification scheme to encourage high installation standards.
A fixed rebate model would pay a fixed amount based on system size and capability, as well on the primary heating source. Such an incentive programme could include residential as well as commercial, industrial, institutional, and agricultural consumers, though they may be structured differently. The incentive programme should be designed to sunset as system costs decline and energy prices escalate, the authors say, adding that such a model is attractiv
e as it decreases the upfront out of pocket expenses, which may be a barrier to adoption.
Incentives could also be tied to utility companies. For example, the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) Solar Rebate Program is designed to offset electric usage through the adoption of renewable energy sources. This is particularly attractive to those consumers which use electricity to provide heat and hot water. LIPA reports that since 2000 it has paid out approximately $59 million in incentives resulting in more that 2400 installations (mostly PV) on Long Island and the creation of over 50 companies to conduct those installations. PV system costs have dropped to 35% through this programme and a combination of state and federal incentive schemes, and such programmes could
be expanded or developed to include gas and oil customers, the Roadmap document says.
Addressing a number of key institutional issues, the Roadmap also recommends that a permit system is developed so that a single permit can be applied for and granted for an installation. Such a permiting process would simplify installation procedures and reduce costs, while still ensuring that the installation complies with relevant zoning and building requirements.
It is also recommended that certain levels of renewable energy be mandated directly into the building code. Generating a significant proportion of a building’s energy from clean sources is clearly possible given current technologies and it is proposed that all new buildings over 10,0
00 ft² (929 m²) in area must generate 10%–20% of their energy from onsite renewables.
To encourage minimum installation quality standards state financial incentives could eventually be offered for systems that are installed by professionals who have passed – as a minimum – an entry-level solar hot water certification exam. The North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) does currently offer a solar thermal certification test, though any requirement to sit this exam would most likely exclude the majority of the exisiting installers and restrict the initial growth of the industry, the authors argue. Currently there is no ‘entry-level’ exam, though NABCEP is reportedly developing one. Thus, in order to prevent a bottleneck in installation certification it is proposed that New York develop a staged programme of certification.
To properly train and qualify New York installers and inspectors, the preparation of a multi-faceted education scheme is another sensible goal, the authors say. Although there are many educational offerings already, a more robust and comprehensive educational programme and some governmental support for it are recommended.
In addition, despite the significant advances in solar thermal, further R&D is also needed to continue to reduce system costs, improve quality and performance, and develop new technologies.
While New York State has a substantial R&D base, there are few research groups within the state that directly focus on solar thermal. To facilitate the development of a R&D base within the state, the creation of a Solar Thermal Center of Excellence (COE) is recommended in the Roadmap.
The centre would encompass a collection of researchers with varied technical skills and interests aligned with solar thermal needs. Participants would be spread over a number of institutions and this would allow for the leveraging of existing expertise. In this way the state would nurture a developing specific
research base. The authors argue that the cluster should be developed and funded based on existing models in the state for academic/industrial partnerships.
Funding for the Solar Thermal COE would initially come from the state. The funds would be used for administrative purposes and to support initial research efforts.
Research would be awarded through a competitive proposal process, with matching funds required from industrial sources. Over time, however, the funding for the centre would predominantly come from industrial sources. The development would also help to attract new industrial capability to the state as it would allow for strong academic/industrial collaboration supporting the local development of new technologies, the Roadmap says.
The creation of a solar thermal system certification testing centre is also recommended by the analysis, which points out that New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) currently has an effort underway to develop small wind (less than 100 kW) and PV certification testing centres. A similar operation could be developed for solar thermal. Currently there is a bottleneck in the system certification process as the number of systems being submitted is greater than the available capacity. It is expected that within three years the certification centre would be fully self-sufficient with revenues from testing funding its operations.
While 42 million solar thermal systems have been installed worldwide, the US has been slow to adopt this technology. However, sentiment is changing. As the nation’s focus on renewable energy continues to grow, the expectation is that the adoption of solar thermal technology will, too.
Consequently, leading international solar thermal companiesare looking to establish production facilities in the US and the Roadmap’s authors believe that an organized effort to promote the industry could position the state as the solar thermal leader. They note that most states will be aggressive in trying to attract new business, especially given the recent business climate, and New York State aims to win first mover advantage to secure its share of a new industry that will create manufacturing, jobs and investment.
The STC is led by the collaborative efforts of Clarkson University’s Center for Advanced Materials Process (CAMP), the NYSTAR Center for Advanced Technology (CAT); the New York Solar Energy Industry Association (NYSEIA); The Solar Energy Consortium (TSEC) and Droege & Company, an international management consultancy firm.
Even without the expected decrease in demand in 2009, technology revenues would be lower than the US $20.4 billion (€14 billion) of 2008 as cell and module prices are around 40% below 2008 levels. Figure 1 (shown below) provides technology revenues from the manufacturer to the first point of sale in the market from 2003 through 2013. For 2009 and 2010, an estimate of revenues for the recession forecast has been provided. With technology prices at the current level, even growth in sales volume, which is highly unlikely, would result in lower revenues in 2009.
Figure 1. Worldwide module revenue volume for recession, conservative and accelerated growth models 2003-2013.
Accelerated growth in the photovoltaic industry continued in 2008, with 79% market growth over the previous year to 5.5 GW. Unfortunately, the market was significantly oversold in 2008, stranding around 2 GW of product in supply side inventory at the beginning of 2009.
Most of the overselling was into Spain, which with a market volume coming in at 2.3 GW in 2008, represented 42% of total photovoltaic system sales worldwide. Along with high prices for modules and PV systems, quite a few instances of poor module product and poorly constructed systems, and permit speculation, the oversold market led the Spanish government to alter its support programme. The new decree capped the market, lowered the feed-in tariff and effectively closed Spain to new product sales for perhaps two years, or more.
Other than Germany, the PV industry currently has no other global market capable of accepting a volume of sales remotely similar to Spain. Moreover, the global recession and financial crises have further hobbled an industry that had been enjoying accelerated growth since 2004. For these reasons, the PV industry is set to experience its first decrease in demand in more than 30 years — and not just flat growth, but a decrease in sales volume of perhaps 30%, or even more.
Figure 2, (below), provides data for 35 years of PV industry growth, from 1974 through 2008, while Figure 3, (below), reveals three forecast scenarios for 2009, which are on based on assumptions related to recession, conservative and accelerated growth for the sector.
Though the PV industry enjoyed accelerated growth from 2004 through 2008, this rate will not continue in 2009, and accelerated growth is unlikely into 2010. In 2009, lending from the international debt markets continues to be depressed. Meanwhile, the loss of a major market — Spain — is having a deleterious effect on growth, inventories remain high, and global economies remain in recession.
Figure 2. Photovoltaic industry history 1974-2008 (CAGR = compound annual growth rate).
Furthermore, although market development is underway, Germany remains the only market capable of consuming more than a gigawatt of product, and other markets, such as Italy, are underperforming. Japan, South Korea, the United States and others continue to experience slow growth. The good news is that module prices in the soft market seen in 2009 continue to decrease significantly.
As previously noted, while the PV industry has experienced slow or flat growth so far this year — to July 2009 — it is an industry that has not experienced negative growth in 35 years or more. Conversely, years of significant strong growth of more than 70% include: 1975 at 150%, 1976 at 141%,1977 at 87%, 1978 at 112%, 1980 at 128%, 1983 at 88%, and 2008 at 79%.
Since 1974, the PV industry has only experienced three years of soft growth, defined here as demand growth of less than 10% in a given year: 1986 at 8%, 1993 at 3% and, 1994 at 10%.
The Incentive Driver
Historically, the PV industry has enjoyed strong growth, though at much lower volumes than today. The strong growth that the PV industry enjoyed since 2004 was driven by incentives, in particular, the feed-in tariff laws in Europe, and even more specifically, Spain’s generous programme. Though for countries in Europe (in general) there is no reason to assume that feed-in tariff programmes will stop altogether, the problems experienced in Spain (overselling, fraud and poor quality products among them) are having a sobering effect on government incentive planning in other EU countries. The support programmes of the future will need to include mechanisms that manage growth along with stimulating it.
The incentives that the industry relies on come with downward price pressure, which is a significant constraint. However, given the goal of grid parity, there is literally nowhere for price to go but down. Grid parity, nonetheless, is a complex subject, differing in most global markets. Moreover, grid parity provides a level competitive playing field for solar (a worthwhile goal on its own), but does not ensure success.
The industry also needs an increasing number of highly trained installers, sales personnel, engineers and such like, and this comes at a cost. Lower costs and prices are necessary for the continuation of incentives and, therefore, demand. For accelerated growth to continue, and for the eventual slowing of demand to happen gradually, unlike the expected steep decline in 2009, the PV industry must learn to manage its demand. It must develop incentives with triggers to control demand when it accelerates too quickly.
The industry must also control its supply chain from expensive raw material, to consumables, and through to the end user, and must participate with balance of systems (BOS) manufacturers to innovate and develop inexpensive and robust BOS. All raw materials, consumables and machinery are more expensive at this point because of the higher price of oil, which is necessary for transportation.
Other caveats to limitless growth are the high price of PV systems, and the availability of less expensive alternatives, including conventional energy sources such as natural gas and coal. In recent years, the current high volume of industry demand, coupled with raw material shortages, threw the industry into a panic. Instead of the technology standard, ‘if we build it they will come,’ the new mantra became, ‘they are coming and we can’t build it.’
The industry reacted by buying silicon feedstock and cell futures, and by raising component (module) and system average prices, globally. These long-term contracts for raw material, wafers and cells are proving unsupportable and in many cases, are being rewritten or ignored.
Figure 3. Recession, conservative and accelerated forecast scenarios for grid-connected PV, 2008-2013.
The Past Can Inform the Future
It is useful to study specific periods in the PV industry’s history, in terms of growth and drivers for growth, to see what can be learned from these periods which can be useful in understanding the direction of this still young industry. Figure 2, offers compound annual growth rates for the PV industry for specific periods, 1974–1984, 1984–1994, 1994–2004 and 2004–2008.
During 1974–1984, strong compound annual growth of 84% was due to utility and government-backed grid-connected demonstration projects. During this period, the grid-connected application was 30%–50% of total demand, though from annual totals less than 20 MW. Following this decade-long period of significant growth, lower compound annual growth of 13% for 1984–1994 was due to an almost complete cessation of these projects. During this period, grid-connected applications (primarily unsubsidized or incentivized) was less than 10% of annual demand.
Stronger compound annual growth of 33% during 1994–2004 reflects the beginning and continuation of the strong incentive programmes that continue to drive PV industry growth. Specifically in Europe, the feed-in tariff model has proven to be the most successful incentive model. Japan’s residential rooftop programme in the late 1990s, a capacity subsidy, built a sustainable market for solar roofs in that country. In the US, incentives in California created the most significant market in that country.
The 2004–2008 period also managed to encompass two significant events for the sector: the PV industry’s greatest raw material (silicon feedstock) shortage and its strongest period of sustained accelerated growth.
During this period, demand for large field grid-connected applications in Europe, largely driven by the feed-in tariff model of incentives, created the largest global market (79% in 2008) for solar systems. However, the solar-grade silicon raw material shortage that had pushed up prices for crystalline silicon modules also created an entry point for thin-film technologies, which had previously been viewed as risky. The industry’s compound annual growth for this period was 51%.
Grid-connected Growth Drivers
Like it or not … strong growth in the PV industry comes with strong growth in grid-connected applications. Off-grid (remote) applications show slow, steady growth over time, but have not driven the industry into gigawatt sales. It is the grid-connected applications (residential, small, medium and large commercial, large field commercial and utility) that dominate the market for photovoltaic modules. Indeed, at 94% of total sales in 2008, the volume of grid-connected installation leaves very little module product available for off-grid applications.
The grid-connected application remains driven by government subsidy/support programmes (Europe’s feed-in tariffs, US rebates, for example). Without such programmes the market for grid-connected PV products would decrease dramatically. The significant decrease in demand in 2009 is a lesson to the industry about the significant changes that could take place in demand, revenues and profitability when markets are abused, and when so-called ‘black swan’ events, such as the global recession, alter the playing field and force reactive market and price setting.
Figure 3 (shown above) offers an aggregate five-year forecast for grid-connected applications. The recession forecast is presented in Figure 3, but is considered a two-year anomaly. Meanwhile, Figure 2 excludes off-grid applications. However, at more than 90% of the total market demand, the volume of grid-connected applications effectively represents the total industry volume.
All is not doom and gloom, however, with encouraging current market developments in the US and some other countries. There is continued progress in lowering manufacturing costs so that a reasonable margin can be maintained along with lower system prices. We see progress in increasing efficiencies for all technologies, and business model innovations, meaning that accelerated growth will resume for the PV industry. Certainly, at this stage in PV industry development (which could be likened to its preadolescence) there is room to grow and much to learn before a stable, sustainable level of annual growth settles in. Until then, exciting, and sometimes painful times remain ahead.
Source: Renewable Energy World
Keep it Green
It is our desire to always be open and transparent. We at Greencon have always been a little concerned about the actual carbon cost of PV . I have searched far and wide to get a conclusive answer. I stumbled upon this, give me your thoughts:
The environmental cost is Negative in the production of most PV panels. This is a very common misconception about solar panels. Everyone thinks that because they don’t create any waste by themselves that they are this ultimate clean energy source. None thinks about where the materials for the panel came from. The glass, metal, and all the little connectors used in assembling a solar panel don’t take much energy to build but the actual Photovoltaic material DOES!
The vast majority of PV panels are made from silicon that is created in High pressure, high temperature (1650 degrees C) machines. This method is very energy intensive and unfortunately the amount of energy it takes to produce that high quality silicon is more than the solar panels made from the silicon will ever be able to recover. Add on top of that all of the other processes to “dope” the silicon so it will transfer electrons and the cost just keep rising.
To really understand you would need to look into the production of semiconductors. I don’t have any exact numbers because semiconductor manufacturers don’t tell us how much energy they consume so you would have to get a hold of one of their bills to really find out. But my semiconductor professor in college gave us an estimate that was a magnitude larger than the life time capacity of your average solar panel.
Sadly, overall right now PV solar panels are not efficient enough to be used as an energy production method except in cases in of extreme remote locations like Space, at sea, or other places away from a power grid.
Of course Thermal Solar systems are totally different, using the sun’s heat creates steam to generate electricity or to transfer that heat for some other use is a great use of free energy. Production of mirrors or dark glass materials is cheap compared to PV panels.
When it comes to solar cells, there is good news and there is bad news. First the bad news. Installing photovoltaic solar panels on your roof will cost you more than you save on electricity bills before the panels have to be replaced. The good news is that you will reduce your carbon footprint and save energy. That is the conclusion drawn from a study published in Inderscience International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management.
Solar and wind power, and other renewable sources, such as wave and tidal power, represent an energy source that could underpin a sustainable energy policy by minimizing our reliance on fossil fuels and at the same time reducing carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions. The main barrier that has so far hindered the development of a steady market for such “renewable” systems has been their cost.
According to Giacomo Bizzarri of the University of Ferrara and Gianluca Morini of the University of Bologna, the amount of electricity that can be saved over the lifetime of a domestic PV panel is about 2000 kWh per square meter for thin film modules, with an expected life of 20 years, single-crystalline silicon devices with an anticipated lifespan of 25 years fare better producing 4400 kWh per square metre. However, the initial costs are about 2.5 times the value of the electricity produced, the researchers say.
The pair carried out a cost-benefit analysis and found that the total energy produced over a two-year period outweighs the energy used in manufacture, installation, and maintenance. Their analysis also shows that the manufacture and use of PV panels produces less pollution than fossil fuel based electricity generation.
The researchers say that their analysis holds even in countries with medium sunshine. This makes PV panels a viable alternative energy supply but will not save you money, unless the price of electricity rises three to four times, which will give a positive internal rate of return.
Bizzarri and Morini point out that cost should not be the only consideration. The total energy and pollution involved in sourcing the raw materials, manufacturing, installing, and maintaining any particular system should also be considered. After all, if it uses far more energy to build a wind farm or install solar panels than the energy they can produce during their lifetime then it does not make environmental or economic sense to install them.
With this in mind, the researchers analysed all the costs from cradle to grave – in terms of energy use, pollution and carbon footprint, and economic – to find out whether photovoltaic cells are a truly viable alternative energy source.
Three different kinds of PV devices were assessed: single-crystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, and thin film copper indium diselenide. The team considered the costs from the point of manufacture to end-of-life disposal. “Our study considers the systems through the whole of their life cycle, “from cradle to grave”, the researchers explain, “leading to the estimation of the energy, economic and emission payback times.”
In their assessment of the three different PV panel types on the south-facing roof of a school in Ferrara, northern Italy, the team found that the energy produced by the panels over their lifetimes considerably overcomes the energy needed during manufacture. In fact, energy costs are recovered within two years in this medium sunshine climate. The team also showed that carbon dioxide emissions are significantly lower over the PV panel lifetime from cradle-to-grave compared with conventional electricity generation. Economic costs, the team found, would only be recouped if the panels remained fully functional for more than twenty years.
The researchers suggest that their study, which takes into account all the hidden costs in terms of energy, pollution, and money, could provide a role model for policy makers considering renewable energy sources.”
Well it does seem to pay it self back, and although there is a manufacturing cost to the environment it seems far reduced from coal fired energy costs.
Keep it Green
Posted in Greencon, Greencon Environmental Research, Greencon Solar Technology Update |
Tags: Carbon Footprint, PV, Solar Power |
No Comments »