Renewables you support-solar or wind.

[mudwhistle]

How long do roof solar panels last? - Yahoo Answers

All thick film panels I've seen are either warrantied for 20 or 25 years.

However, there are no moving parts and so the only failure mechanisms that could come into play to cause them to fail would be physical damage or some sort of electro-migration effect. The electro-migration effect might take 100s of years to cause a problem.

However, by 20 or 25 years from now, there will have been advancements that would make a current generation panel the equivalent of an Edsel anyway. So I would expect that you would want to replace them even if they had not failed.

There is no "regular maintenance" required of a solar panel. (I don't considing brushing leaves or dust off the panels to be maintenance, in the sense that you need to change oil in your car, for example). Most inverters will have a coling fan and some sort of filter, which will probably require cleaning if not change occassionally.

I did a little more looking at what causes degradation in solar panels, since I know the cell itself should not degrade. This is what I found: Renewable Energy & Efficiency Technologies | Home Power Magazine...

PV warranties typically allow for 20 percent output degradation over the module’s 20- to 25-year warranty life. But measurements of many modules put into service in the 1980s show that it’s unusual to see even half that much degradation. Many of those earliest modules still perform to their original specifications. It is safe to say that modules carrying warranties of 20 years or more have a high probability of working well 30 years from now

Not bad for something that only fucks the planet once and makes it back in aces for 20+ years I wonder if these people have any clue on just how many tons a year of coal, and gallons of natural gas solar keeps us from burning. One of my reports I posted above shows that it has the pollution of silcon wafers. Don't like your computer???? Believe me that would pollute just as badly if there wasn't for the regulations we have in America. Oh no one has to break their back in working in that coal mine or dying of cancer from black lung

These people will scream and rage against regs but this is why we have them. Enjoy the clean air? Clean water? Thank your government.


Corporate Citizenship Report - News - Converting silicon wafers to solar panels

Converting silicon wafers to solar panels

For more than 10 years, TI has been recycling scrap silicon wafers, keeping this material left over from the chipmaking process out of the waste stream.

TI not only rescues scrap silicon that is otherwise destined for the smelter or waste heap, but ensures that the silicon is put to good use, for example in solar panels.

TI's recycled wafers have produced enough solar panels to supply electricity year-round to approximately 1,600 homes. Use of solar panels has helped prevent an estimated 10,900 metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere, the equivalent to planting half a million trees.

Paul Westbrook, TI's sustainable development manager, said TI recycled 95 percent of its waste in 2010, scrap silicon being one example.

There's more than one way to mine coal.

Out West they have more coal that can be strip-mined than there is oil in the Middle-East.

 

[Peterf]

Germany uses a lot of wind(about 1/3rd of their energy mix) at a profit. Energy companies wouldn't add it to their energy profile if it didn't make a profile.
Tens of thousands of people buy roof top solar and make a profit.

They only make a profit because they are heavily subsidised - mainly by government guaranteeing them a price way above the market value for the energy they produce.

 

[Peterf]

No wind or solar power is produced anywhere in the world without direct or indirect tax-payer subsidies.

The only economic renewables are nuclear and geothermal, with fusion to come.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Firewood is renewable. Makes a nice cozy setting, too.

I like it best.

 

[RGR]

Ban coal, natural gas and oil for energy use....


This is the only thing that make sense.

Not at all. But coming from someone undoubtedly using coal, natural gas and oil in all sorts of ways, it is wildly ironic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.

That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.

 

[Derideo_Te]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?

The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.

Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines

This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.

The simple answer is it requires a massive amount of energy to make a Solar Panel, a Solar plant or Wind Turbine plant can not produce that kind of energy.

Further it takes hydrocarbon chemicals to make Solar and Wind components. Solar and Wind technologies can not exist without Oil. The use Oil at an increased rate to produce Solar and Wind energy is extremely short sighted and wasteful

silicon tetrachloride, one toxic pollutant, a by-product of the not so Green Energy industry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

how about a link to the article?

Ironic!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate.

Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution.

I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.

Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution.

Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.

And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.

 

[westwall]

So lets say the panels only last two years. What mind blowing amazing amount of energy it must take to make these things IF they really do require the same amount of energy as 2 years of running your home on coal. Jesus.

Matthew, here is a fact you need to deal with. Solar module payback time is roughly 40 years. They have a life expectancy of 25 years.

Do you see the problem there?

 

[Politico]

What's to support? It's requires fossil fuels to make them. It's a freaking fact derp.

 

[westwall]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?

The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.

After 5 years of use the maintenance costs on windmills eats all of the profits. Solar panels have a life expectancy of 25 years.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?

The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.

After 5 years of use the maintenance costs on windmills eats all of the profits. Solar panels have a life expectancy of 25 years.

Wind Turbines

Operation and Maintenance Costs

From experience, the maintenance costs of a new turbine will be very low but as the turbine ages these costs will increase.

Studies done in Denmark on the 5000 wind turbines installed in the country since 1975 has demonstrated that each new generations of turbines has had lower repair and maintenance costs than the previous generation. (The studies compared wind turbines which were built and erected at approximately the same time, but which belong to different technological generations).

Older wind turbines have an annual maintenance cost are on average 3% of the original cost of the turbine. Because newer turbines are usually quite substantially larger you get an economy of scale, lower maintenance costs per kW of rated power. This is simply because you do not need to service a large turbine any more often than a small one. Couple this with the constant development of new materials and techniques and you will make savings on the maintenance costs. For modern machines the estimated maintenance costs are in the range of 1.5% to 2% of the original investment per annum.

Project Lifetime, Design Lifetime

The components of a wind turbine are typically designed to remain operational for twenty years. It would be quite easy, and hardly any more expensive to design and build some of the components to remain operational for far longer. However, because most of the major components would be very expensive to build for a longer life span, it would be a waste to have a whole turbine standing idle because one part failed years earlier than the rest.

By agreeing on a twenty year design lifetime, an economic compromise is met which guides the engineers who develop new components for wind turbines. When planning new components they know that it will be expected to work reliably for two decades. They have to show that their planned components will have little chance of failing within twenty years of installation.

The design lifetime of a component compared to its actual lifetime means that a wind turbine can last far longer than originally planned. How long it will continue working depends on the build quality of all of the turbine components, how well put together and the local environmental conditions. Environment isn't just the wind factors, like how much turbulence is experienced at the site, but also the air density, average humidity, even seismic factors.

 

[flacaltenn]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.

That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.

An aside for Matthew....
You're a piss poor Republican if you insist on DEMANDING that solar be installed on every roof and you want the Govt to approve every investment in electrical generation..

And in general for Matthew, but also tossed to Derideo...

You continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..

A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...

The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.

That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.

Just as an aside.. You're a piss poor Republican if you want to DEMAND that solar gets installed on every roof and you think the Govt should design the electrical generation system.

But moreover, you continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..

A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...

The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...

Non sequitur response!

 

[flacaltenn]

This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.

The simple answer is it requires a massive amount of energy to make a Solar Panel, a Solar plant or Wind Turbine plant can not produce that kind of energy.

Further it takes hydrocarbon chemicals to make Solar and Wind components. Solar and Wind technologies can not exist without Oil. The use Oil at an increased rate to produce Solar and Wind energy is extremely short sighted and wasteful

silicon tetrachloride, one toxic pollutant, a by-product of the not so Green Energy industry.

There are tetrachlorides used in cleaning and processing silicon.. But the worst nightmare is the use of the Worlds Most Powerful GreenHouse gas...

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/deWild etal - paper EPVSEC22 Milano - 20070830 MdW.pdf

Some fluorinated gases (F-gases) which are used, or considered to be used, in crystalline silicon photovoltaic solar cell and film silicon module manufacturing have a very high global warming effect. CF4, C2F6, SF6 and NF3 have global warming potentials 7390, 12200, 22800 and 17200 times higher than CO2.

As electricity mix we use the European UCTE average which corresponds to greenhouse gas emissions of 484 g CO2-eq per kWh. The impact assessment method used is CML 2 baseline 2000 (modified with latest GWPs of CF4, C2F6, SF6 and NF3 from [2]). The functional unit for the LCA comparison is 1 kWh of electricity produced by PV systems in Southern Europe.


Finally we compare the effects on global warming for the investigated process alternatives in terms of CO2-eq emission per kWh generated. For this comparison we assume a PV system with multi- or monocrystalline modules located in Southern-Europe (irradiation 1700 kWh/m2.year), a Performance Ratio of 0.75 and a system life time of 30 years. Module efficiencies are 13.2% respectively 14% for multi- and monocrystalline silicon. The total greenhouse gas emission for a silicon PV system, produced with the wet acid or wet alkaline texturing process, under these conditions is 30 or 36 g/kWh for multi- respectively monocrystalline modules

Note that the 35gram number is for an UNTESTED ALTERNATE process with lower GreenHouse implications.. You have to dig thru the paper to see WHAT ACTUALLY the CO2 equivalents are for REAL solar panel processes.. But they are currently 3X that number or about 100gr/KWhr over the lifetime of the panel..

THUS -- The CO2 implications of JUST MANUFACTURING the panels is about 25% of the current Euro mix of emissions. But it is STILL HIGH !!!

And that's just manufacturing.. Doesn't include the enviro effects of needing massive battery barns. AND it doesn't include the mining of the raw materials and the FEEDER stock of chemicals and other materials.

So one can believe that solar panels emit considerable amounts of CO2 over their lifetime. So the savings in GHGases are NOT infinite --- but maybe about 50% over a "current mix" of baseline generation...

When you add the battery barns required to put MORE of this crap on the grid.. THEN --- it's a losing proposition all around..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Your stupid oil, natural gas and coal will be gone within the next 100 years. One way or another we will be running on renewables.

 

[flacaltenn]

That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.

Just as an aside.. You're a piss poor Republican if you want to DEMAND that solar gets installed on every roof and you think the Govt should design the electrical generation system.

But moreover, you continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..

A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...

The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...

Non sequitur response!

Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..

Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just as an aside.. You're a piss poor Republican if you want to DEMAND that solar gets installed on every roof and you think the Govt should design the electrical generation system.

But moreover, you continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..

A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...

The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...

Non sequitur response!

Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..

Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??

You are the first, and as yet only poster, to have come up with this off the wall idea of requiring batteries to support renewable energy sources. Here is a newsflash for you, the wind is always blowing somewhere or other. Water will still be flowing through hydro-electric plants. The tides will still be going in and out providing tidal power. Geothermal sources will still be operating on "full steam". And yes, nuclear plants will still be in operation and so will natural gas "instant on" emergency power generators.

So yes, your post was a complete and utter non sequitur.