Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
That 2013 paper is 'independent' in a limited sense; all the authors are associated with “The Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics,” (which is part of an international group, which also includes scientists who are affiliated with Polish and Canadian institutions.)
There were quite a few rebuttals to the study: its numbers are wildly different from the estimates produced by other peer-reviewed literature, and suffers from some rather extreme assumptions. Solar panels, according to Weißbach, generate four times as much energy over their lifetimes as it takes to manufacture them. That wasn't the case even in 2013; most research suggests its likely that solar panels, over their lifetime, generate 10-15 times as much energy as it takes to produce them and their associated hardware. That number now would be closer to 25, and it’s rising over time. However it's true that in Germany, and BC that number would generally be lower.
Without producing a long, boring point by point research paper, it's maybe worth considering that the results in Weißbach's paper assumes that half of all solar power is thrown away (which it isn't), he used 2005 data on energy use for production of silicon, which was much less efficient than today (or 2013), and he assumes that the power created has to be stored for ten days, significantly adding to its costs.
The whole EROI thing is a bit of a red herring, and I wish I hadn't stirred fredino into one of their 'world's longest post' responses. To reiterate my point, and withdraw after having made it, BC Hydro note that solar may be a useful addition to the relatively modest amount of additional power generation they calculate we'll need to 2041. That probably won't be huge commercial solar farms (as there are in Alberta and in the US) but mostly more modest facilities owned by building owners to reduce their private, individual electricity requirements. It's a useful replacement in places currently using generators, and technology (for panels and batteries) is getting more efficient and cheaper over time.
|
Fair points. Let's hope academia produces a more objective study with recent cost/benefit numbers... though I suspect it still won't make large-scale PV viable in most of Canada. And I believe the nuclear discussion involves what to do
after 2041.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
First of all, I agree with your final statement. I don't think anybody argues it's the first option, just a useful topup, especially in the south-east of BC where the weather is quite favourable (compared to the Lower Mainland). - check out the BC map here. |
Thanks for clarifying - the number of people I've encountered who do argue such is disappointingly high. One particularly egregious example thought the Arbutus Greenway would be great as a Solar Freaking Bikeway.
Kamloops and the Okanagan could work. Given the harsher winters though, it'd have to be coupled with significantly more advanced energy storage than we have right now; lithium-ion isn't particularly efficient or sustainable on a macro level.
Threaded Mode