[Gilbert Fritz]

I know many peak oilers think that solar power is not the solution to our problems. I thought so too, until I read this. Can somebody help me find the flaws in this article?

http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.com/201 ... -than.html

[MD]

haven't read it yet, but I am bold enough to address it sight unseen:

Solar power is the answer to our problems.

[americandream]

I know many peak oilers think that solar power is not the solution to our problems. I thought so too, until I read this. Can somebody help me find the flaws in this article?

http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.com/201 ... -than.html

If an energy source can match fossil fuels, unit for unit in the accumulative process, there is no reason why it should not be adopted by capitalism.

[MD]

The author understands that the sun pours "limitless" energy on our planet, which is true enough, for now.

From there he has no where to go, so he flounders into speculative outcomes.

And maybe he will prove right, but that's not where i am placing my bets.

[sunweb]

ERoEI is only a part of the issue with solar and wind energy capturing devices. Solar and wind capturing devices are not alternative energy sources. For the physical devices – for wind, photovoltaices, solar hot water, hot air panels - the sun and wind are there, are green, are sustained. The devices that are used to capture the sun and wind’s energy are an extension of the fossil fuel supply system.

There is a massive infrastructure of mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating, installation, transportation and the associated environmental assaults. There would be no sun or wind capturing devices with out this infrastructure. This infrastructure is not green, sustainable, or renewable. The making of these devices inadvertently but directly supports fracking, tar sands and deep ocean drilling because of the need for this infrastructure.
I invite anyone cheerleading for solar to view these essays.
This essay has diagrams and pictures of how we get copper, aluminum, glass, black chrome – the chemicals, heavy machinery, and industrial processes that are necessary to make the devices to capture the energy of the sun and wind.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/ma ... aking.html

And even if you could get around the environmental degradation, the low ERoEI and could amass enough extra energy to reproduce the capturing devices and their equipment, then how about the rest of the STUFF of high tech, high energy society?

http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/10/to ... -bulb.html
and
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-small-fan.html

[KaiserJeep]

There is an energy storage problem with solar power, either distributed (rooftop) or central (large desert power plant). You not only have to generate power, you have to deliver it to WHERE it is needed WHEN it is needed. That turns out to be harder and much more expensive than simply generating electricity.

There is also a huge gap between installed capacity and generated power. Here in sunny California I have sixteen solar panels installed on my roof. Each panel will produce 175 watts in full daylight, a total of 2800 watts. But daylight is only half the day/night cycle, and sometimes it is cloudy even during the day.

If the sun were to shine 24X7 at 100% intensity, my solar roof would produce 2040 kWhrs of power per month. However what it actually produces is an average (after 4 years of averaging) of 317 kWhrs of power per month, meaning that my solar roof runs at 15.5% of installed capacity. You won't do much better than that - maybe 18% max, in the Mohave Desert or in Texas. That's the difference between installed capacity and actual output power - and anybody who talks installed capacity is attempting to deceive you.

The distribution of power is another huge problem. A large central solar power plant in a desert is nowhere near power grid main feeder lines, guaranteed, because it's in a useless desert where nobody lives. An oil or coal or natural gas or nuclear power plant can be built adjacent to people, runs 24X7, and the power is thus consumed where needed, when needed.

Distributed solar power using the power grid in place of batteries such as my residential rooftop actually makes a lot of sense. The peak power demand is during Summer days with Air Conditioning - the same time that distributed solar is producing maximum power. With distributed solar, you can avoid the need for excessive "peaking" power plants, and avoid the need to upgrade the power grid to deliver peak power. However you can never replace the "baseline" power plants producing the power needed 24X7. For that California depends upon Diesel plants (fuelled by 5% oil and 95% natural gas), hydropower (except in a prolonged drought), and nuclear energy.

That's the main two problems with solar energy. Wind power is similarly limited, but makes it up into the 18% to 22% range (actual production versus installed capacity) if the wind turbines are located in near-ideal locations such as windy mountain passes. But unlike sunshine which is evenly distributed, these ideal mountain pass locations are limited in number.

Hydropower has been the most productive source of renewable energy over the decades in California. But now we have a serious drought in California that is severely limiting hydropower.

California is currently buying renewable energy from surrounding states to meet our goals. It's expensive.

EROEI is simply not the problem with renewables, even though renewables tend to be very expensive power plants compared to fossil fuels. The real problems are that renewables are not capable - NOT AT ALL CAPABLE - of supplying power that matches the power demand in capacity and location. Building more renewable generation does not help relieve these basic problems. We need energy storage that is both cheap and safe, or renewable energy will forever be just a minor contributor to our total power generation.

[Newfie]

KJ,

Not a bad synopsis.

I would add this, from my gut, that replacing heat would be an issue. Look at any large mid latitude city; NYC, Boston, Chicago, Berlin... How are you going to heat those buildings?

We do not have the electric infrastructure to move that quantity of electricity in and the buildings would have to be converted to electric heat.

I may be possible to build solar power stations to create such heat, but I suspect that they would be of such magnitude that they would then start to create their own microclimates and/or create climatic distortortions. Cities do, where the heat is released, it seems the heat collection sites would be similar.

Heat and our existing housing stock are something that is often over looked in these alt energy discussions. Maureen you can build highly energy efficient housing using very little heat, but almost 100% of our existing housing stock is of pretty low efficiency. And we simply don't have the reread ing resources to tear it all spdown and start over again.

[Henriksson]

Far more important than EROEI. While solar thermal can cover a lot of the heat demand, a critical part remains solely in the province of fossil fuels.

[ROCKMAN]

Gilbert - "Renewables have ERoEI ratios which are generally comparable to, or higher than, fossil fuels". So why is it important to debunk or defend this statement? No company has ever drilled a well based upon EROEI...and never will. Likewise no decision to install wind turbines or solar panels was ever based upon EROEI...and never will.

The decision to drill or build out any alt will be based upon the economics and practicalities. As been pointed out many times the economic justification to drill an oil/NG will condemn the project long before the EROEI will get too low. And now one is going to build out a $1 billion wind farm even if the EROEI is 100 if it doesn't also represent an ECONOMICALLY viable investment. Of course there is a link between ROR and EROEI. But answer the question for yourself: you can invest in some alt to replace some fossil fuels in your life. But if doing so the energy cost you more to do so? There is a very small minority that might but the majority will always go with the cheaper option even if its EROEI isn't as high as another option.

[eugene]

I think anyone who realistically looks at solar or wind will not be deluded by the narrow views of either as our "solutions". While such "solutions" are fun to talk about over a cup of coffee, the reality of the whole economic picture is a wet blanket. Many yrs ago, I built a house myself. The Sunday morning plans were a lot of optimistic fun but then I picked up hammer to discover my coffee discussions missed a whole helluva lot of problems. I've learned, the hard way, that reality always wins.

[kublikhan]

This was debunked here:

Renewable ERoEI’s better because they don’t waste heat? Huh?

The debunking focuses on 2 main points:

#1 BountifulEnergy double subtracted waste heat. His argument is that waste heat was already accounted for in the original calculations and BountifulEnergy is subtracting it a second time.

#2 BountifulEnergy neglected to factor in the costs of storage/backup power. Energy storage is actually so expensive right now that it is cheaper to build a natural gas plant and use it as backup power than it is to built a battery bank of storage. Pumped storage is cheaper, but viable pumped storage locations are limited by geography. Energy storage costs are dropping, but at the moment natural gas is still more economically viable.

You also might want to follow the comments on the BountifulEnergy blog as there is alot of back and forth by the 2 authors in question.

As to the other points in the BountifulEnergy blog piece, I think they are generally sound.

[GHung]

Kaiser Jeep: "We need energy storage that is both cheap and safe, or renewable energy will forever be just a minor contributor to our total power generation.

I would re-phrase the debate to; 'Can solar power with storage be the answer to YOUR energy needs?' It depends on how one defines "needs". Those who insist that solar energy won't be replacing current demands put on energy systems are probably right, but some of us have been deriving most or nearly all of their home energy needs from solar for years. Combined solar (PV, passive, evacuated tube hot water) provides 100% of our home's energy most of the year supplemented by a small amount of wood heat during cold spells. We use propane for cooking, or electric when we have a surplus; not infrequent. We have all of the amenities most of you have (microwave, two flat screen TVs, dishwasher, washer/dryer, etc) and adapting their use to times of sufficient electrical production isn't a problem.

Maintanence costs have been negligible beyond replacing the battery set once since 1998. Total cost for both battery sets was under $10,000. We've spent far more during that period on vehicles and their associated costs. In fact, this cost comparison applies to the entire system; less overall costs than transportation for a system that has been in constant use 24/7/365. We NEVER lose power. Batteries are maintained with automatic watering system. Our current battery exibits no loss of capacity after 7 years, though we plan for a 10 year replacement cycle. Ammortized annual batery costs for this set should be around $580/year, including distilled water. Safe and affordable?

I'm not going to get into SunWebesque debates regarding the sustainabity of such systems since none of us knows where we'll be in 20 years, and most of us could agree that most of our top-down complex systems will be in various stages of failure at that point, and that virtually all of these systems are dependent on fossil fuels for their production and maintenance; some less than others. As Rock suggests; EROEI be damned. It's all about making better choices from the list of choices we have now. I, for one, stopped worrying about what the rest of you will do some time back. We do the things we can, locally, or we submit ourselves to the vagaries of collective behaviour in an age of decline. There is no perfect plan, but some plans are less imperfect than others.

Specs:
52kWh battery set @ 24 volt DC
6.4 kW PV capacity currently installed + water pumping; more in storage
10kW inverter capacity, continous
60 tube evacuated tube water heating system with 1600 liters storage
Several hundred square feet of south-facing glass and thermal mass to store heat.
Passive heating/cooling helps maintain comfortable conditions in the home.
Water is solar-pumped from a spring on the property. 2400 gallons storage.











Our first panels; still producing >full rated output after 20 years continuous production-




Got a 'Plan B'? Society doesn't. Quit worrying about what the rest of humanity will do.

[Keith_McClary]

Critical elements such as indium, gallium, tellurium and rhenium are by products of mining copper, zinc, aluminium, molybdenum or nickel.

That means they are cheap when demand is below production, but unavailable in larger quantities.

[Keith_McClary]

The writer does not use the usual definition of ERoEI and does not say how he defines it. He seems confused.

[GHung]

Critical elements such as indium, gallium, tellurium and rhenium are by products of mining copper, zinc, aluminium, molybdenum or nickel.

That means they are cheap when demand is below production, but unavailable in larger quantities.

Define 'larger quantities'. Current global installed capacity of PV is in excess of 140 gigawatts. I suppose that means that large quantities of these elements haven't been available, eh?

[Keith_McClary]

Critical elements such as indium, gallium, tellurium and rhenium are by products of mining copper, zinc, aluminium, molybdenum or nickel.

That means they are cheap when demand is below production, but unavailable in larger quantities.

Define 'larger quantities'. Current global installed capacity of PV is in excess of 140 gigawatts. I suppose that means that large quantities of these elements haven't been available, eh?

'larger quantities' means many times current consumption.
If PV depends on these elements and they are only available as by products then there may not be enough:

Trancik summarized the paper's findings concerning CIGS and cadmium telluride production: "To meet even relatively small percentages of electricity demand by the year 2030, these technologies would require historically unprecedented [metals production] growth rates."
The reasoning? In mining, CIGS and cadmium telluride are considered byproduct metals, not mined for their own sake, but only accessible as byproducts of the mining processes for other metals, such as copper. Upping their production, therefore, is a cost-intensive process.
the-solar-cell-thread-pt-3-merged-t69112-100.html#p1217462

[kublikhan]

Critical elements such as indium, gallium, tellurium and rhenium are by products of mining copper, zinc, aluminium, molybdenum or nickel.

That means they are cheap when demand is below production, but unavailable in larger quantities.

Those elements are only used in thin film solar cells. These solar cells make up less than 10% of solar PV. Most is just plain old Earth abundant silicon.

[KaiserJeep]

The problem is not only solar, but electricity in general. It is not a substitute for liquid fuel.

Again, it depends upon the nature of the demand. If you are talking about a conventional home and conventional vehicle, no way. But assume that you superinsulate, build a tight structure, use high performance windows, add heat exchange ventilation, etc. IOW build a home to the "Passive House" standard that genuinely will use 10% or less total energy than is consumed by a modern structure built to the (obsolete for today) "Building Codes".

It's completely possible to put PV panels on such a home to supply all required power, and completely reasonable - even in a cold climate like the MidWest or New England or even Alaska - to build an "All Electric" home with no fossil fuel inputs at all. That would be the "Zero Energy" goal. You could also oversize the PV roof to the point where it supported both the home and a Level Two charger for an EV, the "Energy Plus" goal. Obviously, you need to select a site within EV range of all your routine needs - that way, you plan any liquid-fuel-required activities such as an annual vacation separately.

Of course, you are correct that in the majority of cases with existing homes and existing vehicles, electricity does not replace liquid fuels. You definitely need to plan for that specific goal, and meeting the Passive House standard alone can cost you 20% more than a conventional structure - and the "Energy Plus" vehicle charger might push that to 25% above a conventional home's cost.

It depends on whether you want to keep driving in your old age, or live in a group home, or be dependant upon your kids. Modern pharmaceuticals make independent living possible for many older people - do you or do you not want to take advantage of that fact? My GrandMother and Father both were miracles of modern Pharma, both lived until the final weeks of their lives at home. We adopted their homes to their needs, and today (or in the near future) low net energy consumption is a need that applies to all, without it, expect to need a place to stay in the Winter.

The "Tiny House" movement is another way to go here, I suppose. The net energy requirements of a conventionally insulated under-500 square foot house are also quite reasonable. I prefer a more conventional 2400+ square foot "Passive House".