A top photovoltaics firm -- Japan's Sharp Corp. -- plans work in Albuquerque
H2-PV NOW
A top photovoltaics firm plans work in Albuquerque
NMBW Staff
Japan's Sharp Corp., one of the world's leading producers of
photovoltaic components and systems, has signed off on a cooperative
research and development agreement (CRADA) that will bring new solar
power research and development efforts to the Duke City.
News of the agreement was announced late Tuesday by the state Economic
Development Department, which reportedly played a role in brokering the
CRADA that will be performed at Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque.
Sandia, one of the most advanced solar energy research facilities in
the world, initially will work with Sharp to examine advanced fuel
cells, but that work is expected to evolve into the advancement of
existing photovoltaic systems characteristics like reliability and
durability.
The EDD says the agreement has been in the works since June, following
Gov. Bill Richardson's meeting with Sharp officials in Tokyo when a
memorandum of understanding between the state and Sharp was signed.
The CRADA has the potential to bring new jobs, research activity and
investment dollars to New Mexico while Sharp can benefit from Sandia's
extensive research facilities and the state's ideal environment for
photovoltaics testing.
Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into electricity
and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
Maximust
> http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2005/10/17/daily15.html
>
> A top photovoltaics firm plans work in Albuquerque
> NMBW Staff
Exxon has $10 billion new profits this quarter. How much are they investing in
non-petroleum energy?
Don Lancaster
>>Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
>>solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into electricity
>>and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
>>typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
>
>
A popular urban lore myth.
Not one net watthour of PV solar electricity has ever been generated.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Melchizedek
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Maximust wrote:
>
> >>Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
> >>solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into electricity
> >>and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
> >>typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
> >
> >
>
> A popular urban lore myth.
> Not one net watthour of PV solar electricity has ever been generated.
Try burning fossil fuels to replace the daily sunlight and you'll soon
find out how expensive fossil fuels are compared to sunlight.
Lancaster is chronic liar. Independent PV installations are across the
world, everywhere. In some places it costs 20x, 50x 1000x the cost of
PV to bring in grid electricity. By cherry-picking the USA most
electrified centers, and ignoring remote locations, Lancaster falsifies
the reality to promote a political agenda. He has thousands upon
thousands of messages badmouthing PV & H2, because he gets paid to do
so. NOBODY is so motivated to moniter for years on end newsgroups they
hate just to tell lies.
ASK LANCASTER TO PRODUCE THE FIGURES IT WOULD HAVE COST TO TIE TELSTAR
SATELLITE UP TO THE GRID, and which is cheaper: PV or Grid Electricity?
THe research and learning going on with PV keeps dropping the price and
making more available. Some energy companies are known to hire
"whitecoat" experts to lie about alternatives to keep their profits
high -- when looked into these "experts" turn out to be amazingly cheap
whores, working for peanuts.
When Clinton left office OIL was $20 a barrel -- is $62 a barrel today.
In 2001 what was the cost of a gallon of gas? What today?
In 2001 what was the cost of a gallon of fuel oil? What today?
It's Lancaster's JOB to see these trends continue as long as they can
get away with it...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102900126.html
Market Virtually Guarantees Big Oil Profits
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page F02
Oil companies reported another quarter of record or near-record
profits, rekindling old debates about price gouging and a
windfall-profit tax.
Even after accounting for lost sales and damages to its rigs and
refineries and pipelines in the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast region,
the third-quarter results were nothing less than breathtaking. Exxon
Mobil was up 75 percent over the comparable quarter last year, to $9.9
billion. Royal Dutch Shell up 68 percent, to $9 billion. BP up 34
percent, to $6.5 billion. ConocoPhillips up 89 percent, to $3.8
billion. And pulling up the rear, poor Chevron, up a mere 12 percent,
to $3.6 billion.
STOP listening to Lancaster and pay the price to get the VAMPIRES teeth
out of your throats. Whatever that price is, it's CHEAP compared to the
alternative.
Steve Spence
> Maximust wrote:
>
>>> Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
>>> solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into electricity
>>> and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
>>> typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
>>
>>
>>
>
> A popular urban lore myth.
> Not one net watthour of PV solar electricity has ever been generated.
>
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>
>
>
the part about them being found in remote and grid-tied applications? I
think both of those statements are obviously true. Maybe it's the part
about them being more common then solar thermal? That could be very
true. I would think solar water heaters are more common than pv, but
then I think of all those emergency telephones on the side of the
interstates and portable road signs that are pv powered, and that
definitely moves the slider towards pv. Could be you didn't even read
the post, and hit one of your macro keys again .....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Don Lancaster
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
>> Maximust wrote:
>>
>>>> Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
>>>> solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into electricity
>>>> and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
>>>> typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A popular urban lore myth.
>> Not one net watthour of PV solar electricity has ever been generated.
>>
>> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>>
>>
>>
> Which part is the myth? that they convert sunlight into electricity, or
> the part about them being found in remote and grid-tied applications? I
> think both of those statements are obviously true. Maybe it's the part
> about them being more common then solar thermal? That could be very
> true. I would think solar water heaters are more common than pv, but
> then I think of all those emergency telephones on the side of the
> interstates and portable road signs that are pv powered, and that
> definitely moves the slider towards pv. Could be you didn't even read
> the post, and hit one of your macro keys again .....
>
>
The part about them being a net energy source is simply not true.
They do NOT convert sunlight to energy. They use sunlight to SLIGHTLY
offset A MINOR FRACTION of their conventional traditional energy costs.
A detailed tutorial appears at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Melchizedek
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
> > Don Lancaster wrote:
> >
> >> Maximust wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
> >>>> solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into electricity
> >>>> and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
> >>>> typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> A popular urban lore myth.
> >> Not one net watthour of PV solar electricity has ever been generated.
> >>
> >> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Which part is the myth? that they convert sunlight into electricity, or
> > the part about them being found in remote and grid-tied applications? I
> > think both of those statements are obviously true. Maybe it's the part
> > about them being more common then solar thermal? That could be very
> > true. I would think solar water heaters are more common than pv, but
> > then I think of all those emergency telephones on the side of the
> > interstates and portable road signs that are pv powered, and that
> > definitely moves the slider towards pv. Could be you didn't even read
> > the post, and hit one of your macro keys again .....
> >
> >
>
> The part about them being a net energy source is simply not true.
>
> They do NOT convert sunlight to energy. They use sunlight to SLIGHTLY
> offset A MINOR FRACTION of their conventional traditional energy costs.
>
Calculate the cost of grid power to run the solar-powered Mars Rovers.
Exactly how many millions of miles of electrical cord did you say you
would need?
Half the world doesn't have grid power yet, and it would cost more for
them to get it than to put PV in place at today's prices, nevermind at
tomorrow's PV prices which will be far lower. You live in an opium
dream where taxpayer subsidized rural electrification, and
taxpayer-financed pollution repairs and taxpayer burden for 20,000
generations have to watch over your toxic nuke wastes. In you heaven
where the taxpayers pay 90% of the costs of your dirty coal electricity
and pay 90% of the military costs to get you gasoline from farway
countries, you look at the price on the pump and the price on the
electric bill as if they were the real prices. They are phoney-baloney
opium for addicts like you to believe you are getting cheap energy.
Talk to Cindy Sheehan about how cheap the cost of your energy really
is, killer.
Steve Spence
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Don Lancaster wrote:
>>
>>> Maximust wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Photovoltaics, often called PV panels, are the most common source of
>>>>> solar power generation. They convert sunlight directly into
>>>>> electricity
>>>>> and can be found in remote applications as well as grid-tied systems
>>>>> typically found on the roofs of businesses and homes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A popular urban lore myth.
>>> Not one net watthour of PV solar electricity has ever been generated.
>>>
>>> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Which part is the myth? that they convert sunlight into electricity,
>> or the part about them being found in remote and grid-tied
>> applications? I think both of those statements are obviously true.
>> Maybe it's the part about them being more common then solar thermal?
>> That could be very true. I would think solar water heaters are more
>> common than pv, but then I think of all those emergency telephones on
>> the side of the interstates and portable road signs that are pv
>> powered, and that definitely moves the slider towards pv. Could be you
>> didn't even read the post, and hit one of your macro keys again .....
>>
>>
>
> The part about them being a net energy source is simply not true.
>
> They do NOT convert sunlight to energy. They use sunlight to SLIGHTLY
> offset A MINOR FRACTION of their conventional traditional energy costs.
>
Nothing in that post even insinuated that they are a net energy source.
However, they do convert sunlight to energy, my kWh meter confirms this.
fkasner
It's clear that you cannot present a rational argument. You like adding
apples to peaches with a result being pinapples. You can't compare the
cost of grid energy needed to operate a system where grid energy is
unavailable at any price (e.g., space vehicles, surfaces of distant
planets, very remote regions of Earth such as the antarctic, etc.) But
the big energy needs of people on Earth cannot be competetively provided
(do the economic evaluations for the *full* cost of PV installation and
ancillary equipment) except by conventional energy sources (hydro,
fossil fuel generators, nuclear fueled generators and the associated
large scale grid). If there is any lying that goes on here it is you if
you insist that where the grid is not too distant PV cannot compete.
Even the cleaner fossil fuels such as natural gas are not competetive
enough for power generation so only small amounts of it are used in the
USA for electricity.
FK
Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com
Your homo-obscession with my pinapples is noted, unless, or course you
don't speak Tagalog, and don't know the meaning of what you said there.
I'll excuse it just this once.
> You can't compare the
> cost of grid energy needed to operate a system where grid energy is
> unavailable at any price (e.g., space vehicles, surfaces of distant
> planets, very remote regions of Earth such as the antarctic, etc.)
That's what everybody keeps trying to get across to Lancaster, but as
you know, he's kind of a dim bulb.
The costs of electricity is not just the costs on the utility bill for
kilowhatt-hours. But the jerk doen't understand ny more than that, so
you need extreme examples to get through the extra-thick layers in his
bonehead.
It took generations of American-taxpaers slaving year after year after
year to build all that infrastructure: Hoover Dam, Tennessee Valley
Authority, the Manhatten Project, Rural Electrification. Thank GOD that
under Bush's Balanced Budgets we finally paid off trhe National Debt
and we are not still paying for projects in the done in the 1930s
ferchrizesakes.
Now we only have to pay for new charges, like $300,000,000,000.00 to
repair carbon-pollution from Katrina-Rita-Wilma. Thank your lucky stars
nobody got killed by those storms, eh?
Oh, yeah, the war in Texraq over Saddam's 20% of the world oil supply,
and the war in Afghanistan over Natural Gas pipeline through the
country from our entergy partners up north of there are so small, that
together they barely add up to the cost of Katrina-Rita-Wilma. Thank
whozizname that nobody got killed in those.
> But
> the big energy needs of people on Earth cannot be competetively provided
> (do the economic evaluations for the *full* cost of PV installation and
> ancillary equipment) except by conventional energy sources (hydro,
> fossil fuel generators, nuclear fueled generators and the associated
> large scale grid).
I misplaced my "fully-burdened accounting" and "amortization" figures
for the "grid" and it's externalities. Got a link handy? Lancaster is
always asking for "fully-burdened accounting" and "amortization"
figures, so I want to have them handy.
> If there is any lying that goes on here it is you if
> you insist that where the grid is not too distant PV cannot compete.
PV-LED lighting for busstop shelters is right near the grid, but the
powers that be added up the cost of jackhammering concrete and found
that it was higher to bust up the street and sidewalk then to buy some
PV and high brightness LEDS. It's common to drive down the freeways and
see PV-powered emergency phones right under high-tension towers
right-of-way.
Maybe it has something to do with "fully-burdened accounting" and
"amortization" figures of connecting step-down transformers? Ask
Lancaster what each step-down transformer cost, not to mention the cost
of each pole 500 feet apart to grid connect these phones under the
grid. I've got neighbors on the grid tha added PV-powered electric
gates -- I guess they are not the economics genius that Lancaster is.
What university did Lancaster get his econ PhD, I keep forgetting, and
modest as he is, he never puts it on his website or signature spam???
Nanook
> They do NOT convert sunlight to energy. They use sunlight to SLIGHTLY
> offset A MINOR FRACTION of their conventional traditional energy costs.
You're working on antique information. Early on the manufacturing of
solar panels was so energy intensive that it was doubtful if they'd pay back
the energy it took to make them in a projected thirty year lifespan.
With modern technologies this is no longer the case, the current payback
period is around 18 months.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Shells, Web Hosting, 56K/ISDN/DSL, 2-Week Trial!
Internet access with real toll-free human help as low as $9.00 / month!
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
James Rapier @UselessBastard.net
Nanook wrote:
> In article <3slatvF...@individual.net>, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> writes:
> > They do NOT convert sunlight to energy. They use sunlight to SLIGHTLY
> > offset A MINOR FRACTION of their conventional traditional energy costs.
>
> You're working on antique information. Early on the manufacturing of
> solar panels was so energy intensive that it was doubtful if they'd pay back
> the energy it took to make them in a projected thirty year lifespan.
>
> With modern technologies this is no longer the case, the current payback
> period is around 18 months.
The energy payback time is 32 days of seven sunny hours each by PV
generated electric EMC furnaces making good-enough SoG MC Si PV.
Put your MATH online, not your guesses.
Market Theory
I didn't notice any math in your post.
Some references to academic studies of the energy payback time of PV
panels have been posted recently. There conclusions were measured in
years, not days, but they did conclude that PV panels are energy
positive.
cheers,
--mt.
Dan Bloomquist
Market Theory wrote:
> James Rapier @UselessBastard.net wrote:
>
>>
>>The energy payback time is 32 days of seven sunny hours each by PV
>>generated electric EMC furnaces making good-enough SoG MC Si PV.
>>
>>Put your MATH online, not your guesses.
>
> I didn't notice any math in your post.
>
> Some references to academic studies of the energy payback time of PV
> panels have been posted recently. There conclusions were measured in
> years, not days, but they did conclude that PV panels are energy
> positive.
Shhhh! You will invoke the wrath of Lancaster even if Halloween is over!
The real catch is cost, not energy payback. Human nature won't allow for
renewable resources as long as fossils are cheaper.
Which includes a list of papers on exergy
http://exergy.se/goran/scpapers/index.html
> cheers,
> --mt.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
Melchizedek
> James Rapier @UselessBastard.net wrote:
> > Nanook wrote:
> > > In article <3slatvF...@individual.net>, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> writes:
> > > > They do NOT convert sunlight to energy. They use sunlight to SLIGHTLY
> > > > offset A MINOR FRACTION of their conventional traditional energy costs.
> > >
> > > You're working on antique information. Early on the manufacturing of
> > > solar panels was so energy intensive that it was doubtful if they'd pay back
> > > the energy it took to make them in a projected thirty year lifespan.
> > >
> > > With modern technologies this is no longer the case, the current payback
> > > period is around 18 months.
> >
> > The energy payback time is 32 days of seven sunny hours each by PV
> > generated electric EMC furnaces making good-enough SoG MC Si PV.
> >
> > Put your MATH online, not your guesses.
>
> I didn't notice any math in your post.
Here's from the webpage of the guy who patented EMC Si:
http://www.siliconsultant.com/SImulticrs.htm
"... Multicrystalline ingots as large as 690 mm x 690 mm in cross
section and weighing as much as 240 kg are grown in total cycle times
of 56 hours. The resultant throughput is 4.3 kg/h. Thus, the larger
area, compared to CZ crystals, more than offsets the somewhat lower
linear growth rates leading to higher throughputs for DS by a factor of
~3. Either induction heating or resistance heating can be used. The
energy consumption for DS is in the range of 8-15 kWh/kg. Unlike CZ
growth, the solid/liquid interface is submerged in DS, and precipitates
or slag at the melt surface do not disrupt growth. DS is a simpler
process requiring less skill, manpower, and equipment sophistication
than CZ growth, which can make it a lower cost process. However, there
are also drawbacks. There are numerous crystal defects (grain
boundaries and dislocations) due to the multicrystalline structure.
Impurity contents can be higher depending on the crucibles used, and
portions of the bottom, sides, and top surface of the ingot are
discarded. So, the lower cost of DS is at the expense of solar cell
efficiency. DS solar cells are about 85% as efficient as CZ cells.
The best efficiency of small cells, with sophisticated processing, is
18.6%. Typical large production cell efficiencies are 13%-14%, with
good consistency.
Electromagnetic casting (EMC), shown here, has some similarities to the
casting and DS methods just described, but also has several unique
features that change the ingot properties and warrant a separate
discussion. The method was first applied to semicontinuous silicon
ingot casting by Ciszek (1985, 1986). EMC is based on induction-heated
cold-crucible melt confinement, except that unlike the conventional
cold crucible, there is no crucible bottom. A parallel, vertical array
of close-spaced, but not touching, water-cooled, conducting fingers is
attached at one end to a water-cooling manifold. The other end of each
finger is closed. An internal distribution system carries cooling
water to the tip and back again. The shape of the region enclosed by
the close-spaced fingers determines the cross section of the cast
ingot, and a wide variety of shapes are possible (circular, hexagonal,
square, rectangular, etc.). Silicon is melted on a vertically moveable
platform (typically graphite) located within the finger array. The
melting is accomplished by induction heating after suitable preheating.
The induction coil, placed outside the finger array, induces a current
to flow on the periphery of each finger, around the finger's vertical
axis. Like a high-frequency transformer, each finger in turn induces a
current to flow in the periphery of the silicon charge, about its
vertical axis. The silicon is heated by its resistance to the current
flow. There is Biot and Savart-law repulsion between the current
flowing in the periphery of the silicon melt and the currents flowing
in the fingers, because they are induced to flow in opposite directions
at any particular instant in the RF cycle. Thus, the melt is repulsed
from the water-cooled fingers. The open-bottom arrangement allows the
platform to be withdrawn downward, solidifying the molten silicon,
while new melt is formed by introducing feed material from the top. In
this way, a semicontinuous casting process can be carried out.
A variety of feed silicon geometries can be used (melts, rods, pellets,
scrap, etc.). Because the interface is submerged, feed perturbances or
slag at the melt surface do not affect the solidification front. Ingot
lengths of 3 m have been demonstrated. The cross section of the ingots
has evolved over years of development and is currently about 350 mm x
350 mm. The cold fingers allow steep thermal gradients and fast growth
speeds (~1.5-2.0 mm/min), even in ingots with large cross sections.
But they also cause a steeply curved interface that is concave toward
the melt. Thus, grains are neither as columnar nor as large as in
conventional DS. The average grain size is on the order of 1.5 mm in
large ingots. This decreases t, but the relatively high purity and
freedom from oxygen and carbon impurities (O < 6x1015; C < 8x1016)
largely offset the grain-size effect, so that solar cell efficiencies
of about 14%-15% are obtained on 15 cm x 15 cm cells. The throughput
of EMC is the highest of any ingot growth technique - up to
approximately 30 kg/h. The power consumption is about 12 kWh/kg. ..."
The Key statement = "The power consumption is about 12 kWh/kg."
One must divide net usable waferstocks from the ingot dimensions and
weight to calculate the PV efficiency of the Si from the EMC process.
The author cites 14%-15% net efficiency cells from a related process.
Other authorities specify 13%-14% efficiency PV cells.
For the time being I use 50% net silicon wafers from ingotstocks in
sawing kerf losses, 95% or better net survival of cellstocks through
finishing operations and assembly into Panels, plus 80% useful contents
of ingots after trimming and squaring up. I use 13% efficiency, or 130
watts/meter^2 DC electricity measured output per meter of finished PV
panels.
12 KWHr/kg is not itself a useful figure as the smallest size EMC
furnace operates at the 36KW power range. In order to compute the PV
panels required to power 36KWs for sufficient lengths of time to
produce the ingots to generate a PV farm, several datums are required:
(1) the throughput speed, (2) the size dimensions of the ingot cross
section, (3) the weight of the ingots cast, (4) the waste factors
triming the ingot for wafer sawing, (5) the waste from saw kerf losses,
sawdust waste, typical breakage or cracking.
All of these figures were online a year ago, and could be relocated. I
did not save a link-list to sources at that time, but saved only the
computations I made from the figures publically available from reliable
sources. 12 watts net per square foot was computed at 130 watts per
m^2. Americans are more comfortable in American measurements. 36,000
watts is 3000 sq.ft. of generation area @ 13% efficiency ouput DC power
in watts.
When discussing furnaces, "inefficiency" is the most inappropriate word
-- one seeks maximum inefficiency, 100% conversion of electricity to
heat, or as close to it as possible. The EMC furnace operates
approximately in a dual-mode, as (1) electromagnetic levitation
repulsing Si from the container to avoid wear and tear on the container
and avoid contamination of the Si by the containers, and, (2) a
simacrulum of an electric arc heating unit. While this is not the
truest description, it is useful in determining if the allowance made
for power comes in the ballpark of 1st approximation reality.
3000 sq.ft is 0.07 of an acre. DC is very efficient transmitted short
distances over adequate sized conducters. Conversion of DC to pulsed DC
or Squarewave DC at RF loses energy as heat, but heat is something
desirable in melting furnace operations so long as it does not burn out
the equipment. The figures provided below predict that energy payback
is 20.3 days of 7 hours sunlight per day peak, but that is without
energy losses. I have included a fudge factor of 36% over-scale for the
usual inextricable internal system losses.
EMC is a batch process. It is not a continuous process over 55
contiguous hours like CZ monocrystal growth. It does require constant
supply during the batches.
>From the same link above...
"A variety of feed silicon geometries can be used (melts, rods,
pellets, scrap, etc.). Because the interface is submerged, feed
perturbances or slag at the melt surface do not affect the
solidification front. Ingot lengths of 3 m have been demonstrated.
The cross section of the ingots has evolved over years of development
and is currently about 350 mm x 350 mm. The cold fingers allow steep
thermal gradients and fast growth speeds (~1.5-2.0 mm/min), even in
ingots with large cross sections. But they also cause a steeply curved
interface that is concave toward the melt. Thus, grains are neither as
columnar nor as large as in conventional DS. The average grain size is
on the order of 1.5 mm in large ingots. ..."
1.5mm per minute crystal growth rate is 630mm per seven hours batch.
(420 minutes times 1.5mm.) That is a 24 inch block by the cross-section
of the furnace per day. (350mm x 350mm i.e. 13.8"x13.8" is the current
industrial size achievement in ingot cross-section.)
Density of pure Si is 2.33g/cc. At 3kg per 36KW/hour small size EMC
furnace, throughput is 21kg in 7 hours of batch processing.
There are 21,000 grams in 21kgs.
There are 9012.9 cm^3 of Si in 21kg of Si. (21,000/2.33 = 9012.9)
There are 60.96 cm per 24" height of ingot.
To determine the cross-section in sq.units we divide 9012.9 by 60.96 to
obtain the number: 147.8 cm^2. The square root of this is 12.1 cm or
121mm
Our hypothetical ingot 24" long is 4.7"x4.7" in cross-section.
Net PV cells from this is: X times 50% times 95% x 80% = Y,
where X = gross ingot, y = net waferstock after sawing & wastage
factors.
2438.4 wafers (250um thickness) x .5 = 1219.2,
1219.2 x .95 = 1158.24 wafers
1158.24 x .8 = 926.592
926.592 x (size of wafer surface) 147.8 cm^2 = 136,950 cm^2
136,950 cm^2 = 147.4 sq.ft. = 20 working days to produce 3000 sq.ft PV.
While this math exercise covers only the ingot furnace operations,
these operations represent 40% of all energy requirements in making PV
from raw materials to finished product.
If EMC = 40X, and assembled PV Panels = 100X then (energy payback of PV
panels) Y = ?
40X = 32 days, 1X = 0.8 days, 100X = 80 days = Y.
Considerable efficiencies can be achieved in integrated production
systems. The cool-down heat from the cast ingots could be routed
contraflow into the feedstocks of the furnace for preheating. This is
usual practice in industrial operations -- for example, cement rotary
clinker kilns, operating at nearly the same temperature vent exhaust
heat into the feedstocks for fuel savings.
The ultimate goal is to utilize waste recycled glass in PV operations.
This presents technical challenges which will not be solved until a
broad base of technicians is experienced with high-temperature furnace
operations. Cottage industry PV manufacturies (for example Glomfjord, a
village of only 1400 inhabitants, is home to ScanWafer, a manufacturer
of multicrystalline silicon wafers) is the prerequisitw for the
knowledgebase of Si purification to SoG from SiO2 recycled glass frit.
This is a subject of discussion for later.
It's easily possible that jotting off a reply like this may contain
errors, so do double-check the math on your calculator.
> Some references to academic studies of the energy payback time of PV
> panels have been posted recently. There conclusions were measured in
> years, not days, but they did conclude that PV panels are energy
> positive.
>
> cheers,
> --mt.
Those lifecycle studies include minerals mining, plastics components
infrastructure pro-rata expenses, Aluminum frames from bauxite
purification through metal fabrication, etc, etc.
Do your own math for the Si portion of PV. Fiberglass frames,
carbon-fiber frames, etc are more cost-effective than aluminum. This
who subject needs to be revisited by more honest people without the
agenda-bias that only megacorporations can define the terms upon which
this game is played.
Market Theory
> Market Theory wrote:
>
> > James Rapier @UselessBastard.net wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>The energy payback time is 32 days of seven sunny hours each by PV
> >>generated electric EMC furnaces making good-enough SoG MC Si PV.
> >>
> >>Put your MATH online, not your guesses.
> >
> > I didn't notice any math in your post.
> >
> > Some references to academic studies of the energy payback time of PV
> > panels have been posted recently. There conclusions were measured in
> > years, not days, but they did conclude that PV panels are energy
> > positive.
>
> Shhhh! You will invoke the wrath of Lancaster even if Halloween is over!
>
> The real catch is cost, not energy payback. Human nature won't allow for
> renewable resources as long as fossils are cheaper.
>
> http://exergy.se/goran/
>
> Which includes a list of papers on exergy
> http://exergy.se/goran/scpapers/index.html
Thanks for the references. I'm new to this ng, but I've looked at the
archives and I notice you are one of the (few) sensible posters.
You are correct: economics is everything.
cheers,
--mt.
fkasner
But Fred Kasner tells the truth and that really bothers you, doesn't it?
And nobody has paid me one cent for my information and opinions. I doubt
you can say the same.
FK
James Rapier @UselessBastard.net
I wipe my butt with $100 bills toilet paper that the oil companies give
me by the bushel basket. Fred Kasner who? Never heard of the guy -- is
he supposed to be knowledgeable on some subject?
Maybe you can give me a link to his website or publications?
Then I can look up all the pearls of wisdom he shares with the human
race and benefit from his clear incisive plan for getting us through
the pickles we seem to have gotten stuck in.