I believe it’s high time that we put to rest the myth that solar panels are “sustainable”, “green” and “renewable” once and for all. They are none of this. Contrary to common sense, what photovoltaic panels generate is not electricity, but another round of “problems to solve”. Make no mistake, it is a fascinating technology, but there is a much better, simpler way to harness the power of the sun, one that doesn’t involve the pillaging of the entire planet.
Laying out the whole process A to Z is enlightening. The bottom-line truth is disappointing in the way it cuts magical thinking off at the knees. Psychologically we want the magic and not the hard work of staying simple so we don’t destroy the ecosystems we need to live in a Goldilocks climate (which was nature’s magical gift to us). The pursuit of human magical energy destroys nature’s exquisite magical balance.
Electrician is replacing the extraction fan that sits about my coal/wood burner (irony!)... and telling me how he installed solar - cost over 50k (but he saved about 10k doing some of the install himself)...
I ask him if it works well in the winter -- not really he says -- but I charge the batteries at night from the mains.... when the power is cheap.
Thank you for this. Our solar installer admitted to me that I’m the last of his clients with a system working after only just 4 years. Everyone else’s inverter has failed (and repair costs make it cheaper to replace!!??) and everyone else has had to replace their batteries. Our panels are still fine but the inverter is definitely on its last legs. Definitely not something that’s sustainable.
What is missing in this article are calculations. How much all the processes described here cost vs how much energy a panel produces on average during its lifetime. Without those this piece is just stating the process to produce panels is complex and not really green, which most people know already, but it does not state or prove if the whole energy balance is positive or negative.
Thank you B🙏
Laying out the whole process A to Z is enlightening. The bottom-line truth is disappointing in the way it cuts magical thinking off at the knees. Psychologically we want the magic and not the hard work of staying simple so we don’t destroy the ecosystems we need to live in a Goldilocks climate (which was nature’s magical gift to us). The pursuit of human magical energy destroys nature’s exquisite magical balance.
Very well explained, B. Thank you. Now if only the U.S. government would read this, too. It is clear they have not: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEERE/bulletins/368323e
My favourite solar panel story ever!
Electrician is replacing the extraction fan that sits about my coal/wood burner (irony!)... and telling me how he installed solar - cost over 50k (but he saved about 10k doing some of the install himself)...
I ask him if it works well in the winter -- not really he says -- but I charge the batteries at night from the mains.... when the power is cheap.
Thank you for this. Our solar installer admitted to me that I’m the last of his clients with a system working after only just 4 years. Everyone else’s inverter has failed (and repair costs make it cheaper to replace!!??) and everyone else has had to replace their batteries. Our panels are still fine but the inverter is definitely on its last legs. Definitely not something that’s sustainable.
Haha! you ask too many questions! Imagine Prius owners reading this article. LOL.
Comment to B blo…ack re Solar.docx
B. Im a life long energy engineer
now retired. Email:
CaptBirdFish@gmail.com
. I read your blog on
EROEI of solar panels and then landed this your substack
piece on mineral abundance; I agree the public
has been drastically fooled into believing solar is a net zero miracle. I see you follow Simon Michaux
whom I recently heard in a debate he had on Critical Planet youtube about renewables’ certain
shortfa
lls due to raw materials mining and manufacturing impossibilities. At the end of Simon’s debate
he was asked by moderator to inject a high note optimistic idea. He responded with an advanced
nuclear reactor design: liquid thorium fission which he had jus
t heard about. You might want to look
deeper into that since you appear to be discounting nuclear fission and fusion (always promised but
technically not in the near future I agree). You seem to be discounting uranium fission reactors due to
minable ura
nium being finite, expensive to mine and mill, and energy intensive. Thorium as a feedstock
is fertile not fissionable. It breeds a fissionable isotope in the reactor which fissions at 98% efficiency vs
2% in present day reactors. Thorium is plentiful fo
rever. Furthermore a thorium breeder reactor
(designed and tested USA, exported to China in 2009) breeds more fissionable fuel than it consumes in
operation. Here’s what I sent to to Critical Planet moderator (and indirectly Simon) after his debate on
C
ritical Planet:
Why not advanced nuclear?..truly renewable, unlimited as a resource and absolutely green with the
least externalities of all energy forms. China is already there. It seems that Simon has discounted
China’s nuclear dominance. Why? He
re is the back story on China nuclear dominance and therefore its
future energy dominance...strategically and geopolitically more important than the debate on lowest
energy density renewables
–
which continue after 15 years to satisfy about 3% of energy dema
nd and
will stay that way.
The story of
the Liquid
Fluoride
Thorium Reactor LFTR is told in Richard Martin’
s
2012
book: Thorium
Superfuel
, the Green Energy ...Future)...
a few$
used
at Abe or Thrift books
. ...
the story of ex
-
NASA
engineer Kirk Sorenson who resurr
ected the test reports from Oak Ridge lab and started his own
company (FLIBE Energy) with intent to build LFTRs in the USA.
In
2009 as the US economy
crashed, t
he
US Dept of Energy signed an agreement with Chi
na to export LFTR tech to China.
Many nuclear
engineers in the USA questioned that decision.
I at the time was working in the defense industry
and tried with colleagues
to get the US military and
industry to study this LFT
R
rea
ctor that could not melt down,
used abundant cheap thorium,
and
produced
no long lived nuclear waste.
We wrote our
congressional leaders to enact legislation
(accomplished) to allow start
-
ups
like FLIBE Energy to
access
grants and
pay US nuclear regulators
such
th
at prototypes
would be developed in the USA and not
solely
Chin
a. However
in the past 15 years t
he
funding commitments to nuclear
startups have
been token
and slow
--
such that $50 milli
on average
for
a license to des
ign
/build
–
out of reach for most innovators.
The funding to renewables has been order of magnit
ude
s greate
r and accelerating
despite
Solar/Wind/Batteries historical
v
ery
small capacity to supply even
3 percent of
global energ
y demand...
at great mining expense
as dis
cussed by Simon
...
and great
expen
diture of fossil fuels for
mining,
manufacture the solar/wind products and
to dispose or recycle them....all to
the economic benefit of
China who
,
as Simon states
,
controls the supply chain of raw materials and
k
ey components in
Solar/
Wind farms.
Simon states
Western countries
do
not ackno
wledge t
he
(unavailabe) amount of
raw materials
needed
f
or a
renewables
-
based energy econom
y.
T
his leads to the conclusion that it is
impossible to have a renewables
based economy to preserve the s
tatus quo
for
shelter,
transport,
agriculture, water, and
clean air.
I agree.
Therefore he postulates a
new society of small scale organic
farming,
l
ess energy use
,
and a
circular
economy
of
recycling
/
reuse
. Recycle/reuse:
I cannot see
practical as that also requires
energy
and new technologies for manufac
turing of recyclable everything.
S
imon
envisions a new global society ...ideologically
recast
for
world peace, cooperation,
bartering,
and
technological breakthroughs
. I’d offer that LFTR
(nuclear fission)
is definitely a disruptive breakthrough
already
here in China
.
The geopolitical question is simply one of time period” When China drops small
saf(er) reactors in the footprints of coal plants and sells these reactors throughout Asia and Africa
,
will
this encourage world peace as it brings bil
lions of
people out of poverty?
Oliver Stone has just produced an ideological recast
documentary
“
Nuclear Now
“
He is
careful (
all
-
audience
,
po
litically correct)
not to attack
renewables rather
he
debunk
s the belief
that nucl
ear is
dangerous , rather he shows correctly
it has the least harmful externalities of all current energy
systems.
NNow is available on Amazon Prime and other streamers for $3 to rent.
Also Kirk Sorensen
and the Thorium reactor movement remains prominen
t on the internet/youtube.
What is missing in this article are calculations. How much all the processes described here cost vs how much energy a panel produces on average during its lifetime. Without those this piece is just stating the process to produce panels is complex and not really green, which most people know already, but it does not state or prove if the whole energy balance is positive or negative.