Solar panels under $1 per watt

[forfi]

the Government's Energy Technology Support Unit The figures which have been confirmed by the OECD are:

Energy source Grammes of carbon per KWh of electricity
Nuclear 4
wind 8
Large scale hydro electric power 8
Small scale hydro electric power 9
Energy crops 17
Geothermal 79
Solar 133
Gas 430
Diesel 772
Oil 828
Coal 955

Can anyone provide a different set of figures? I am disappointed to see the poor performance of solar here,surely there have been recent vast improvements?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfi

Can anyone provide a different set of figures? I am disappointed to see the poor performance of solar here,surely there have been recent vast improvements?

Nobody is questioning nuclear power generation in this thread. Nuclear power has it's place, but can't be farmed out to every corner of this planet. The term "Cleanest" does not just relate to carbon emissions and if it is used in that way, it appears grossly missleading.

The issue you have raised is a valid matter to consider, though I'm not sure it completely enlightens us on matters relating to cost. By the way, please point us to the organisations web site and article. We would love to read it further, now that you have raised the issue.

Thanks.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by forfi

Can anyone provide a different set of figures? I am disappointed to see the poor performance of solar here,surely there have been recent vast improvements?

Now there we are all edited, we are all PC,no claims for nuclear,the sources are still the same and the data still the same

acronyms explained;
Government's Energy Technology Support Unit =The UK Government's Energy Technology Support Unit

OECD =Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

And now for the question,these figures are out of date .anybody got new,fresh,up-to-date,hot of the press,just published data??????

[Apple logies for the imperfect presentation of the data .all the numbers want to cosy up to the letters no matter what I do,life gets harder every day.]

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfi

And now for the question,these figures are out of date .anybody got new,fresh,up-to-date,hot of the press,just published data??????

Provide people with a date, so they can be better able to tell if these figures you posted, are prior dated in comparision to other figures going around.

There are all sorts of figures all over the place. I guess it depends on which ones you choose to believe.

Oxford Research Group, March, 2007

"Third and finally, nuclear power plants are not carbon neutral. The Oxford Research Group concludes that the nuclear fuel cycle is responsible for emitting 84 to 122 grams of carbon dioxide per every kWh, mostly from uranium mining, plant construction, and plant decommissioning. The report also notes that these emissions are around half of that as natural gas plants (so we are talking about some serious carbon). "

"In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that uranium is getting harder to mine, meaning that the carbon emissions related to nuclear will get worse as more uranium gets depleted, not better. This is because mining uranium ores of relatively low grades and greater depth is much more energy intensive. If world nuclear generating share remains what it is today, the Oxford Research Group concludes that by 2050 nuclear power would generate as much carbion dioxide per kWh as a comparable gas-fired power station."

Oxford Research Group, March, 2007

I'm not claiming any figure to be true, as I have seen low figures and higher figures as shown above. As I said, it depends on your source of information and who you choose to believe.

This is not a debate about nuclear energy, but it does suggest there is wide and varied opinion that may also suggest that the "cleanest" form of energy may not necessarily be nuclear or any other form you might imagine, particularly in the longer term for which decisions must be made.

With that said, staying more on topic of the issue cost of solar per killowatt, with the cost of solar falling, due to using fewer raw materials and I understand more environmentally friendly and more efficiently manufactured solar cells, particularly the thin film nanotechnology based products, one could reasonably expect the emissions / kwh figures for solar to be improving. I suspect the newer solar technologies may eventually surpass other forms of energy in terms of CO2 / kwh generated, if they have not done already.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Provide people with a date, so they can be better able to tell if these figures you posted, are prior dated in comparision to other figures going around.

Sweet Mother of........ OK what are the figures as of 10.47 GMT Friday November 30th 2007.

The figures I posted are not from the Bible and therefore are not cast in stone.They are about 4 years old,judging by the number of their teeth,thats the best I can do on the dating.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfi

Sweet Mother of........ OK what are the figures as of 10.47 GMT Friday November 30th 2007.

The figures I posted are not from the Bible and therefore are not cast in stone.They are about 4 years old,judging by the number of their teeth,thats the best I can do on the dating.

Oh about 4 years old, ok thanks. As indicated you will get different figures from different sources and there appear to be many sources for these types of figures. As stated I've seen a nuclear figure of 84 to 122 grams of carbon dioxide per kwh as indicated, dated 2007 from the Oxford Research Group, but then I've seen lower range figures also. I would not be surprised to see solar PV fall well below the lower of those two figures within the next 10 years.

[forfi]

Now heres one from an anti-nuke German outfit form 2006 ,scroll down to see all the comparisons.I still can't believe that solar comes out so badly in all the tests.Maybe the newer,as in last weeks,technology will boost the ratings.

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/315/2006-017-en.pdf

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfi

Now heres one from an anti-nuke German outfit form 2006 ,scroll down to see all the comparisons.I still can't believe that solar comes out so badly in all the tests.Maybe the newer,as in last weeks,technology will boost the ratings.

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/315/2006-017-en.pdf

That report dated Jan 2006 is near 2 years old and it refers to data upon which it is based, even older than that, from an original report in 1997, thus making the report effectively 10 years old. That report can't be taken too seriously.

Not sure, as there are many variants of PV solar, but I suspect it relates to past conventional silicon intensive technology that uses far more silicon and requires far more energy in production and involves far more waste material than the emerging nanosolar thin film solar power based products currently in use and under continual development. Thus I'm not really that surprised at all, especially given the 1997 date of the reports source data report, which probably refers to older data again.

What we need as a comparison are life cycle emission figures for the more recent thin film and or nanosolar technology, which is expected to overtake polysilicon based production methods.

It's interesting though from this reference that the range suggested for nuclear is 30 - 60 grams per kwh and looking at the chart looks to go up to 100 when including other countries nuclear power plants.

Looking at the costs chart make it quite evident that the PV solar they are measuring appears more likely old PV technology, not reflective of the latest PV solar technological developments. This is re-enforced by the fact of the 10 year old source report data from which this report draws its data from 1997.

Perhaps as you suggest, there may be some new data out from last weeks technology. Indeed.