Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Is the Future of Silicon Valley Solar? 309

Posted by CmdrTaco from the not-any-time-soon dept.
Noryungi writes "In this provocative article, Brian McConnell argues that Silicon Valley, instead of staying in the saturated IT field, should apply its resources (including its chip-producing plants) into Solar Power/Renewable energy. Intel branded Solar Panels, anyone?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the Future of Silicon Valley Solar? More

Is the Future of Silicon Valley Solar?

Comments Filter:

  • We need to look into more alt. energy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by citizen132 ( 801073 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:05AM (#11066173)
    if the war in iraq and the rising cost of oil have showed us anything, it's that we need to look into more alternative energy sources. producing our own solar energy would not only leave us less dependent on foriegn oil, but would also help the enviroment. we should also look at wind and water power also. hopefully in a few years time we'll be able to have some kind of program running that promote this type of thing.
    • Anyone can post to that newsgroup. You get advertising and all sorts of off-topic posts.

      I'd rather have sci.energy or even rec.energy.

    • Re:We need to look into more alt. energy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:10AM (#11066206)
      I'll push for more wind turbines first. In California, Altamont Pass, the Carquinez Strait, and Tehachapi Pass could all get wind farms with large-sized wind turbines that could generate around 2,000 MW of power combined.

      California could get large-scale solar generator farms, but given the fragility of the ecosystem in much of the Mojave Desert....
    • Right, because not only was Iraq a war about oil, but increased electricity production will enable us to drive fewer cars somehow.

    • An effective alternative fuel/energy source may be closer than you think. United Nuclear currently has in development what appears to be a practical and safe hydrogen fuel adaptor [unitednuclear.com] for a standard internal combustion engine.

      When this is released, they'll also be distributing hydrogen generators, enabling the average consumer to extract the gas from water at virtually no expense by using the electricity provided by such devices as wind turbines and solar panels.
      Such an event would provide silicon valley wi

      • Wind turbines and solar panels cost money to build and run. Splitting water for hydrogen and using that in a fuel cell or internal combustion engine results in a net loss of energy. Hydrogen would be a great way of forcing the job of powering our cars onto our power grid, but it's not a free ticket to environmental friendliness by any stretch of the imagination.
    • OPEC is trying to cut production to keep prices from falling below $40 a barrel. OPEC to Cut Production by One Million Barrels a Day [truthnews.net]

      It's a pretty safe bet that when your alternative energy project goes on line oil will be cheap enough to bankrupt you. OPEC has never been able to maintain a stable price. Hydro power sites have been exhausted, much of the desert wild lost in the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam has been restored by the drought.

  • A small mistake in the article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:05AM (#11066174)
    "Solar electricity can be produced by means of photovoltaic arrays (based on the photoelectric effect discovered by Albert Einstein) or by using conventional heat engines whereby solar energy is used to power a turbine. Solar heat is simpler still, requiring only a blackbody and a mechanism for storing and transferring heat"

    Einstein didn't dicsover photoelectric effect, he has EXPLAINED it (and earned a Nobel Prize for it).

    • More details on the history (Score:4, Informative)

      by totoanihilation ( 782326 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:41AM (#11066335)
      Here's an excerpt of a paper I wrote a while back:

      The physical phenomenon responsible for converting light to electricity -- the photovoltaic (PV) effect -- was first observed in 1839 by French physicist Edmond Becquerel, when he noted that two identical electrodes in a weak conducting solution would produce a voltage if one of the two electrodes was iluminated [1]. Later, W.G. Adams and R.E. Day (1877) observed the effect in a solid, selenium [4].

  • Sun Microsystems? (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheUnknownOne ( 810624 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:05AM (#11066176)
    What about Sun Solar Panels?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:09AM (#11066193)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I don't know about AMD, but I know for sure that Intel owns and operates fabrication facilities.

      They have a large facility in Ireland, which I've visited, and they certainly do chip fabrication there.

      Also a friend and colleague of mine did a PhD that was sponsered by Intel. This research was entirely concerned with details of the fabrication process (using some data/input from the actual process being operated in Dublin).

    • Re:Intel (Score:5, Informative)

      by rxmd ( 205533 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:32AM (#11066294) Homepage
      Intel and AMD both still run their own production facilities. In fact, Intel makes sure that the layout of the fabs is identical [intel.com], so that production parameters are transferable from one fab to another. As a result, their fabs are designed for producing microprocessors, and making major changes in this general alignment would be rather difficult. IBM, on the other hand, runs a more diversified system of fabs.

      You are probably confusing this with companies such as ARM [arm.com]. They are merely a chip design and intellectual property company now, however in spite of the "merely" this is still an enormous economic asset in today's tech arena.
    • ah.. but then they wouldn't be ON TOP OF THE GAME!

      which is important for them - and to stay on top of the game they need to research the fabbing by themselfs.

      with ramping up the clockspeeds fabricating(and related tech) is a quite important part of the process(hell, it's the most important).
    • Let's see now, hmm, let's say that I'm an Intel stockholder. I see my company trying to capitalize on solar cells. I see my company proposing to use current plant for said solar cells. I see that these cells make less profit than the computing chips that Intel normally makes.

      Well, that's the end of THAT proposal.

  • Not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Redwin ( 837889 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:09AM (#11066199)
    Out here in sunny california, they have already been considering legislation to require a certain percentage of new built homes to have solar panels preinstalled on the roof by the contractor.

    A house with these panels can provide most of its energy, and on sunny days even feed excess back into the grid (electric company pays YOU)

    Considering the enery crisis, and terror threats to centralized power, it would seem irresponsible NOT to try and push for distributed solar power generation. It makes sense in almost every way (money, eco-friendly, security)
    • Why require it? Given the state of taxes and power generation in California, give a tax credit equal to the cost of those solar panels and you should have no problems getting those installed all over the place.

      Out here in snowy Iowa on the other hand...

      • Re:Not a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arivanov ( 12034 )
        Semiconductor Solar panels are the Wrong Idea (TM). Expensive, limited life (10% efficiency in 10 years for most designs), pollution (materials and processes used are same as in the semiconductor industry which is not the cleanest thing on earth, producing consumes a lot of energy and water as well.

        If you want to get extra efficiency into your house you are best off with evacuated tube solar collector running with antifreeze like this one http://www.apricus-solar.com/index.htm [apricus-solar.com]and a heat exchanger. If you h
        • Not a bad idea at all. Every house can use hot water. I'm in North Dakota now, so I don't think that this would be able to produce enough heat to even keep themselves clear of snow/ice during the winter, but further south... If it can produce hot water during the summer, if the installation cost doesn't run too much, it might not be a bad idea.

          It'd have the best return on new construction.

      • Re:Not a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NardofDoom ( 821951 )
        Okay, they don't make much sense in Iowa, but they make a lot of sense in Pennsylvania or New York, even though we still get a lot of snow.

        Peak electricity usage is on sunny, hot, summer days. If there was a way for people to sell excess electricity back into the grid, the demand would be a lot lower on those days.

        So while most people are at work, their house could be providing the electricity to keep their refrigerators and clocks and air condititioners running AND to keep them cool at work, or keep the

      • California is nearly bankrupt as it is, large tax credits are probably not a good idea right now.

        If roof top solar power is truly a net savings for the property owners, building codes might be changed to require them. That is what is done currently to force builders not to cheap out in construction were it will hurt the owner in the long run, such as with insulation standards.

    • A house with these panels can provide most of its energy, and on sunny days even feed excess back into the grid (electric company pays YOU)

      And as you can imagine, the electric companies hate this. They oppose it everywhere they find out about it. Usually they claim it's on technical grounds (i.e. the installation isn't done properly, the equipment will cause massive blackouts, etc.) which are usually complete BS. Some installations might, but if it's done right [solar4power.com], then it will work perfectly [wisc.edu].

      Consideri

      • Threre aren't that many. My power out in California (Huntington Beach) was very reliable, much more so than here in Houston. I had a server plugged directly into the wall at my house in California, no ups no nothing. It was up for over a year and never got restarted because of a power outage. Keep in mind that this was during the whole rolling blackouts and such.
      • Do the electric companies really hate it.
        Maybe someday they won't need their own generatators
        and will just run transmission. Then they can be like banks who just play the spread. At a bank they lend out money and a way higher rate than they pay on savings accounts. Seems a like a sweet deal of the electric companies.
    • Actually solar panles are prety eco-UNfriendly to produce in many respects. Also cost per kw isn't significantly better than getting it from the grid (yet) once you take in the fact they do wear out and need replacement.
      However decentralizing the power generation IS a good thing (your security point I believe), and a major upswing in demand would help push/fund/encourage research to reduce the downsides by improving thier effecient, manufacture cost, and longevity.
      So on a whole I'm for increasing th
      • How do they wear out? They're solid state. That's like saying your P4 is going to "wear out."

        The glass gets dirty, and it might get broken, but if you clean the glass regularly (once a year is good enough) and nothing breaks them (shatter-resistant glass), they'll essentially operate forever.

        Decentralizing power is something we should have done in the 1950 and 60s. Eisenhower built the beloved Interstate Highways to protect from Soviet Attack. But with a nation dependent on electricity, all the Ruskies wo

    • Terrible idea. Every time you make laws that restrict what people can do, you restrict business. You restrict movement, you restrict growth.

      All that law would do is crush construction companies, which are a cornerstone in our economy.

      I am all for using more renewable resources, but if it's undesirable and not cost-effective vs. petroleum, then you shouldn't force it.

      Keep the legislation out of it. When the market tires of our upcoming $80 barrels of oil and has finally made solar cost effective (as anoth

      • Re:Not a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mbkennel ( 97636 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @02:26PM (#11067174)
        It would "crush" construction companies, just like those horrible building codes, mandatory insulation, double-paned safety glass, adequate sewage systems, safe electrical wiring, earthquake resistant construction and circuit breakers did.

        Hmmmmm....

        funny they seem to be making record profits in CA.

        "Why would I want to buy a home in California if I have to install additional expensive stuff that won't get me my money back yet? I'd rather move elsewhere."

        Some people aren't as shortsighted.

        The technical facts are:

        (*) houses and commercial buildings have a very long valuable lifetime, which is why you can get a 30 year mortgage, and why you need to.

        (*) the future path of energy costs may be unknown and may be far more expensive than today. Given the known production rates and declines of North American natural gas production due to actual depletion, this is hardly unlikely. Coal is still, and will be quite polluting and worse for greenhouse emissions.

        (*) energy efficient construction and self-generation may be significantly cheaper and more effective and less ugly when designed into a house when originally built. Like, say, indoor plumbing.

        (*) there is a major commons economic problem with energy efficiency. You put on one new energy-guzzling house on the grid, say a big cheaply built tract home in a hot area like San Bernadino (where lots of new houses are being put up, as the cool places near the coasts are already completely full) and the customer has to pay a certain electric bill. Fine, it's their problem.

        But when lots of people do that, then suddenly there is a large strain on the overall grid capacity and transmission, and the utility has to raise rates significantly for EVERYBODY (not just the new A/C guzzling houses) and everybody suffers from poor service reliability. And of course there is more demand for the limited fuel supply and the price goes up too.

        The choices made in building will influence energy consumption for decades to a century.

        Are you feeling lucky?
        • The technical facts are: (*) houses and commercial buildings have a very long valuable lifetime, which is why you can get a 30 year mortgage, and why you need to.

          Just like you can get automotive financing for 5-7 years now. The mortgage term bears no relation to the longevity of the property. Buy a 30 year old house and you can still get 30 year financing.
    • The only credible "terror threats to centralized power" are it's own stockholders, the CA legislature, and of course the power brokers. They've caused plenty of economic damage already.

      Actual physical, damage-causing attacks are far down on the threat list. Wake up. You're buying the propaganda that you're supposed to be living in fear, while the real damage is being done by your own countrymen using your own institutions.
    • ...even feed excess back into the grid (electric company pays YOU)


      Hm. Are these available in Soviet Russia?

  • my trusty solar powered calculator is always busy keeping the chicks away.

  • No consumer appeal, no 'wow' factor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shaneh0 ( 624603 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:14AM (#11066221)
    The Personal Computer has always been a very compelling product. It appeals to business, parents, students, teachers, gamers, etc.

    This is the reason they've sold so well.

    I just don't see it happening with solar panels. Personally, I don't want to be in the electricity production business. How many people actually do?

    I'm more for the advancement of Fusion technology discussed yesterday. It's clean AND it doesn't waste my time.
    • As a geek I'm sure you can see the appeal of distributed systems (ala BitTorrent, et al).

      Small scale, green energy production is just that: a distributed system for generating electricity.

      I, for one, do want to be a part of that and want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

      I'd love an electric car that runs 100% off of solar power generated at home. Now if only batteries weren't so freaking bad for the environment...

    • If the economics worked (they currently don't), I'd happily pay you to rent your roof space so that I could mount my solar panels there, so you'd have some extra income but wouldn't have to worry about maintenance, etc.

      Of course, I'd start with warehouses and malls before I bothered with residences.

      Three other thoughts: You are most likely in the heating and/or cooling business; why don't you outsource that (in some places you can)? Also, maybe I'm a freak, but the prospect of producing clean electricity

      • Oops, I was in a rush and decided to bag the 3rd other thought...
      • Well, I think one thing that solar panel makers should do is stop focusing on absolute efficiency and start focusing on cheap. Dirt cheap. I mean so cheap that it's like buying a tarp. Put out a solar panel that is only 5% efficient but can be rolled out like a carpet and only costs a few bucks per square yard. I think you might see a revolution in power generation then. Hell, if you really want a revolution, come up with a photovoltaic roofing material that lasts for thirty years and puts power into the
        • The key here is cost per watt. Currently, the cheap forms of solar power give around 5%, while the expensive forms give 30%. That means for an equal cost per watt, the cheap version needs to be less than 1/6 the cost. Right now, the sweet spot seems to be in the 10-15% range, where the power delivered per dollar is maximized.

          The reason everyone is working on higher efficiencies is that it is very hard to make the inefficient stuff any cheaper. There's just not any more room for economies of scale, etc

  • Astropower (Score:5, Informative)

    by mercuryresearch ( 680293 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:35AM (#11066307) Journal

    FYI, this is already done in a way, as far as Intel helping to build solar panels goes.

    Astropower is a US solar panel manufacturer that gets many of its solar cell silicon wafers through recycling programs with Intel. TI, etc. See here. [google.com] They basically take bad/test wafers, clean them up, and use them for silicon solar cells.

    I'm building a 100% solar home and already have a kW of capacity installed, and went with Astropower for several reasons, the above included.

    • OK, so the _used_ to take bad/test wafer... etc.

      Crap, they were one of the few US companies really committed to doing solar power right. Guess right != profitable.
      • right != profitable
        This is true. It was true during the dot-com boom, and is still true now.
        You're not going to see much of a solar 'boom'. Either only the most obsessivly green people and special situations will install them, or everybody will install them when they renovate. Solar equipment suffers in this aspect that the profit/loss is very much calculable. Either it makes sense or it doesn't.

        Like what has been said before, if and when it comes down that solar actually saves money, the 'evil capita

  • Energy Efficiency (Score:5, Informative)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:35AM (#11066308)
    The article goes on and on about how Silicon Valley can capitalize on the solar energy business (and other forms of high-efficincy energy production). There are a couple new and exciting renewable energy companies in the valley.

    The first order of business for an energy consumer should be to minimize energy consumption. The economics are simple: a reduction in demand will reduce costs.

    Many people are shocked when they learn that it's very easy to save $1000 in energy costs a year by spending less than $100 and an hour's worth of time. This guy [geocities.com] and this guy [blogspot.com] seemed to do just about nothing for 50% energy savings.

    Even though it's always exciting to look at the state of the art in the energy business, it's more useful (but less exciting) to look at how it impacts you personally.
    • Frome the first link:
      Refridgerators: Keep the refridgerator section at between 2C and 5C (36 to 42 F,)

      I'm always suspicious of people who think they're too good for spellcheckers.

    • The first order of business for an energy consumer should be to minimize energy consumption.

      This previous post deserves to be modded up for containing this sentence.

      Yes, please consider this advice, fellow geeks: how many monitors are always on even when they're not used for hours? And who pays attention to buying energy-efficient servers? Green PCs with power-saving modes? Recently left on the light when you weren't in the room for hours? Do you drive a car that needs more gas than the state of the ar

      • In this context, I would like to share a quote:

        People fight over water, food and natural resources.
        When our resources get scarce, we go to war over them.
        In managing our resources, and in sustainable development,
        we plant the seeds of peace.
        -- Wangari Maathai (Nobel Peace Price)

    • Re:Energy Efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plopez ( 54068 )
      Excellent point, one I have harped upon for years. Note too that Western Europe produces about the same GDP as the US, using about 1/2 the energy to do so. When you break it down per captia, we could probably reduce our consumption by ~40% without a significant decrease in 'Standard of Living' (economist speak for how much stuff you own and how much money you got, not to be confused with 'Quality of Life'; which economics is not interested in).

      Even more interesting when you count in the longer vacations in
    • It's a shame how both of those links, especially the one about saving electricity in an apartment, fail to acknowledge the thermodynamics of the situation.

      If you have electric resistance heating, and are using it, then most other changes simply will not have any effect. Any energy wasting appliances will simply cause your heater to turn on less often.

      If you have natural gas heating, then by using energy-wasting appliances, you are choosing to use the more expensive electricity for part of your heating i

    • Something many people don't think about...
      There is a themostat on the hot watter tank.
      Why would you want it hotter than you can touch!
      If you find the hotwater that comes out for your
      taps too hot turn down the heater.

  • I can't resist (Score:3, Funny)

    by Eevee ( 535658 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @11:37AM (#11066318)

    Intel branded Solar Panels, anyone?

    Intel Outside!

  • The problem with solar energy isn't that there isn't enough funding for them, it's that it's a bad way of generating electricity. The maximum efficiency from the current cheap silicon solar cells is about 21% - which isn't all that great. Theoretically you could build solar panels that are even more efficient - perhaps up to 70%.

    Which is great, but that doesn't include the costs of transmitting that electricity. Currently electricity isn't stored, it's made as needed. You can't do that with solar. If you

    • If we're really serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, our only serious option is nuclear energy. Given that France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear without any trouble, there's no reason that the rest of the world cannot do the same. Even the byproducts can be safely vitrified or recycled so that they pose no threat in the future.

      You forget another big problem - all the unknowledgeable people out there that have instant negative (kneejerk) reactions to anything nuclear. If nuclear

  • Philips already does this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Free Bird ( 160885 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @12:15PM (#11066513)
    While not a Silicon Valley company but instead residing in The Netherlands, Philips already has a solar panels division. And it makes a lot of sense, because they're active in both lighting (solar panels are just the inverse of what they've been doing for over a century) and semiconductors (so they have lots of "waste" silicon which is useless for ICs, but not for solar panels).

    So, yeah: get with the times, Silicon Valley! ;P
  • There's strong competition in solar energy. So I don't see why IT should move into the sector. Maybe they would have some sort of advantage that I'm just not seeing. Energy efficient electronics would be a better bet since there's already a demonstrated huge need (eg, laptops, cellular phones, PDAs, etc). Or perhaps home robotics. When is my fridge getting wired?

    Another area might be monitoring devices. For example, it's an incredible pain in a large house with a lot of occupants to figure out who is usin

  • Solar cells = gigantic volume small value added CPUs = tiny volume, huge IP value added Silicon = completely irrelevant

  • Solar is NOT news to Si Vally (Score:3, Informative)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @12:42PM (#11066659) Journal
    The article had no mention of Cypress Semiconductor, one of my poorer performing investments. Cypress has, in the last few years, made more news as a customer of photovoltaics than as a vendor [powerlight.com]. Powerlight has been converting/adding PV power to bay area buildings for over 10 years. But Cypress has a PV subsidiary [livepowernews.com] ..so I am not dumping their stock just yet.
  • You can get home solar systems from Real Goods [realgoods.com], which has been selling solar systems in Californa for years.

    Silicon Valley has already done its part. Inverters are available for around a dollar a watt, produce good AC waveforms (early units output square waves, causing excessive heating in inductive loads), will synch to and intertie with the power grid, and work reliably.

    In California, there are huge tax incentives, the power company has to buy power back from solar installations at retail rates, and

  • There is no special reason to build or design the panels in Silly Valley. They can be just as easily built and designed elsewhere. And less expensively.
    • There is certainly a reason to develop cells. One of the key areas of performance is efficiency. As I understand it, they measure it by the amount of light hitting the panel versus what we is captured. I could be entirely wrong on that. Either way, current space grade panels run at about 35 percent efficiency. Improving that number requires a lot of experimentation and molecular chemistry and electronics knowledge. There are relatively few experts who can accomplish the task worldwide. Designing in America
  • I read Brian's piece and it seems like he's just another evangelizing solar power enthusiast. Most folks who use solar energy as a supplement to other energy sources like to share their results and enthusiasm for it. The motives are noble, I think, and Brian did a good job of drawing some parallels between the emergent consumer market for solar electricity at home and that of computing technology 30 years ago.

    I guess that I don't see how it's such a good fit for Silicon Valley. I'll admit that the area is

  • Consider what motivates people to come to Silicon Valley. First and foremost, people want to bring their ideas to market and become rich in the process. Or they at least want to work on someone else's project and become wealthy along the way. Silicon Valley is the most wealth-obsessed place I've ever been, in part because everyone thinks they actually have a shot at wealth.

    In Silicon Valley, although there are tech giants, it's the startups that are critical to the system. Intel, Apple, et. al. are contin


  • It's doubtful that alternative power systems will attract the venture capital because it doesn't do anything new and exciting. It does something we've always needed in a less expenisive way. There's not much new about solar, fuel cell or power conversion technology. There has not been any sensational breakthru in any of these areas which has attracted the attention of the layperson, venture capitalist or otherwise.

    The next big thing will be a surprise. Solar ain't it.
  • Traditional silicon-cell solar panels are too expensive and too fragile for robust, long term applications. This severely limits Solar panel technology feasable applications.

    A better technology has been created. "Solar Fabrics". Several companies are using "Nano-materials" based on titanium-oxide to do "roll to roll" printing of Solar-to-electric energy fabric. Cost is less, is much more rugged ,integrates with buildings better, more usable capture space. Yield not equal to Solar Panels, but it is ne

  • Brian McConnell isn't the King of Silicon Valley. He doesn't get to decide what directions companies will take, or who gets to start a startup. As much as it may mangle his fragile ego, he isn't the ultimate well of business advice.

    If he has a hardon for this, then HE can start his own damned startup. But he needs to stop acting like innovation's traffic cop. I'm already working in Silicon Valley building products that save hundreds of lives every day, and that's not good enough for him?. Screw him!

  • Solar Cells DO recoup their energy costs! (Score:3, Informative)

    by hmbJeff ( 591813 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @04:33PM (#11067790)
    Please stop repeating these urban myths about solar panels. They in fact do recoup their manufacturing energy input relatively quicky.

    As quoted in Home Power Magazine [homepower.com]

    Some skeptics of solar energy claim that it takes more energy to make a photovoltaic module (PV) than it can ever produce in its lifetime. The truth is that PVs typically recoup their embodied energy in two to four years. According to an article published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), today's single and multicrystalline modules have an energy payback of about four years, and thin-film modules about two years. Most PV modules in the field are made from hyper-pure crystalline silicon. Purifying and crystallizing the silicon consumes the most energy in making these PVs. Thin-film PVs are made from considerably less semiconductor material, and therefore have less embodied energy in them. Most of the energy consumed is in the thin-film surface. The aluminum frame on any PV accounts for about six months of its payback time. Solar energy is an amazing technology considering that PVs go on to produce clean, pollution-free energy for at least 25 to 30 years after they have achieved payback.

    For more information on energy payback, see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Web site (www.nrel.gov) and Karl Knapp & Theresa Jester's article titled "PV Payback"in HP80. --Eric Grisen eric.grisen@homepower.com

    Also, concerns about lifetime and hail resistance are red herrings. Most panels are warranted for full rated output for at least 20 years and most have performed well beyond those timeframes. Also all panels are UL tested to meet UL hail resistance specifications (which I believe covers hail up to 2" in diameter).

    Finally, no one bitches when a gas-fired generator fails to recoup its energy cost of manufacture--it requires billions of additional therms of natural gas over its operating lifetime to produce electricty and never pays back its manufacturing energy cost. It is disingenuous to ask that only of solar (and odd since solar can actually do it!

  • Or at least, not yet.

    The achilles heel of any current alternate energy deployment is the reliance on the grid to act as the "energy backup" when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Unfortunately, we don't have a two way grid; nor is it smart enough to safely handle multiple energy sources being fed up into it from unplanned nodes (like your house for example). The current solar and wind systems out there can get away with it because there aren't many of them. Having to bring up "peaker" pow

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close