[X] My Assistant

[deglr6328]

Yeah but where ARE the cheap solar cells anyway?!! I keep hearing about organic semiconductor solar cell breakthroughs, nanoantenna solar cells, InGaN wide bandgap solar cells, multijunction amorphous solar cells, thin film paint solar cells, infrared solar cells, it just goes on and on and on but where ARE they?!! There's just nothing that ever makes it commercially; it doesn't make me very hopeful. I have the same gripe about OLEDs, all the IP is either tied up in a few companies that just sit on it or the companies wait around for perfection in thier devices until they release a product, by which time they've burned their venture captial and have disappeared. Just release SOMETHING and people will buy it for the novelty if nothing else.

[dilo]

In my opinion, diffuse usage of rennovable energy sources is ultimately a political and economical issue, not technolological.
We have so many examples of mature and feasible tecnologies that could be massively implemented by now, the only reason we don't is the "presumed" lower cost of fossil sources. I simply DON'T THRUST to these cost figures, because they do not account for increasing oil-related wars and pollution costs!
My hopes for a better energy politic are small, because economic interests for oil extraction and distribution are too big. As an example, in many countries (Italy in particular) tax on fuel prices are one of the major financial entries for government, so they don't really encourage diffusion of alternatives (like electric/hybrid cars or even simply bycicles/public transport...). This is easy here, where there is also cultural gap respect to nord-european countries on these arguments (probably the gap will shrink in the next decades).
Anyway, the BIG risk is that, due to mentioned politic/economic interests, we will still delay use alternative sources until worldwide economical/political/ambiental situation will be really dramatic and, probably, irreversible.
I really hope to be wrong, but all indicators are in this direction!

[Toma B]

I really hope to be wrong, but all indicators are in this direction!     

Dilo , you said that right...!!!

[dilo]

nice to find a sponsor, Toma!

[Jeff7]

It seems like we're making the same mistakes as some ancient civilizations. They'd develop elaborate cities with a few innovations - some had running water with a large reservoir, and some kind of sewage system. But they'd ultimately collapse when the local resources like farmland or woodland were wiped out. They consumed like the resources would simply last forever, failing to see too that as population increases, demand on the already finite supplies will increase.

Now, in ancient cities, they couldn't just ask the neighboring city-state for a few thousand tons of food - they couldn't send a fleet of trucks there to get it either. In that case, a civilization depeletes its environment, and the citizens would either leave, or start to die off due to famine and disease.

In our case, the entire planet is becoming that civilization. Ain't nowhere to run to now. Can't just jump ship and get off the planet. I fear that we're doing the same thing - using resources like they'll never stop, and being totally dependent on that supply. I'll admit it, I am too. I was born into American society and grew up on it; I didn't really learn any other way of doing things.

I do like how it was pointed out that the Netherlands use considerably less energy than the US, but their per-capita GDP is still high. They don't have the vast natural resources that the US has, so they had to develop efficient ways of using what they had. I'm not much of a traveller, though I will say, the thought of visiting there is alluring.

Once I'm out of college, I should like to get some solar panels, and possibly build a wind-power generator. Efficient appliances are out there; they simply aren't marketed well enough. Efficiency just isn't cool - big, powerful and loud is.

[helvick]

Once I'm out of college, I should like to get some solar panels, and possibly build a wind-power generator. Efficient appliances are out there; they simply aren't marketed well enough. Efficiency just isn't cool - big, powerful and loud is.

Wind is a good clean net energy source but photovoltaic solar panels just don't work out as good energy converters unless you can get about 10 years with 5+ hours of peak sun for 365 days of the year. Thermal solar power (or just plain old water heating) is a good energy saver but photovoltaics are still just too costly in terms of the energy used to make them.

[dilo]

Thermal solar power (or just plain old water heating) is a good  energy saver but photovoltaics are still just too costly in terms of the energy used to make them.

Now imagine to join photovoltaic and thermal solar power (co-generation)... I'm almost sure we can reach 50% total efficiency with relatively low cost, but nobody seems to have explored it!

[helvick]

Now imagine to join photovoltaic and thermal solar power (co-generation)... I'm almost sure we can reach 50% total efficiency with relatively low cost, but nobody seems to have explored it!

Actually Dilo it looks like I might be wrong see here. The energy payback time seems to have dropped quite a lot - it's down to 3-4 years at the moment not 10. That's based on a 12% cell getting 1700kwH/m2 per annum which is apparently 95% of the US average. I think I'll check that number just to be sure but the source looks good.

Since PV cells should last 20-30 years then if those numbers are accurate then they do have some potential.

[dilo]

Interesting figures and site, helvick.
We shoul seriously consider domestic energy production by now!...

[dilo]

Anyway, about PV+thermal cogeneration, I was wrong because someone seems to have considered it! They call it a "hybrid photovoltaic/thermal system":
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...eryId=1&start=0
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=7151726
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AjKaZwtcytph...l%2520system%27
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_projec...00-02-045f.html
In the last link, dated 3 years ago, they report a potential payback of less than 5 years...

[Jeff7]

Wind is a good clean net energy source but photovoltaic solar panels just don't work out as good energy converters unless you can get about 10 years with 5+ hours of peak sun for 365 days of the year. Thermal solar power (or just plain old water heating) is a good  energy saver but photovoltaics are still just too costly in terms of the energy used to make them.

Solar cells actually do return more power than it took to build them. One page on the matter.

"This is of course a very difficult statistic to calculate, but according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO, a study has been done to answer the question. The study found that single-crystal panels reach the energy payback point in 5-10 years, polycrystalline panels in 3-5 years, and amorphous silicon panels in 0.5-2 years. Be advised that because the question is so vague, there is a large margin of error for these figures! We just discovered a recent, very detailed study about solar panel energy payback time in the January 2001 issue of Home Power magazine. This study, by Karl Knapp, PhD, and Teresa Jester, finds payback time for a standard module to be about 3.3 years, and 1.8 years on a thin-film panel."

Yeah, it does rely on them lasting for a few years, but after that, it's all profit, so to speak.
Just think of how much time and energy went into producing the oil in your gas tank that's gone in a matter of days or weeks. Heck, even after it was formed, then MORE energy went into pumping it out and refining it.

[gallen_53]

It seems like we're making the same mistakes as some ancient civilizations. They'd develop elaborate cities with a few innovations - some had running water with a large reservoir, and some kind of sewage system. But they'd ultimately collapse when the local resources like farmland or woodland were wiped out. They consumed like the resources would simply last forever, failing to see too that as population increases, demand on the already finite supplies will increase.

One of my hobbies is collecting ancient coins. Since I don't have much money, I have to content myself with the more oddball coins, e.g. I can't afford a sesterce with Nero's or Claudius' portrait so I have to be happy with Antoninus Pius and Trajan. A positive side effect of collecting ancient coins is exposure to some of the more obscure aspects of ancient history. The city-state of Cyrene was one of the more wealthier cities of the ancient world. Their economy was based almost entirely upon export of the silphium plant (it was used for birth control in the ancient world). The silphium plant was so important to Cyrene's economy that almost all of their coins had the silphium plant pictured on their reverse, refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Cities/Cyrene.html

Siliphium was over exploited into extinction by the people of Cyrene. After Silphium's extinction, Cyrene's economy was ruined and the city slowly depopulated until is was abandoned.

This sort of story was repeated many times in the ancient world. For example the famous city of Ephesus was a major commerical port. However the harbor of Ephesus silted up due to poor agricultural methods along rivers upstream from the harbor. After the harbor silted up, the city of Ephesus was abandoned.

We should not assume that we are more intelligent than the people of Cyrene and Ephesus. We are not immune from making similar errors.

[Chmee]

Couple this with the fact that energy consumption and GDP/standard of living correlate so perfectly and we have to face the fact that the future will require immensely vast quantities of energy beyond that (imho) which can be supplied through, for instance, solar power and conservation.

This chart is deceiving in that it takes the total amount of electricity produced and divides by the population. It does not account for the amount of production and services that are produced. For example, the US has 5% of the population but produces 25% of the world's GNP. Of course the per capita electrical output is going to be higher there than in other countries.

This chart makes it look like every American / Canadian is leaving every light on at home (and washer, dryer, toaster) when they leave, in other words being very inefficient. The truth is the US and Canada rank near the top in the world in productivity (i.e. requiring less amount of input for the amount of output).

That is not say that conservation and more efficient methods should not be pursued, there is still much opportunity there, but looking at ths chart will not help.

[RNeuhaus]

That is not say that conservation and more efficient methods should not be pursued, there is still much opportunity there, but looking at ths chart will not help.

As an example, according to the book: The Economist, Pocket World in Figures 2002 Edition
Energy efficiency, Most efficient GDP per kg of energy, 1998, $
1 Albania 10.3
2 Morocco 10.2
3 Uruguay 9.9
4 Costa Rica 9.5
5 Bangladesh 8.9
6 Hong Kong 8.5
7 Sri Lanka 8.0
8 Colombia 7.9
9 Peru 7.8
10 Dominican Republic 7.5
...
Least efficient GDP per kg of energy, 1998, $
1 Tanzania 1.1
Trinidad & Tobago
Uzbekistan
4 Nigeria 1.2
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Zambia
8 Azeraijan 1.5
9 Russia 1.7
10 Congo-Brazzaville 1.8
Kazakhstan
United Arab Emirats

But the largest consumption per head, kg coal equivalent, 1997
1 Qatar 44,155
2 UAE 21,203
3 Bahrain 19,488
4 Kuwait 13,446
5 EUA 11,493
6 Canada 11,191
7 Brunei 11,144
8 Luxembourg 10,914
9 Singapore 10,324
10 Trinidad & Tobago 9,920
11 Norway 7,886
12 Australia 7,873
13 Netherland 7,588
14 Iceland 7,497
15 Finland 7,390
16 Belgium 7,191
17 Sweden 6,491
18 Saudi Arabia 6,358
19 Netherlands Antilles 5,918
20 New Zeland 5,914
21 Germany 5,692
22 Russia 5,636
23 Czech Rep. 5,529
24 France 5,507
25 Estonia 5,452
26 UK 5,446
27 Japan 5,189
29 Venezuela 4,873
29 Ireland 4,694
30 Denmark 4,653

In conclusion:
The energy utilization according to the GDP per kg of energy is the indication of how well the energy is invested and utilized. The other indictor, about the largest consumption per head, is an indicator of energy dependence. The most countries which are dependent of energy are from oil producer from the Middle East. It seems like they are utilizing much energy to extract water from the sea to inject water into the oil field to pump up the oil pressure in order to extract the remain of oil.

Rodolfo

[abalone]

conclusion:
The energy utilization according to the GDP per kg of energy is the indication of how well the energy is invested and utilized. 

Rodolfo

That is bull!!! It is only true if the GDP is not wasted on Marketing Consultants, Dog shampoo, Interior designers and Breast enhancements. We should build a spaceship and send them off to colonise another planet just like in the Hitchhikers Guide. A lot of the GDP and hence energy consumption in developed Western societies is an indulgent waste. The plastic wrappers that wrap your individual choc bar before it goes into the cardboard wrapper before it goes into the cardboard box are all part of this GDP. Even Lawyers are part of the GDP