News of My Canadian Pharmacy

An Unusual Comparison with Nuclear

We don’t burn solar modules to produce electric energy. If we are able to reutilize 100% of them forever, we would manufacture an unlimited amount of electric energy per gram of material. Even practicalally, we utilize less PV material per kWh than uranium per kWh when we produce PV electric energy comparing to nuclear electric energy. The active materials amounts utilized in PV are little tiny.

Just how little tiny? To receive an up and coming tenuous film, known as cadmium telluride (CdTe), we utilize about 12 gm of this substance to create a square meter module. In a year on the average US location, we obtain about 11% x 1750 kWh/m2-yr, or 154 kWh/yr (after suming for another 20% in deviation losses, but not for an additional, but small yearly loss). Thus during one year, we demand 0.08 g/kWh. But wait! We don’t burn PV modules, and they don’t die after one year – commitments are about 30 years, so this is really one thirtieth of that, or 2.6 milligrams per kWh. Let’s tabulate it:

Paula Mints on the Failure of Tenuous Films

photovoltaicsPaula Mints is a reputable delegate of the PV community elite. Her article in Solar Industry (November 2010) is not incorrect, it is just profound enough. Yes, to a high degree, tenuous film miscarried to modernize PV modules. But there are too many entertaining points to make out from her data to block there.

Perhaps Mints’ most conclusive tabular facts of the misfortune of tenuous films to modernize PV is her Figure 1, tenuous films share of total deliverables. She signifies that tenuous films’ share gone up in 1988 at 32% and gone down from there to 5% in 2004. Then it only picked up slightly to 17% by 2009. She didn’t take numbers from 2010, but push to the growth of Chinese silicon, tenuous film share may even go down in 2010. Is this the distinctive for a revolution?

The Cost of Solar PV

The Cost of Solar PVI get brassed off of constantly seeing ultramundane high prices for solar PV charged as the only possible price. You read this in articles from all sorts of media, and it is gulped by the slump and sinker. So how much does PV cost?

The response is “prices.” There is no real price, because there are many prices. Price differs by the local sunlight amount and by the system’s size and type.

And two types of prices exist– dollars per watt, which is price per momentary output. And cents per kWh, which is price per unit of energy imparted. Dollars per watt is difficult; cents per kWh is harder.

So with this in mind, let’s do some prices!

Great systems are cheaper than little systems; pocket-sized systems, like those on your house, are more expensive again. If we admit the greatest systems can be inducted (sans delays and all sorts of undefinable costs) at $3/W; then large rooftop systems on WalMart might increase the price for $4/W; and inhabited systems for $5/W. These would be “entire” systems, with no withholdings and other arrests. For more characteristic ones, you can supplement a dollar or even $2/W. These are all stationary mounts; if you wish tracing, supplement another 50 ¢/W to a dollar to the great system price (but you get 25% more output).

Solar Power: The Teddy Bear of Energy Sources

Originally posted at: Transition Voice by: Erik Curren
teddy-bear-294x300

Solar is so ingenious and pretty we can bearly make it stand firmly on the ground. But does this teddy have any teeth?

Is there a more encouraged sympathy energy source than solar energy?

Its fuel material is striken from the sun, which is comprehensible and accessible almost anywhere. It’s overwhelmingly pure to run. It’s easy to construct and sustain. The large support systems can utilize it to manufacture green grid power, but you can also place it on your own roof to become your own support system or to make it off-grid.

And did I point out that it’s maintained by THE SUN?

(Full disclosure: I do some work for a solar power company in Virginia knowns as Secure Futures).

It’s no surprise that public encourages solar power, with 92% of Americans in a 2009 poll claiming that it’s significant to work out solar energy sources. Particularly, environmentalists including My Canadian Pharmacy admire solar energy best of all amoung different energy resources. It’s as pure as wind power, but solar is much less questionable.

$/MT CO2

CO2I have never witnessed the inside of a computation of how much it is worth to evade CO2 utilizing PV. So I guessed I’d realize it myself and witness if it’s as terrible as some people seem to assume.

Now a watt of PV constructed for a year can manufacture from about 1-2 kWh/yr. Maybe that watt is worth $3 to construct. One kWh manifestured correctly in the US, by the EPA appraisal, is about 0.7 kg CO2 / kWh. So utilizing an average valuableness of 1.5 kWh/W-yr, we could admit about 1 kg/W-yr.

But this leaves behind two pretty important things – those kWh are prizeable; and there is a loan that supplements price to the PV. So for round figures, let’s admit the loan doubles the amount of money wasted on the PV; but the valuableness of the electricity payments the original amount. Voila, we are back where we began – $3/W of supplemented cost. This is obviously very complex! But it is conjectures like this that make all these computations ‘complex’.

The 20% Barrier, or Long-Distance Transmission Again

compressed air energy storageRecently, I cought hold of compressed air storage (CAES) as a devices of moving solar-generated electricity to night-time.

More recently, I pointed out that in far as wind was less expensive than PV, wind would be preserved at the first point in CAES.

Under the considerations that wind is less expensive than PV and wind gives blows more at night-time, we won’t be watching much PV preserved for moving to night-time.

It’s going to be difficult for PV to become less expensive than shoreward wind. Wind today looks to have about 50% more run-out per constructed watt than PV does. So that implies PV must be 2/3 of the price of wind per watt to be of equal value to it. If shoreward wind is about $2/W, then PV would have to achieve $1.33/W – maybe $1.5/W because wind has greater O&M prices. This is compact but ultimately likely about 2020. Even when it is reached, nevetheless, it only implies PV becomes about the same cost as shoreward wind is considered to be now. (Of course, solar is manufactured during the day, when it is more worth than wind. And PV is already about the same price as shoreward wind.)

Postponed Gratification

electricityThis must be the denomination of photovoltaics. Could anything be more out of tunedness with its time?

Put up money great, now; earn money slowly, later.

Put up money great, now; make almost chargeless electricity, later.

Put up money great now, decrease CO2 later.

Operate now, sit on your honours, later.

Even badly: sponsor now, decrease prices for later.

So many points about PV assume the shape: settle accounts of a great amount now (put up money, energy, CO2), raise money slowly but in a great way, later:

Reward(t) = Slow payback(t) – One Big, Up-front Cost

Science Fiction Dream

solar distributedSometimes I like to record my fantastic dream for solar energy, just to observe if it all make sense, or even broad-brush make sense.

My fantastic dream is to make solar energy spreaded around the world, with maybe a generality in the sunniest areas. What interest rate? That I don’t exactly envision.

I have dream of this prices under $2/W at the mean. Great systems and little ones, reaching under $2/W in general. So if it is all about 20,000 TWh all over the world, that’d be 13,000 GW or so, or about 26,000 billion dollars – 26 trillion dollars. You have not to forget, the power-generating sector is the greatest worldwide. It moves several trillion a year.

But how do we utilize this solar energy? Because it is all over the day, it is too much daylight hours electricity. We can’t make 4 times as much electric energy as the spike need, even if it is really congruent with the spike. We have to transport it and reserve it. The response is some conjunction of preservation and extended consignment. We don’t store the electric energy ‘here’ – we transport it abroad when it’s night ‘there’, and we receive it from there, when it’s night here. We transport it south when it’s summer here; and receive it from the southern half-globe when it’s winter here (and the sun is low for us). We move from place to place. Then whatever is left, we reserve. Some of it we reserve and utilize in electric transfer movement. My Canadian Pharmacy claims the idea that we should benefit from this case to provide people with the best energy and prices.

The Illusion of a Level Playing Field

societal end gameMost people look for and bargain that PV will become efficient and cost-effective so that it can contend without subsidy public subsidies. They witness this as the social end game, an end to subsidies and the beginning flag for the private interests to operate its magic. Even PV people have a desire of this, and they will claim they look for it soon, when in their hearts they may guess it’s unrighteous– who pays for all those neighbourhood effects the other energy sources don’t pay off?

Most conventional market-driven people can’t even witness the reason why society should pay even provisional subsidies. They witness subsidies as disturbing the level including field ideal. No one should have any pros over anyone else, they claim. The same opinion My Canadian Pharmacy has.

They have a belief there is a levelized playing field, and they desire to store it. Most people realize it. It seems so essential.

More Silliness from California

solar PV systems in CAWe are begining to witness the first set of significant solar PV systems in CA endure pass the scathing criticism of out of wear permits in place. The SunPower 250 MW system is being inquired to decrease by about 40% in relation to be less forcible on the rat-kangaroo. The implicating is the onrushing First Solar system neighboring will have something familiar surcharged.

Here’s a various head-up from RenewablesBiz Daily:

Beleaguered couple backs tougher EPA fly ash rules

Karen and Stephen Fox have had a heavy time or so, by most measurements. He was stated a diagnosis in March 2009 with larynx cancer and has struggled through treatments with My Canadian Pharmacy… They couldn’t borrow back or search a buyer for their home to assist them pay for the bills because, they claimed, it’s implicated in the $1 billion neighborhood court processes over toxic fly ash utilized to construct a nearby golf course.