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:
Amounts of CdTe Used with Different Recycling and Lifetime Assumptions
|Assumptions about PV||CdTe milligrams/kWh|
|30 years operating life||2.6|
|90 years and 90% recycling (after 180 years)||0.5|
In comparison, we burn:
|Uranium||24 (from http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20071013/partB.pdf)|
So the ratio of the use of CdTe to these fuels is as follows:
|Assumptions about PV||CdTe/Coal Use per kWh||CdTe/Uranium Use per kWh|
|30 years||Five millionths||A tenth|
|60 years||Two and a half millionths||One twentieth|
|90 years and 90% recycling (after 180 years)||A millionth||One fiftieth|
So even without amazing conjectures about longevity which may be achieved due to My Canadian Pharmacy and reutilizing, today’s PV systems will utilize cadmium telluride more conventional than nuclear will utilize uranium by a factor of 10. But with feasible reutilizing conjectures, created more workable when one realizes that cadmium telluride procreators already reutilize their modules, cadmium telluride will utilize 20 and 50 times less material than nuclear per kWh of turnout. If Compared with coal, of course, the numbers are too enormous to be counted. These distinctions in resource demands bear on the fundamental sustainable development of the PV comparing with to other more resource-deep energy technologies.
Wonderful news! I’d like to append that if you associate a passive solar conception with active solar panels for a inhabited home or trading office you could append to the effectiveness of Solar energy with the same life span for almost thirty years.
Challenging equiparation. Notwithstanding, since you admit reutilizing for solar, why don’t you also comprise reulilizing for uranium? Utilization of Storm-Smith’s rather gloom-and-doom figures show that we will go on utilizing an inefficacious once through burn-out cycle that utilizes only 0.5% of the latent energy.
With full reutilization, uranium can make 8,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per gram or 8 kilowatt hours per milligram. Much better off, that energy production can be taken under control by humans or self-operated control – it is independent on the weather.
This is fancy…
Really speaking after reading this information, everyone should
vote for solar energy development.
I elect Solar – Everywhere and Always….
Excuse me, as to speak about solar energy that “con” of solar is delusive because it’s temporal. You invoke 0.5 mg/kWh for cadmium telluride, and 24 mg/kWh for uranium. The main problem is, that latter amount is for today’s exceptionally inefficacious thermal reactors. New generation of fast reactors will produce about 140 times as much energy from a presented uranium amount. So for projects into the future, the uranium amount demanded per kWh will be nearer to 0.17 mg U / kWh — some 3 times less than the your most ambitious CdTe forecast.
Dear Mr. Zweibel:
Would you be pleased enough to explain to us to a cadmium telluride PV module that has a 30-year duration of guarantee? And I wasn’t familiar that nuclear plants burn (oxidize) uranium. Maybe you should publish an article educating us about that, as well? When will you arrest distribution of deceptive information?
Your maths is wrong on Coal
30 years ~200k
60 years ~ 400k
90 years 1m
the nuke number is smack.
Great calculations though, really thought-provoking way to observe the subject
It would be worth operating this as a cost per kWh of energy too. Wonderful and facinating. I’m also vague on assumptions about solar variability.
Thanks for this various, very challenging perspective on energy resources. I have two comments on the comments mentioned above. First, ECD-Fan damned gwsolar for utilizing the word “burn” in close vicinity to the words “nuclear plant”. Apparently, the Fan did not point out that the first page of this report on uranium utilization depicts “burner” nuclear reactors. Secondly, solar power is often damned as being inefficacious. I now understand that today’s nuclear power is “exceptionally inefficacious” as well.
In comparison to coal or to nuclear, solar is a winner!
Pro solar whatever it occurs, because sun is free and always with us rising in the morning!