One of the major challenges facing the global energy sector is the amount of time it takes to develop new energy resources. Even if you didn't care about the negative externalities, environmental impacts or climate change contributions of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, it takes a long time (and billions of dollars) to drill deep holes, excavate or detonate massive mines, build pipelines and railways, construct power plants and high-voltage power lines ... as a famous recent American President and avowed fossil fuel aficionado likes to say, "It's hard work."Which brings us to a major and under-appreciated advantage that most clean energy technologies have over traditional, "let's burn more rocks" resources like coal and oil: speed to market. Because there are no pollution concerns and related air quality permitting requirements, renewable energy projects can be developed with lightning speed - especially medium-sized commercial projects where the power will be used on-site.
Just how fast? Real fast. As in very, very fast. OK, maybe that's not clear enough for you - I'll admit, it's hard to describe exceptionally velocitous rapidity with mere adjectives. For a sample of speed, watch as two solar roofing engineers with California-based roofing contractor DRI Energy install 2.25 kilowatts' worth of their proprietary Lumeta PowerPly modules on a roof in San Leandro in just under 35 minutes:
The key innovation in the Lumeta PowerPly is the use of standard roofing adhesives to affix the modules to the roof, rather than traditional racking systems. There are two advantages here - one, roofers everywhere work with these adhesives, and so are familiar with their performance and how to use and install them; and two, by eliminating the drilling and bolts associated with a racking system, the contractor not only saves a ton of time (did I mention this installation went up fast?), but also saves the integrity of the roof system: the last thing you should want to pay for is to have someone go up on your roof and put a bunch of holes in it.
And this is just the beginning. The emergence of time-saving innovations in the clean energy industry is likely to step up in the coming years as demand for the services escalates along with concerns about global warming and energy costs. And the fossil industry moves about as fast as ... well, about as fast as a fossil. If the Lumeta PowerPly is any indication of what's to come, I'll bet that over the next few years, the clean energy sector will reach scale and start operating with a full head of steam. The fossil fuels fossils won't know what hit 'em.
5 comments:
I couldn't help but notice the three airconditioning units in the video. Is 2.25kW enough to offset the power of running just one of those for a day?
I'm not saying this to poke fun, and I am well aware that airconditioning is required for office buildings and would be consuming money regardless of whether solar panels had been installed, however a bit of perspective on the cost offset of these panels would be nice.
How many years before they have offset enough power costs to pay for themselves?
It really depends on where you live more than anything, and not just based on how much sun you get - though that's a big factor.
Only a few states have good incentives and rebates for solar installations, California being the leader in that area; so the payback period is quite a bit faster here than in most other states (New Jersey also has great rebates/incentives).
Also, we are quickly moving into a world where solar power is cost-competitive with grid power when you spread the cost over 20 years, which is how long the panels last; so in many cases, a commercial building owner doesn't even have to buy the panels - they'll sign a contract with a solar services company and just pay for the electricity. Companies that do this save money, ass the long-term contract for solar power is far cheaper than power from the grid - which only gets more expensive with time.
Finally, in re: air conditioning, well, a solar panel is designed to make electricity, and an air conditioner is designed to use it. However, if the air conditioner happens to be located in California (which the ones in this video are), by state law it has to be the most efficient unit available on the market. So, yeah, the building uses air conditioning, like all commercial buildings. The fact is that these solar panels reduce the buildings' load on the grid, thereby reducing pollution - which is the whole point.
There are commercial buildings that don't use air conditioning; check out the German Passivhaus program. Just because heat from the sun lands on your roof doesn't mean you have to let it inside the building.
I'd like to know what the energy costs of producing solar panels are. Efficient photovoltaic panels cost something like US$20 or US$30 a pound, but the raw material is primarily silicon, which costs US$0.77 per pound at a low purity grade.
so I am going to guess that the energy used in purifying the silicon and adding the dopants, conductors, insulating layers, and so on, comprises the majority of the cost of the panels.
If that's the case, then higher energy prices will not shorten the payback period for photovoltaic panels; the energy they produce will be worth more, but also the energy consumed in making them will cost more, so the payback period will stay the same.
What could shorten the payback period would be more efficient ways of making solar panels. We will know we have reached this level of sustainability when new photovoltaic panel factories are built off the grid because it's cheaper that way.
Again assuming that the money payback time is similar to the energy payback time, consider what would happen if we spent 100% of our current electrical power on making photovoltaic panels. A payback time of 20 years is similar to a 5% interest rate, so the time to make enough solar panels to equal our current energy use would be about 14 years. (After one year, you've made enough panels that your power generating capacity is 5% greater than before; after two years, 10.2%; after three years, 15.8%; after four years, 21.6%; and so on.)
Now obviously we can't shut down all the rest of our electrical usage to make solar panels, so the actual transition time won't be that fast. My point is that it can't be faster without substantially increasing our energy use in the interim.
Hey! Sorry to leave yet another comment, but I just found a NREL report giving the energy payback time as 1-4 years --- not the 30 years that is the financial payback time!
So we could actually switch to photovoltaic much more quickly.
Post a Comment