The Energy Return of (Industrial) Solar - Passive Solar, PV, Wind and Hydro (#4 of 5)

Below is 4th in a series of installments by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and his students attempting to update the 'balloon graph' of EROI x Scale for fossil and renewable energy sources with help from theoildrum.com readership. Todays post deals with solar energy, specifically: Hydropower, Passive Solar, Photovoltaic, and Wind energy. Next will be Geothermal and Wave energy systems.


Previous articles/commentary from this series:

At $100 Oil, What Can the Scientist Say to the Investor?
Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 5)
EROI Post -A Response from Charlie Hall
EROI Part 2 of 5 - Provisional Results, Conventional Oil, Natural Gas
Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 5
The Energy Return on Nuclear Power

Introduction to Solar Energy

(Charles Hall)

The sun is of course the main source of all of the energy that humans depend upon. Most importantly the sun runs the great systems of climate, hydrology and ecosystems that define and create the conditions within which the human economy must operate. In the distant past, solar energy generated fossil fuels and much of the mineral concentrations that we depend upon. In a beautiful book "A Forest Journey", John Perlin traces the historical dependence of emerging human civilizations on forests as well as the crashes of civilizations that commonly followed the over-exploitation of forests and the soils they made. At issue on TheOilDrum today is the energy return on investment for the production of "industrial energy" from modern solar energy. By 'industrial' we mean electricity and heat more or less equivalent to what we get today mostly from fossil fuel. The five main sources of such "industrial" solar energy are usually thought to be hydroelectric power, passive solar, photovoltaics, wind and various types of biomass. We examine the first four of these in todays oildrum posting, and biomass at a later date. Since the EROI of wind has already been analyzed (and I might add more throughly than we have found possible for what we give today) by Cleveland and Kubiszewski, we present results for hydropower, photovoltaics (briefly) and passive solar. As usual we are doing this to seek additional references to bolster our analysis.

APPENDIX G.

HYDROPOWER SUMMARY

Billy Schoenberg, SUNY-Syracuse

Definition: “The electric current produced from water power” (Gulliver and Arndt, 2004). Because the sun evaporates water, mostly from the ocean, and through winds carries the water vapor up into the atmosphere and to the mountain tops where much of the world’s rain falls, hydropower is most properly considered solar energy. It is different from other solar energy in that it is relatively easily captured and turned into mechanical or electrical power, and relatively easily stored as elevated water behind a dam.

Hydropower currently accounts for approximately 6% of world energy consumption. Hydropower projects may be large or small scale (usually 5MW or less capacity), and may involve either construction of a dam, reservoir and/or tunnels to hold back and reroute water through a turbine reservoir (the usual), or “run of the river”, which does not involve the construction of large dams or tunnels. Large scale hydro projects, usually involving reservoirs, are the most well-researched.

Resource base

Hydropower has the technical potential to provide up to 3800 GW of power globally, but only ~2500GW is considered economically feasible. Of that only 720 GW are currently installed worldwide. Thus globally, there are many undeveloped dam sites with hydropower potential although in the US the majority of the best sites are already developed. Much of the remaining technical potential is small-scale hydro which can be placed in most streams or rivers of at least moderate size and flow. Theoretically, hydropower at some level could be accessible to any population with a constant supply of flowing water. In practice the low price of fossil fuels, particularly the low investment cost, and the environmental and social costs of dams, has meant that fossil-fueled projects are much more common.

EROI

The EROI of hydropower is very site-specific. Because hydropower is such a variable resource, used in a multitude of different geographical conditions, and involves such different technologies, one general EROI ratio is not applicable to describe all projects. Reported EROI values range from about 11.2 to 267 (both quality and not quality corrected for the fact that the output is electricity and the input is mostly oil or other fossil fuels) (Cleveland et al., 1984) and (Gagnon et al., 2002). For specific favorable sites in Quebec EROI has been reported at 205:1 (for a reservoir type) and 267:1 (for a run of the river type). It is not known if these values are quality corrected, if quality corrected these numbers, would be three times as high. Thus the EROI for favorable or even moderate sites apparently can be very high, especially if the environmental or social effects are not included.

Economics

Hydropower differs from many other energy sources in that the major investments of energy and dollars occur when the plant is constructed, and there is little energy used in maintenance and operations. In general, hydroelectric power is cheaper than other sources of electricity (about 4 cents per KWh in 2000 vs. two to three times that for electricity from other sources). Since hydropower technology has been mature since the 1930’s there are probably not large changes in EROI over time except from the decreasing quality of sites used as the best ones are developed, and from small incremental changes in turbine design.

Environmental impacts

There is a large divide in the literature as to the costs and benefits of hydropower. On one side of the debate there are those who see hydropower as a clean, renewable source of energy, with only moderate environmental or social impacts. Others see hydropower as a scourge to society with environmental impacts that can be as large or larger as some conventional fossil fuels. The proponents of hydropower speak of its minimal emissions (especially CO2), renewable nature, and its contributions to water supply and irrigation. In addition they say the impacts on people and fish can be minimized when planned properly.

Hydropower’s detractors cite the effects it has had on migratory fish such as salmon, the contributions reservoirs make to greenhouse gas emissions and the harm it has done to displaced people, especially in the third world. The global effects of hydropower center around its carbon emissions and its potential to contribute to global warming, while the regional effects are centered around reservoir creation, dam construction, water quality changes, and native habitat destruction. Much of the debate centers around hydropower’s effects on people and whether or not a constant supply of water for power, irrigation or drinking is worth the relocation of millions of individuals. Nevertheless most analysts agree that there is a place for additional electricity produced from hydropower in the future.

The majority of environmental impacts upstream are due to the flooding of the river valley and creation of a reservoir. The reservoir completely destroys any terrestrial ecosystems that were once present in an area. In addition sediment and nutrients get trapped behind the dam causing the dam to become less efficient over time and the potential eutrophication of the reservoir if the dam and watershed are not managed properly.

Environmental impacts also occur downstream. The alteration of the river flow and the increased erosive power of low-sediment water cuts new channels into the riverbank sometimes causing massive amounts of erosion. Or in some cases the dam will completely dry up the river below, killing all aquatic species and forcing any terrestrial organisms to migrate in order to find water. In addition some hydropower facilities operate on irregular schedules creating very un-natural pulses of water through the ecosystem, which most strongly effect the aquatic species especially the invertebrates. In addition to these concerns there is the occasional supersaturation of gases downstream of dams causing a “bends”-like condition (e.g. nitrogenembolism) in fish and other aquatic organisms.

The amount of carbon emissions produced is very site specific, varying by as much as 500 times and correlated mostly with the latitude of the construction site and the density of vegetation that was found in the flooded area. The highest producers of carbon emissions, generally methane, appear to be those in Brazil or places closer to the equator so that the majority of the best large-scale sites remaining are most likely to be large emitters of CO2 from reservoir construction. A range of carbon emissions per kilowatt hour produced are available and those numbers range from 1 to 34 g CO2/kWh with more usual numbers in the range of 2 to 9 g CO2/kWh. This is substantially lower than fossil fuel sources

Social Impacts

Large dam construction almost inevitably comes at the cost of the relocation of people who live in the river valleys upstream which get flooded during reservoir creation, or sometimes for those who live in the flood plains downstream. Some 40-80 million people have been relocated and otherwise impacted by the various associated general, gender/class and health effects. For example, men are hired for several months or years to work dam construction which forces families apart, and relocation often forces women to leave not only their land, but their husbands, sons and fathers. The largest health effects come after the dam is completed, often generating a perfect habitat for many parasites or vectors for those parasites in the suddenly still water. A second category of post construction health risks is dam failure or collapse. This risk is largest in China, where dams that were constructed rapidly from 1950-1980 without much planning or good engineering, killed up to 250,000 when a few failed.. The risk of failure is always present at the rate of about 1 in 10,000 per year.

In summary dams can have very high EROI and have the potential to produce a moderate amount of additional, high quality electricity in the developing world, but are often associated with extremely high environmental and social costs. Many authors see run of river hydropower as the future because it does away with massive relocation projects, minimizes the effects on fish and wildlife and does not release any GHG emissions (because there is generally no reservoir) while retaining the benefits of a clean renewable cheap source of energy. On the other hand the relatively low power density available in run of the river projects relative to the high heads made possible with a dam limits the potential of this approach.



Table 1. Magnitude and EROI of hydroelectric power from various sources.
Click to Enlarge.

Adams, W. 2000b. Downstream impacts of dams. University of Cambridge, UK. Contributing Paper, Thematic Review I.1: Social Impacts of Large Dams Equity and Distributional Issues. WCD Website:http://www.damsreport.org/docs/kbase/contrib./soc195.pdf.

Brookshier, P., Hydropower Technology. Encyclopedia of Energy. ED. Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier United States. 2004 333 – 343.
Cada, G. , Sale, M. , Dauble, D. , Environmental Impact of Hydropower, Encyclopedia of Energy. ED. Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier United States. 2004 291 – 301.

Cleveland, C. J., Costanza, R., Hall, C. A. S., Kaufmann, R., 1984. Energy and the U.S. economy: A biophysical perspective. Science. 225, 890-897.

Denholm, P., and Kulcinski, G. L. (2004). Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Conversion & Management. 45, 2153-2172.

Edwards, B. K., Hydropower Economics, Encyclopedia of Energy. ED. Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier United States. 2004 283-291.

Gagnon, L., Belanger, C., Uchiyama, Y. (2002) Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy 30: 1267-1278.

Gilliland, M. W., Klopatek, J. M., Hildebrand, S. G., 1981, Net energy of seven small-scale hydroelectric power plants Oak Ridge National Lab., TN.

Gulliver, J. S. , Arndt, R. E. A. , History and Technology of Hydropower, Encyclopedia of Energy. ED. Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier United States. 2004 301-315.

IEA, 2002. Environmental and health impacts of electricity generation. A part of: Implementing agreement for hydropower technologies and programmes.

Kaygusuz, K., 2002 .Sustainable development of hydropower and biomass energy in Turkey. Energy Conversion & Management. 43, 1099-1120.

Montanari, R., 2003. Criteria for the economic planning of a low power hydroelectric plant. Renewable Energy. 28, 2129-2145.

Odum, Kylstra, Alexander, Sipe, Lem, Brown, Brown, Kemp, Sell, Mitsch, DeBellevue, Ballentine, Fontaine, Bayley, Zucchetto, Costanza, Gardner, Dolan, March, Boynton, Gilliland, Young 197? Net Energy Analysis of Alternatives for the United States

Pimentel, D., Rodrigues, D., 1994. Renewable Energy: Economic and Environmental Issues. Bioscience. 44-8.

Ramage, J. Chapter 5, Hydroelectricity, Renewable Energy. ED. Godfrey Boyle Oxford University Press. 2004 148-192.

Sleigh, A. C. , Jackson, S. , Resettlement Projects, Socioeconomic Impacts of ydropower, Encyclopedia of Energy. ED. Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier United States. 2004 315-325.

Sommers, G. L. , Hydropower Resources, Encyclopedia of Energy. ED. Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier United States. 2004 325-333.

Schilt, C. R., 2007. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 104, 295-325.
UNEP, 2007. Dams and Development: Relevant practices for improved decision making. UNEP, Narobi Kenya.

Weisser D., 2007. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy. Article In Press.

APPENDIX G-1

PASSIVE SOLAR

Kallistia Giermek SUNY ESF

Introduction

Definition: “The use of solar energy by passive means to reduce the heating demand of a building.”

A passive solar building is designed to capture and optimize the heat and light available daily from the sun. To qualify as a passive solar system means to accomplish this without use of any collectors, pumps or mechanical parts (Cleveland 2006.) The only difference between a conventional house and a passive solar house is design. When building a passive solar house there are two main design points to take in to account: one, to maintain comfortable average equilibrium temperature by balancing heat gains and losses and two, to minimizing temperature fluctuations both for 24 hours and over the year (Wayne 1986).

Passive solar architecture is much easier to execute when designed into a house rather than added on after construction. In general but not necessarily, passive solar homes take more time, money and design effort to build. Over time these extra cost will pay for themselves with energy savings (Smith 2001). At this time it does not seem possible to give the number of houses that are building a substantial amount of passive solar into the design but it cannot be very large.

History Time line of Passive Solar Energy:



History Time line of Passive Solar Energy
Click to Enlarge.

Techniques

:

Passive solar heating: While passive solar designs and techniques vary by location and regional climate, the basic styles remain the same. The three basic techniques include direct gain, indirect gain and insulated gain. Each of these techniques utilizes different aspects of the fundamental laws of heat while all have one common factor, general construction elements which are :

1) Large areas/volumes of concrete or other thermal mass. This is necessary because during the winter concrete floors and walls act to hold heat in and radiate it during the night when the temperature drops. During the summer the concrete serves to absorb excess heat.

2). Windows with high thermal resistance such as highly efficient glazing.

3) Air tightness to avoid overheating in summers. Studies have shown that if designed properly the need for mechanical cooling can be eliminated. Proper ventilation is key. Moveable shades can also be added to reduce to cooling loads. (Smith 2001)

4) Natural ventilation.

5) Shading by use of an overhang or movable shutters. Because the summer sun is higher in the sky relative to the winter sun, overhangs can provide shading during the hot summer months. The overhang should be built to intersect the angle of the summer sun (United States DOE 2000.)

6) Orientation of the long axis of the house east to west.

7) Large glazed areas on the south facing side and fewer windows on the northern side (Smith 2001). Although true southern exposure is preferred, it is not mandatory. If the building is oriented 30º of due south (in the Northern Hemisphere), it will still receive 90% of the optimal winter sun.

Incorporating Active components:
Often the addition of a few active components can greatly increase the energy gained for a specific passive solar design. Fans and pumps and properly designed heat exchangers can be used to circulate air and heat to reduce indoor pollution

The three dominate forms of passive solar heating include:

Direct Gain: Direct gain is the simplest of the passive solar designs. Sunlight enters the house through the aperture (a large glazed surface) – usually on the southern facing side. This sunlight then strikes a source of thermal mass (walls and/or masonry floors) which is then stored as solar heat. To best absorb solar heat, the surface of the floors is usually dark and carpet should be avoided. As night approaches and the temperature decreases the heat stored in the floors and walls will radiate into the room (United States DOE 2001.)
To avoid overheating during the summer some form of shading is very important. Overhangs are a very popular method of avoiding over heating. Other methods include deciduous plants and/or trees covering the southern windows that would shade during the summer and lose their leaves during the winter to allow the sun in.

Pros: Very simple, does not require extensive planning or design and it is possible to utilize direct gain and day lighting with the same design.

Cons: Increased glazed area leads to greater heat loss and so greater fluctuations in household temperature. Direct gain has the largest temperature fluctuations of any of the passive solar techniques. (Ferbadez-Gonzalez 2004). Without proper shading method overheating during the summer is very common. Direct gain works only in areas where southern exposure is available, so it would not work in dense poorly planed cities or densely forested areas (Perlin 2004).

Trombe Walls: Passive solar houses tend to have temperature fluctuations greater than the average conventional house and 75% of heat energy is needed at night (Wayne 1986). To compensate for this temperature fluctuations different heat storage technologies such as the Trombe Wall have been developed (Everet 2004.) A Trombe Wall is a thick wall with a very high thermal mass. It is usually concrete, masonry or wallboard. It can even be water placed between a window and the living space leaving about a one inch area between the window and the wall. Heat penetrates through the glass and is stored in the Trombe wall. Sometime slits are cut into the Trombe wall to increase circulation of warm air when the indoor temperature falls below the temperature of the wall, the heat will begin to radiate into the room. Heat will travel through a masonry wall at the rate of 1 inch per hour. Therefore the heat that was absorbed in an 8inch wall at noon will enter the room at eight o’clock just in time to replace the heat lost from the sunset. An overhang much like that of the direct gain method is also beneficial to the Trombe wall system (Everet 2004.)
Pros: Heat it stored for the cooler hours of the night.

Cons: Trombe walls often block out most of the potential direct gain heat and daylighting and are very hard to add into a preexisting house.

Insulated gain (Conservatories): Also known as a sunspace, solar room or solarium (United States DOE 2001) a conservatory is essentially a green house attached to the south facing side of the house. It consists of a large open window on the house side to circulate the warm air throughout the house. Conservatories, due to their large glazed surface, experience a great deal of heat gain and loss. The use of thermal mass and low emission windows can control these fluctuations. Heat is stored in the house itself and in any source of thermal mass such as the back wall of conservatory, floors, etc.

Pros: Conservatories can be built as a part of an existing house or a new home. (United States DOE 2001), and the large heat gains in sunspace can be moved to other parts of the building easily with a fan

Cons: Worst overall performance of all the strategies (Ferbadez-Gonzalez 2004)- i.e. has a high heat loss

Other uses of natural energy in buildings:

Passive solar cooling: Saving money and conserving energy by heating with passive solar during the winter is best complemented by passive cooling during the summer. In many climates opening windows during the night helps to flush out heat and bring in cool fresh air, an aperture that can be opened at the top can be very helpful in doing this. To keep this cool air inside it is best to close the windows and shades in the morning to prevent further heating from solar energy (United States DOE 2000.)

Daylighting: The use of various apertures to let in sunlight to building interiors is as old aas architecture, but before the twentieth century replacing daylight with artificial light was very expensive. Today with cheap electricity daylighting has been vastly neglected despite its positive attributes. Most modern office buildings and schools are built to rely heavily on artificial light. The primary daylighting strategies are location, large glazed areas and orientation. Daylighting is most widely used in lower level schools. This is because schools are most heavily used from 8am – 4pm when the sun is out and ready to be used (Hastings 2003, Everet 2004).

Pros: Obvious savings in energy cost. Increased performance and increase test scores in students have been reported. Natural heat and light promotes better health and physical development (Plympton 2000).

Cons: Site specific.

Limitations:

Location: clouds diffuse solar energy making less readily available. For temperature, Passive solar heating alone cannot heat a home to comfortable temperatures where harsh winters are the rule (Smith 2001.) Available southern exposure limits the number of houses that can be so constructed since a house on the northern facing slope of a hill cannot absorb the strongest sun which comes from the south. Daylighting can work at any latitude although obviously in the winter it has less utility in Northern areas.

Air tightness: The most successful passive solar homes are airtight, however, if the house is airtight the threat of pollutants becoming trapped inside increases (Everet 2004.) This can be overcome by the use of fans and pumps to circulate air around the dwelling. This would lead to a hybrid passive/active solar design.

Net Energy

Because passive solar design is incredibly site specific it is very difficult to determine just what the EROI might be. Rarely does an architect get quantitative feedback on the system, finding a numerical Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is nearly impossible.(Lyng 2006, Spanos 2005). Nevertheless if various passive solar designs are built into the house from the beginning then fairly large energy gains can be obtained with little or no investments. In other words it may cost little to put most of the windows on the south side, although that may greatly increase the gain.

An EROI could be calculated for a case specific location by dividing the energy saved each year over the energy inputted to make that house passive solar. The EROI for a passive solar would be very high because building passive solar is a one time expense and houses last half a century or more. Studies have shown that the energy savings can range anywhere from 30-70%, this would cause the EROI to change vastly from case to case. If the payback period is five years and the house lasts for 50 then the EROI would be, apparently, 10:1.



Table 1.(blue) Energy Savings from daylighting -
Table 2.(green) Energy Savings for Passive Solar Energy

Click to Enlarge.

Economics:

New Buildings: Some studies have shown that the prices for building a passive solar home are the same or less than other custom homes. Other studies say passive solar homes have an average of 3-5% added cost. Over time these added costs will pay for themselves in energy savings (Pimentel 1994.) After 16 years, the Tierra I house built in Colorado saved $2000 for every extra dollar spent to make the house passive solar. (Smith 2001.) While this example highlights a potentially high energy return from passive solar, it also shows that there is an upper limit to its scalability. One cannot use ones house as a vector to create Gigajoules of extra electricity, but only the heat, and perhaps some extra, that the occupants of the house require. But if used on all new houses, the overall scale could be quite large in replacing other fuels.

Adding on to preexisting structures: Installing a passive solar system into the design of a new home is generally cheaper then fitting it on to an existing home. Saving can still be accomplished but prices are generally higher and savings are lower. The easiest method to attach on to an existing home is a conservatory which is also the least efficient method of passive solar heating (Pimentel 2001.)

Environmental Impacts:

Positives: The design and energy efficient construction for passive solar homes decreases cooling loads and reduces electricity consumption which leads to significant decline in the use of fossil fuels. For example, in Colorado 94% of electricity consumed is produced by coal fired generation power plants. Estimates show that at 4218 kg of CO2, 14.5 kg of SO2, and 13.6 kg of NO2 can be avoided in a single Colorado home with passive solar technology (Whalen 2001).

Negatives: In order to utilize the sun to its fullest potential, a passive solar home must be free of any obstacles that block sunlight, such as other houses or tree. Passive solar homes work best in lightly populated areas making them more land intensive. Thus a series o f solar homes all facing south would presumably take up more land area then if they were oriented randomly.

Social Implications:

Daylighting:
Most of the modern workforce is based indoors with artificial light. In most cases workers feel uncomfortable leading to a rising trend or complaint amongst works in the idea of sick building syndrome, making people uncomfortable in their workplace and hence less productive. Passive solar buildings can provide a healthy and therefore more productive building. (Currie 2002).

In conclusion, it is obvious that designing buildings from the start to take advantage of natural heating and lighting, and to use more insulation and solar mass, have a tremendous possibility to reduce energy demand in the future. The “Green buildings” program is a very active and interesting field. But it should be realized that each new building, no matter how green, increases the energy that we use to make and in buildings, except in the sense that as the housing stock turns over we have an opportunity to replace it with less energy intensive buildings. Probably all possible decreases in the energy intensity of buildings are more than made up by increases in square footage per person (Jevons Paradox). Probably population growth and the broad economic patterns we have experienced in recent years of building and then overbuilding real estate has had far more impact on our energy use in buildings. These issues need to be on the “green building” agenda.

Annotated Bibliography:

Cleveland, Cutler J. Morris, Christopher. “Passive Solar Energy” Dictionary of Energy. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. pg. 322- 323.

Currie, Robert, Bruce Elrick, Mariana Ioannidi, and Craig Nicolson Nicolson. "Passive Solar." Renewables in Scotland. May 2002. University of Strathclyde. .

Everet, Bob. Boyle Godfrey. “Solar Thermal Energy” Renewable Energy. The Open University: Oxford. Second Edition. 2004 pg 18-53.

Ferbabdez-Gonzalez, Alfredo. Analysis of the Thermal Perforamce and Comfort Conditions Produced by Five Different Passive Solar Heating Strategies in the United States Midwest. ASES Solar Conference, 2004, Solar Energy. .

Lyng, Jeff. 2007. Governors Energy Office, State of Colorado, Personal communication.

Hastings, Sara. Daylighting Analysis in the BigHorn Home Improvement Center. National Renewable Energy Labortoary. Golden, Colorado, 2003. pg. 1-22. .

Perlin, John and Cleveland, Cutler. “Solar Energy, History of.” Energy Encyclopedia, Oxford: Elsevier 2004. Vol. 5 pg. 607-622

Pimentel, David, G. Rodrigues, T. Wang, R. Abrams, K. Goldberg, H. Staecker, E. Ma, L. Brueckner, L. Trovato, C, Chow, U. Govindarajulu, and S. Boerke. "Renewable Energy: Economic and Environmental Issues." BioScience 44 (1994): pg. 536-547. .

Plympton, Patricia, Susan Conway, and Kyra Epstein. Day Lighting in Schools: Improving Student Performance and Health At a Price Schools Can Afford. American Solar Energy Societ Conference, 16 June 2000, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. .

Smith, Michael W. Analysis of the Thermal Performance of Tierra I -- a Low-Energy High-Mass Residence. National Renewable Energy Labortoary. Golden, Colorado, 2001. pg. 1-79..

Spanos, Ioannis, Martin Simons, and Kenneth L. Holmes. "Cost Savings by Application of Passive Solar Energy." Structural Suvey 23 (2005): pg. 111-130.
.

United States. Department of Energy (DOE). Passive Solar Design: Technology Fact Sheet. Dec. 2000. .

United States. Department of Energy (DOE). “Passive Solar Design for the Home”. Feb. 2001. 30 May 2007 .

Wayne, Gary, Hall, Charles, Behler, David. “Solar Energy.” Chapter 12 in Hall, Cleveland and Kaufmann. Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process. John Wiley & Sons: 1986 pg 285-305.

Whalen, Peg. "Daylighting in Schools Reduces Costs, Improves Student Performance." Caddet. 24 Nov. 2004. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. .

APPENDIX G-2.

Photovoltaics

.

It was not our original intent to undertake an analysis of Photovoltaic (PV) Systems because we were to leave that analysis in the hands of a colleague more competent for that analysis. However that analysis has not been made available so we are presenting a brief summary of our own.

EROI

Explicit net energy analysis of photovoltaic (PV) energy appears to be nearly non-existent. However several studies report the time required for “energy pay back,” and if we know the lifetime of the module or system, an EROI of sorts can be calculated. A typical life-cycle analysis is from Battisti and Carrado (2005) for a reference system (of) a multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si) PV system, grid connected and retrofitted on a tilted roof in Rome. The assumed efficiency of the cells is 10.7 percent and the materials required are 12.6 kg/m2, with a mean output of 0.106 kW/ m2. No storage device was included. For this they estimate the energy costs associated with producing silicon in the form required as well as the structural aluminum, steel, glass and so on required, including the energy required to transport, install and eventually landfill the materials. Their results are typical: “All the analyzed configurations are characterized by environmental pay back times one order of magnitude lower than their expected life time (3–4 years vs. 15–30 years).” From this I calculate an EROI of 3.75:1 to 10:1, which is similar to other estimates I have heard, although I have also heard estimates that vary from 1:1 to perhaps 20:1, with much higher ratios “projected.” The following table lists a similarly calculated EROI based on life-cycle analyses for a range of systems, from commercially available to theoretical:



PhotoVoltaic EROI Table
Click to Enlarge.

However, these values are not static. As research and development continues, it is likely that the EROI for some of the systems mentioned above will change. Another factor affecting EROI trends is material flow into the industry. PV production employs the use of many metals attractive to a number of high-tech industries. For example, some 76 percent of the energy required to generate the silicon module is that which is required to make the raw silicon. These and other authors indicate that at this time the principle source of silicon for the photovoltaic industry is scraps from the computer chip industry. If the industry is to expand greatly other dedicated sources of silicon must be generated, with presently unknown effects on the energy cost.
Finally, there is the affect of intermittent energy from the sun and also energy storage issues. As sunlight is not constant 2 sites might be necessary to keep a constant flow of electricity to society in one area. This is thought to lower EROI by at least as much as ½. The energy cost of electrical storage in the form of a battery is also an issue which would lower the expected EROI of a PV system. At present lead-acid batteries are typically used for photovoltaic systems, but other storage systems include pumped storage (i.e. pumping water up hill for later generation of electricity), compressed air and flywheels. Many of these systems are quite promising, but would require considerable development.

The Future

Given that presently despite the enormous growth of PV energy the annual increment of oil, gas or coal is usually greater than the total of all photovoltaic production of energy, the increase in capacity needed for photovoltaic energy to make a large difference is enormous. A particular concern is whether there would be material shortages with a very large and rapid growth. For example, gallium arsenide is currently more or less the material of choice for a doping material to apply to silicon. Curiously, or not so curiously, this material has the same absorbance spectra as chlorophyll. A glance at the periodic table shows this element to be under aluminum, and the principal source is aluminum mining and purification. But if the industry were to increase by a factor of ten other sources would have to be utilized, and, presumably, its cost would increase dramatically. Likewise if we were to attempt to replace liquid fuels with electricity an enormously greater amount of copper would be needed. The price of copper is already escalating sharply under pressure from the construction industry of China and it is not clear what a greatly increased demand might do. Similar issues would apply to the many other elements that might be needed to obtain higher efficiencies in the industry.
Currently, Cadmium-telluride (CdTe) and Copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) PV modules are thought to have the highest potential for low cost electricity. However, beyond the year 2020, each is expected to suffer material restraints (Andersson 2001). Indium and Tellurium are recovered as byproducts of copper and zinc respectively, of which we may run out of this century. Ultimately, PV production may be constrained by available stock of materials and/or by the rate at which materials are recovered; and possibly by competition for metals for other end uses.

References

[1] Alsema, E.A. Energy Pay-back Time and CO2 Emissions of PV Systems. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 8, 17-25 (2000).

[2] Andersson, B.A. Material Constraints on Technology Evolution: The Case of Scarce Metals and Emerging Energy Technologies. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Physical Resource Theory Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden 2001.

[3] Battisti, R. and A. Corrado. 2005. Evaluation of technical improvements of photovoltaic systems through life cycle assessment methodology. Energy 30: 952–967.

[4] Celik, A.N., T. Muneer, and P. Clarke. Optimal Sizing and Life Cycle Assessment of Residential Photovoltaic Energy Systems with Battery Storage. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2008; 16:69–85.

[5] Gerhard, P. and F. Dimroth. Energy Payback Time of the High-concentration PV System FLATCON Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2005; 13:627–634.

[6] Helden, W.G.J. van, R.J.C. van Zolingen and H.A. Zondag. PV Thermal Systems: PV Panels Supplying Renewable Electricity and Heat. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2004; 12:415–426 (DOI: 10.1002/pip.559).

[7] Ito, M., K. Kato, K. Komoto, T. Kichimi and K. Kurokawa. A Comparative Study on Cost and Life-cycle Analysis for100MW Very Large-scale PV (VLS-PV) Systems in Deserts Using m-Si, a-Si, CdTe, and CIS Modules. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2008; 16:17–30.

[8] Kim, H.C. and V.M. Fthenakis. Life Cycle Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions From an AMONIX High Concentrator Photovoltaic System. National PV EH&S Research Center Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973. 1-4244-0016-3/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.

[9] Meijer, A., M.A.J. Huijbregts, J.J. Schermer, L. Reijnders. Life-cycle assessment of photovoltaic modules: comparison of mc-Si, InGaP and InGaP/mc-Si solar modules. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl 2003;(11):275–87.

[10] Mohr, N. J., J.J. Schermer, M.A.J. Huijbregts, A. Meijer and L. Reijnders. Life Cycle Assessment of Thinfilm GaAs and GaInP/GaAs Solar Modules. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2007; 15:163–179.

[11] Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., M. Souliotis, R. Battisti and A. Corrado. Performance, Cost and Life-cycle Assessment Study of Hybrid PVT/AIR Solar Systems. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2006; 14:65–76.

APPENDIX G-3

WIND

Recently an excellent meta-analysis on the Energy from Wind: A Discussion of the EROI Research was completed by Ida Kubisewski and Cutler Cleveland. The details can be reviewed in theoildrum.com's link above. Here is the salient table showing the EROIs of various studies and conditions:



EROI From Wind - Meta-analysis
Click to Enlarge.

The average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) is 24.6 (n=109; std. dev=22.3). The average EROI for just the operational studies is 18.1 (n=158; std. dev=13.7).

CONCLUSION

We find in solar (industrial) energy a very large potential but a rather small application (so far). The greatest use is traditional biomass (perhaps about 5 percent in the US) and hydropower. In general high EROI sites in the United States were developed by the middle of the last century and a further expansion is probably limited by environmental considerations. (Globally the potential is much more). In the United States existing wind power seems to have a rather good EROI (18:1) although that is likely to be decreased substantially if issues related to storage are factored in. Present generation photovoltaics have a moderate EROI (around 8:1 but with great variability and uncertainty). Both wind and photovoltaic systems appear to have a large potential for improving their EROI. The greatest potential, however, is for passive solar, although this issue seems not to have been analyzed very often using EROI explicitly. There are many reasons to favor a solar future and it is probably quite possible to get there, but we need a much more comprehensive analysis of the issues of availability and storage if applied on a very large scale.

Prof,

Excellent series of posts.
I think that you have decisively debunked one of the main tenets of the dieoff religion.
That is: every other alternative to oil is negative or too low EROEI.

It seems that we have plenty of options as long as we actually build them.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that our best approach should be to build proportionately in this order based on EROEI:
Hydro
Wind
Nuclear
Solar Thermal
Photovoltaic

In any event, great work.
Applause.

A very good overview for renewables/alternatives and their related challenges. I would like to add a few bits that appear to have been overlooked. Certainly not the fault of the researcher as it is a very broad subject area:

1. Solar generation here is primarily broken down into passive solar (solar architecture) and photovoltaic. When taken in total, it's actually a small picture of all of solar energy. On the one hand, solar architecture could be considered an added efficiency as it generates no net energy in itself but reduces or eliminates the need for outside heating and cooling inputs.

a. Solar photovoltaic itself can be broken down into numerous segments.
1a. Traditional photovoltaic energy using silicon.
2a. Thin film photovoltaic energy using silicon.
3a. Thin film photovoltaic using other common materials.
4a. Thin film photovoltaic using nanotechnology materials.

GALLIUM NOT USED IN SILICON CELLS
It's important to note that gallium is NOT USED in silicon solar generation. Gallium is only used as part of second generation thin film photovoltaic technology. So far, only silicon production has proven to be a limiting factor in photovoltaic production. As there has now been a massive overbuild in silicon production to support the solar industry, this is not likely to be a problem for at least the next few years.

DIVERSE MATERIALS BASE
Cadmium, telluride, and carbon nanotubes are all substances that have been used for solar energy generation. In the realm of photovoltaics alone, the materials base is quite diverse and options are continuing to expand.

2. CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER (CSP) is not addressed in the above article. CSP is a form of electricity generation that uses mirrors and lenses to reflect and concentrate solar radiation onto boilers, towers, or specially designed heat engines that collect the energy and, through mechanical process, turn it into electricity. Though not as large a production base as photovoltaics and primarily useful only in very sunny parts of the world, very large CSP power plants have been build and are under construction in areas like Arizona, California, and Spain.

MATERIALS FOR CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER are common and do not require exotic inputs.

3. STORAGE FOR SOLAR POWER ALSO INCLUDES MOLTEN SALT and non-lead acid battery storage. An ongoing revolution in battery technology is providing a number of high capacity, high cycle, batteries for energy storage and for the automobile industry. Ferrus Iron batteries made by BYD systems for cell phones can cycle more than 3,000 times and offer a much higher charge density than lead acid batteries. Lithium Ion batteries with carbon nanotube storage are also being designed for the Chevy Volt and are now in use in Prius after market plug in electric upgrades. These batteries, designed by A123 systems, can cycle over 8,000 times and have an even higher charge density than BYD's offering.

RAPIDLY GROWING, BUT SMALL, PRODUCTION CAPACITY FOR SOLAR ENERGY.
The current 'nameplate' production capacity for the world's solar industry is about 13 Gigawatts -- including CSP but not including efficiency designs like solar architecture. If the entire 2008 market were to be utilized on a year on year basis, it would take 1000 years to build enough generation capacity to power the entire planet. That said, 2009 production capacity is expected to reach 18 Gigawatts, and 2010 capacity is expected to hit 24 Gigawatts. This approximate doubling every few years will have a massive effect come around 2015-2020 where new solar energy builds could represent 2-3 percent of world capacity EACH YEAR if the current rate of expansion is maintained.

CURRENT SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES IS 3.8 GW. This represents enough energy to power 2.4 million households or about 2% total electricity demand. Figures on solar energy production have lagged while the industry has surged. Average growth rate in the US alone is 48% year on year since 2002. At the current rate of growth, solar energy will represent 10%+ of total US energy use within ten years.

CHALLENGES
Materials supply chains need to be built and expanded to support solar infrastructure. New materials will be needed to increase grid capacity as loading increases from new solar systems. New energy regimes will have to be established as states begin to share or build capacity across borders. For example, Virginia is currently building wind generation capacity out of state for in state use. They are paying to have the electricity transported via grid but this is still less expensive and politically troubling than building a massive number of new coal plants. I think, in the future, power sharing arrangements will also be made with sunny states and states that lack solar generation resources. Solar energy generated in Spain, for example, could help keep the lights on in other parts of Europe. As transportation moves increasingly to grid support, you will have to have a considerable overbuild in multiple generating areas -- solar, wind, nuclear + other. Storage will add some costs but result in net energy costs much lower than those for current transportation systems. In the end we could have a much better and more democratic energy system than the one we started with. But getting to that point is going to take a lot of ingenuity, resolve, and creativity. Greed will not get us there and we may well have to allocate FF resources to build the new infrastructure while rationing its use by consumers. In an orderly society this is certainly possible. But in the absence of salient leadership, things can break down very fast.

My additions on solar are not meant to divert from wind, nuclear or other energy sources. It just seems I had more to add in this area.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.28d.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=solar-power-lightens-up-with-thin-fi...
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/11/69528
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/
http://solar-in-china.blogspot.com/2007/12/qiangsheng-to-invest-400-mill...

thank you - CSP definitely has to be added to the mix.

CSP - Look at http://www.redrok.com Dwayne Johnson.

Good comment.

I'm surprised CSP / solar thermal power isn't covered, given that is likely the single largest form of power generation we will have 100 years from now.

And like you say, it doesn't require any exotic materials.

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3791

I don't think that the installed solar generation capacity for the US (3.8 GW) is correct and I can't find a reference in the links. For PV alone, I think that we may be approaching a GW installed about now: http://www.seia.org/Year_in_Review_2007.pdf

There are about 4 GWe of CSP in the pipeline for the US, but I don't think that we've quite broken half a GW of capacity so far. I would guess that we have 1.2-1.4 GW nameplate capacity today and we'll likely get to 3.8 GW nameplate late in 2010.

Chris

SWING and a miss.

Hydro. It's great. Honestly, it's the cleanest highest return cheapest power we use. But basically it's not possible to significantly expand it, all the good sites are already in use. That means that the sites that are still available for development are the poorer sites with the lower EROEIs. Look for no help there.

Wind. It is also good, it is however the definitive way to crash your grid. Over installation beyond 10-15% of total usage in wind and you have to keep spinning reserve which must be factored into the cost and eats into that pretty EROEI. Spinning reserve BTW, is a power plant that is *currently burning fuel* and producing no power. Still develop it for all it's worth, just remember that its worth is limited.

Nuclear. All for it, build it, love it, use it.

Solar thermal. Great where it works. Don't expect it to take a major portion of energy anytime in your lifetime. It involves major realignments of physical infrastructure, and that just isn't going to happen in a shrinking economy. It's *really* hard to turn a building 90 degrees to face the sun :P.

PV. The EROEI stated above fails to account for the grid synchronous inverter. That is both the most expensive and least reliable portion of a PV system, and it drops the EROEI down to around 2:1. Look for no help here at this scale until CIGS PV hits the market.

Lot of broad strokes there, Ford. Sounds like they call for some links to back them up.

Solar Thermal.. You don't have to aim the house, you can aim Evac Tubes lying flush to the roof of the house, or any of a few dozen other ways to grab that heat. Tracking mirrors, etc. Great where it works, being what? Where the sun is shining? There's a laundromat a block from here on the Maine Coast that heats its water with Solar Evac Tubes. The Strip from here to the equator surely has an abundance of potential sites.

Need some stats on your Grid-sync Inverter claim, too. Which brands/models are falling apart? How do they kill the EROEI? Calcs, please.

Wind argument. 'Grid Crasher?' When, from that one German event two yrs ago? Didn't a boat hit some transmission lines, after all was said and done?

A lot of blanks to fill in.

Bob

There was a period recently where more than 40% of Spanish generation was coming from wind.

The idea that you need to limit it to 15% is laughable.

The main issue is making sure you have good enough data to be able to monitor shifts in wind intensity so that you can dispatch alternate forms of generation when the wind power jumps or falls - and if you build enough storage you don't even need to do this...

You'll need a cite on that. Note that the 15-20% as stated was intended as a total of generated electricity, not nameplate capacity. so *if* you got lucky and on a specified day produced 40% of your energy with wind, it would still not necessarily have met the conditions for 15% penetration. Wind installations have a typical capacity factor of 25% so to get 15% total energy, you'd have to install 60% of your nameplate capacity.

In addition to that, europe has an overarching grid, in which the fraction that is wind is *far* below the 15% threshold. to point at germany or spain is comparable to stating that nebraska generates X% and neglecting the cross-border flux.

You're wrong about "the main thing" too, the data is important, yes, however you need to *have* the backup generation capacity and the grid capacity to carry the overage/underage from production to load. To fail to factor for that is to lie about the realities. It's true that below certain thresholds, you have no need to factor for those, but that's where the 15% comes in (which is still more than 10 times current world installed base, so there's obviously no need to put the brakes on anytime soon).

Well, here The Age mentions a 27% period for a week, though,

Over the course of last year [2006] wind power contributed nine per cent of the nation's requirement while coal-fired power stations put in 24 per cent and nuclear power 22 per cent.

And here we see that on April 18th this year they managed 32%.

You speak of getting "lucky" and having days where the generation fraction is high, but it's not luck. It's about putting the turbines in the right place and having accurate weather forecasts. It's like saying that being a good commercial fisherman is "luck" - it's not, it's knowledge and experience and judgment combined with some forecasting.

Once again, overall penetration is 9 percent, which means that spain is still far below the 15-20% threshold. It also means that on the "jackpot" hours, wind should provide something in the neighborhood of 36% of spot energy. That is in fact *exactly* my point.

If you were to install 20% then on a jackpot day you'd be generating 80% and would need to either shed load or idle some older baseload plants that are unlikely to respond well to being power cycled. In addition, the German windfarms have effectively proven that you would still need to have schedulable plants and fuel reserves capable of meeting the full demand assuming that you are getting exactly 0 from your windmills. Those days will happen too, statistically, for every second that ALL your windmills are generating at full, you will have a second where none of your windmills are doing anything. Taking the jackpot moments as cases of the strength of wind power is to neglect the bust moments, and those are just as critical.

Your insistence that it's all information is simply wrong, it's information and infrastructure, and as total wind penetration grows, the infrastructure needs grow with it. Now, an HVDC line running from northern Norway to southern Spain via Germany *might* allow penetration all along that corridor in excess of the 15-20%, due to the geographic diversity, but simply taking spain in isolation and neglecting the subsidy from french nuclear is seriously biased math.

It's also worth noting that the equivalency is 1000, 4 mw wind turbines for each 1 gwe nuclear plant. Since I have never seen a windfarm containing more than 10, 4 MW turbines, that means that you will need 100 mountaintop style sites (or an offshore rectangle 8 miles on a side at 1/4 mile separation) to replace the energy produced by the Nplant.

Great where it works being obviously southward facing homes that require heating *but have good sun* a significant fraction of the year. So basically it's useless in for example upstate NY where I live due to poor sunlight in the winter. As for the evac tubes, panels, etcetera, (not addressed in the original post) I ran the math on it, and discovered that in order to provide heat for a modest sized house (looking for 30,000 btus/hr) would require (30,000 btu = 8.8 kw = 8.8m^2 * 2 (winter sun is weaker than full summer) * 2 (inefficiency)*4 (8 hour day)) 140M^2 of collection paneling. That's larger than the typical modest house. In addition to that, it says nothing at all about the storage of that heat for the overnight.

I never said that the inverters were "falling apart" I said that they were the most maintenance intensive portion of the system, which they are. As for how they kill the eroei, well, off the cuff, they lose 5% of the energy that hits them, after that, the energy involved in manufacturing them and delivering them MUST be taken into account when calculating the eroei of the system. To fail to do so and just account for the energy in the panels themselves is simply to lie.

Look, when I am looking at eroei, I find it simplest to simply look at the finances. Anything with a 25 year amortization does *not* have a 10:1 eroei, to claim that it does means that the accounting of the energy inputs has been done incorrectly. Taking the meter turnings at the factory that produces the panels will always produce high eroei numbers. Mining the copper to make the inverter takes energy, as does the labor of the chinese guy who winds the inverter. frankly, there is no sink of money that isn't energy based, so the simplest and most accurate way to calculate eroei for anything wil be to look at the economics.

(30,000 btu = 8.8 kw = 8.8m^2 * 2 (winter sun is weaker than full summer) * 2 (inefficiency)*4 (8 hour day)) 140M^2 of collection paneling.

These numbers appear to be pulled out of a hat. You need to provide engineering substance to your above claim. Bald assertion does not do so.

Note most passive solar homes are very energy efficient, so comparisons to ordinary non-efficient homes is a case of apples and oranges, unless you are limiting your discussion to passive solar retrofitting of an existing home, where increased energy efficiency (insulation, airtightness) is normally implemented anyway.

I said that they were the most maintenance intensive portion of the system, which they are.

How much maintenance are you claiming they need? Mine has needed zero in the last 8 years. Of course, since PV panels really require no maintenance (mine have needed none in the last 8 years), your statement doesn't amount to much anyway. Please supply current data to support whatever claim you make.

In contrast to the vast supporting documentation you have posted? Seriously, I just browsed your last 50 posts and failed to find anything of substance in any of them. Even your own experiences with your PV system are biased anecdotal unscientific worthless tripe.

As for the numbers I was using in the 30kbtu example, they were highly optimistic numbers from one end to the other. look it up yourself.

As for the solar design necessitating the more energy efficient home design, I call BS on that, you are comparing apples to grapes if you compare the heating requirements on a brand new high efficiency home to that of the average US or European home. Simply put, that's cheating.

Just as an example of exactly HOW generous I was being with my numbers in my 30kbtu example, in upstate NY, december insolation is only *2* kwh/m^2/day.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi

In my example, I gave it 4. you will also find that no passive solar collection panels or evac tubes on the market can come even close to the 50% efficiency that I allowed. If you're going to demand specific math, it's going to get *very* bad for your case very fast.

This all pertains to existing houses, new houses can easily enough improve in many ways. However, that's what I meant by "not in your lifetime" the average age of a residence in the US is something in the neighborhood of 25 years so if we were to start now mandatig that *every* new home were to be high efficiency, it would take 25 years to replace half the homes currently in use with the newer designs. That is entirely too slow to constitute a noticeable impact.

I also looked up MTBF for grid tied inverters, and I found that most manufacturers have 10 year design life as a "goal". this means that you can expect to be replacing the single most expensive single component of your "low maintenance" system every 10 years on average (I am making the assumption here that the panels themselves are modular and can be swapped out individually.)

The importance of energy efficiency is reflected in the amounts of energy that are available. For example, in Germany, with even less solar energy than your upstate New York location, PassiveHaus designs are able to utilize solar energy for

Indeed, PassivHaus homes cannot use more than 4746 btu/ft² per year in non-renewable heating energy.

From http://www.cepheus.de/eng/index.html;

"Cost-optimized solar thermal systems can meet about 40–60% of the entire low-temperature heat demand of a Passive House. The low remaining energy demand moreover makes something possible which would otherwise be unaffordable, and for which available supply would not suffice:
Over the annual balance, the remaining energy consumption (for space heating, domestic hot water and household electricity) is offset completely by renewable sources, making the Passive House fully primary-energy and climate neutral. This is being achieved in the CEPHEUS housing development in Hannover-Kronsberg"

Homes meeting the PassiveHouse requirements have been built in the US, such as this one near Chicago;
http://www.e-colab.org/ecolab/SmithHouse.html

So solar energy can be used for home heating needs when attention is paid to energy efficiency.

Once again, if it involves changing out the actual home, then you can look for no help here in your lifetime. I never said that you couldn't build a home capable of being heated by passive solar, I said that if you wait for passive solar to make significant inroads into the energy picture, you're going to be waiting a LONG time. It's great for individuals building single new homes on large lots, basically useless for anything else, and will have no impact on fossil fuel demand for decades at a minimum.

It's great for individuals building single new homes on large lots, basically useless for anything else

Wrong yet again;

and will have no impact on fossil fuel demand for decades at a minimum.

Unsupported assertion.

Nice developments. Makes no difference to the point though. I have explained time and again that the average age of a dwelling in the industrialized world is 25 years, and that therefore if ALL new homes were built to this standard, then half the homes would have been replaced in 25 years, Since residential heating represents 10% roughly of fossil fuel consumption that would give us an overall improvement of 0.2% per year IF we instituted a crash project to institute Passive solar construction. This is assuming that there is exactly zero growth in population AND that each home uses zero fossil fuels. neither of which is the case.

So like I said, totally useless. Being pigheaded about it serves you poorly.

There's no one following this but us now, so you can drop the posturing and derogatory language, which only weakens your argument anyway.

You made some overly narrow assumptions in your math.

First, don't assume that solar technology will be implemented in a vacuum; other aspects of home energy use is also dropping, like high efficiency refrigerators, CFL, lower energy computers, etc., etc, as shown in the PassivHaus examples above. So the 0.2% becomes at least 0.3%

Secondly, as building energy consumes 1/3 of US energy consumption, commercial and industrial building also can take advantage of passive and active solar. And they tend to renovate much more often than every 25 years. So instead of 10%, we are looking at 33% and the the 0.3% becomes 1%.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/database/mtxview.cfm?CFID=22259466&...

A yearly 1% reduction in energy use provides positive impacts right from the start. Add in energy efficiency improvements to the other domains, such as transportation and industrial processes, and quite a bit of progress can be made.

Well, you're still here, and the conversation has finally come around to a 2 sided discussion of math, so we're finally at the point when you deserve better treatment than insults (you have to admit that your "long on opinion and short on substance and accuracy" is a statement deserving of the contempt I gave it, particularly since I was right in every aspect of the post). So okay, lets go from there.

The other efficiency improvements you mentioned fall outside of this discussion really, CFLs are quite unrelated to passive solar construction. In fact, these things go to prove my point, CFLs and efficient windows are being installed as fast as sylvania anderson can make them, despite which, residential energy demand is still increasing.

As for passive solar and efficiency tweaks on commercial/industrial structures, I think you can look for very minimal improvements there, industry is usually pretty well on top of the efficiency curve, for example, it's a long time since I have seen an incandescent bulb in a commercial or industrial building, they've pretty much been fluorescent for the last 30 years. Also, industrial applications are far less able to be successfully met with passive solar. Sure, you may be able to heat the building with passive solar, but you won't be able to provide process steam or run machinery on it, so at best you're looking at maybe 1/4 of the energy that enters an industrial/commercial site being able to be met with passive solar (yes, I did just pull that 1/4 out of my butt, feel free to find a citation if you dislike that number).

Now, as regards the total fraction of energy that we're working with,

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/USEnFlow02-quads.pdf

Shows that only very small amounts of oil go to either residential or commercial applications. In the residential applications we are therefore primarily looking at savings of natural gas and coal electric. That makes this really not about peak oil at all, but more about climate change and carbon reduction. Just wanted to have that said.

Now, is passive solar useful for cooling? No, not really, about the best it can do in most climates is a reduction in A/C energy. In most climates that require heating can it totally replace heating energy? Not really, they can significantly reduce it, yes, but never eliminate. Can you cook with passive solar? no, not really, you still need natural gas or grid electric for that. Can they eliminate the need for lighting? no, not really, at best they reduce the need to nights and cloudy days. so once again, I was being very generous in my 0.2% assessment. Really, if we were to figure that a good passive house uses half the outside energy compared to a traditional house, we'd be pretty close, hyperbole notwithstanding.

passive solar isn't junk, it's great where it works, and I see no reason not to encourage deployment of it to all degrees possible, but it isn't going to make a difference to peak oil or climate change on anything except the very long term, it's just another too little too late type measure.

As for "active solar" (PV) the emergy doesn't work, it's still a loser. This is reflected in the financial math. There's just no real point in installing them yet. An honest and full accounting of all the energy that is involved in gettin gthem in operation on your house will show that they are an energy sink, not a source.

TBH, it's fair to compare passive solar to hybrid cars, yes, they are a good technology, and there's no reason not to pursue them, but the problem is several orders of magnitude too large for them to have enough of an impact. You're trying to put out a housefire with an eyedropper.

SWING and a miss

High on opinion and devoid of substance and accuracy.

So, after an abundance of comments swapped and bantered, your claim that my original comment lacked accuracy was the most inaccurate thing said to date. I was correct about the possibilties of passive solar (worthless as a retrofit and entirely too slow to have an effect using new construction), correct about wind (15-20% total energy production without starting to lose EROEI), correct about hydro (tapped), and correct about PV (inverter makes it a loser at this time). I'll accept your apology anytime you care deliver it.

I was correct about the possibilties of passive solar (worthless as a retrofit and entirely too slow to have an effect using new construction)

Still an unsupported assertion, see above.

correct about wind (15-20% total energy production without starting to lose EROEI)

Still an unsupported assertion. What you said, btw, was "Over installation beyond 10-15% of total usage in wind and you have to keep spinning reserve which must be factored into the cost and eats into that pretty EROEI."

You completely ignored existing (or future) hydro (or CAES) that can be used as storage, and you changed your percentages.

correct about hydro (tapped)

The US alone has 300 GW of additional hydro potential.
http://hydropower.id.doe.gov/resourceassessment/

correct about PV (inverter makes it a loser at this time).

You have yet to substantiate anything on this subject.

I'll accept your apology anytime you care deliver it.

I'm sorry you're having so much difficulty on this subject.

The EROEI value for solar PV should probably be taken at around 30: http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/lce2006.pdf and it is not clear that we should count storage against EROEI until we surpass about 0.5 days of storage of total energy use since electrification of transportation provides this in any case: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.html while improving the energy efficeincy of transportation.

20 to 30% penetration of the grid (individually) by wind and solar require no storage other than what is intrinsically available in the grid through hydro and gas. Thus, storage may take care of itself to a large extent and when it is needed, the improving EROEIs of solar and wind should more than compensate.

Passive solar is perhaps the most important things we need to be pushing for through building codes. New construction should be easy with new glass that achieves R-12: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2008/2/3/Revolutionary-Vac... and retrofitting should also benefit greatly. We still need better solutions for retrofitting for insulation for walls and roofs though.

Chris

Thanks Chris,
Just as Hirsch pointed out that the average vehicle fleet would need on the order of 17 years to turn over to some type of electric or renewable powered vehicle, has there been an analysis on the timing/scale and impact of passive solar on the economy in aggregate? E.g. new homes could be mandatorily built with passive solar plans at large energy gains (in the future), but wouldn't that be a very small % of the total homes in the country? Are there small changes that EVERYONE could make? Not something I know much about but clearly new homes should incorporate these ideas as best as possible -seems like a no-brainer.

Building codes have incorporated fire safety for a while now to pretty good effect, but it does take time for building code changes to convert the housing stock, and much longer than, say, CAFE standards take to affect the fuel efficeincy of transportation. Architecture 2030 aims to make new buildings carbon neutral by 2030: http://www.architecture2030.org/
but we also need ways to make existing building carbon neutral as well because of the slow response time.

Changing windows is something that a lot of people do but they are usually going from about R-1 to about R-2.85 to get to EnergyStar specs. Getting to R-12 will be huge I think. I think there are also opportunities for thermal mass in existing structures that may not take too much trouble or space. The difficulty is in the thickness of walls which limits the amount of insulation that can be added to existing buildings. I'm trying to work up a prototype now that can get much more insulation for a given thickness at low material cost. It is a little tricky though.

Chris

This year the world's population became a majority urban. The UN projects that over the next 20 years the number of urban dwellers will grow to 60% of world population or from 3 billion to 5 billion. Unless you believe Kunstler's prediction that cities will contract, the addition of ~ 2 billion dwellings will have an enormous impact on the energy demand of cities. Therefore, it is important in my view to put in place regulations to maximize the energy efficiency of urbanization.

While rail transit will be important, building codes and land planning will be also - re-incorporating passive solar techniques into real estate development by making them mandatory codes, is worthwhile. The problem with large scale passive solar design is that street patterns dictate the solar potential and orientation for neighborhood blocks. To address this, The National Renewable Energy Lab is currently developing software called SEAT(subdivision energy analysis tool) that models solar gain and PV potential at the neighborhood scale.

For individuals, there are a number of small things we can do to take advantage of the sun. Adding overhangs, shutters and landscaping to block summer sun and let in winter. Programmable thermostats, Air sealing. Adding insulation. Window replacement - if too expensive, taping in bubble wrap has been shown to double the R-value of windows. Ripping out carpets and leaving exposed concrete near south facing windows and placing heat absorbing/radiating furniture in these areas will help too.

Just to bring you into the real world, why don't you Google "shanty towns".
You will instantly understand where the increase in city populations is taking place.

For starters look at Rio, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Kenya and India. That is the future.
Do a Google Earth.

Does anyone think that there will be any solar panels on those shanty roofs.
You think only of your cosy little neck of the woods, do you suspect we have a world-wide problem?

Singapore is getting a 1.5 GW solar panel fabrication plant to serve India and other nearby countries. I would not be at all suprised if their panels ended up in places where electric service is too difficult to provide such as slums or remote villages. About 4 years ago, the second-hand/broken/seconds market for solar cells in the US dried up as NGOs began teaching people abroad how to rig up their own panel and battery setups. Now you pretty much have to buy new in the US but more and more children in the third world are able to read a little at night. As the US falls further and further behind in manufacturing I'm not sure how much of the seconds will still go in this direction as a fraction of total production, but NGOs, micro-credit and solar are moving together now in an important way.

Chris

Is that supposed to allay my concern? "1.5GW for India and nearby countries". Will they be grid connected?
Is that in addition to what they already use or set to ramp up their industrial might and power their fertiliser factories and motor vehicles.
Maybe a light powered by a solar panel will be all they need to live long and prosperous.

As usual you won't die not hoping.

You seemed to be worried that there would not be enough to go around and so solar would only be used where incomes are high. This is not the case. There is not enough to go around, but it is still getting to the very poor. 1.5 GW of manufacturing allows for 0.5% annual growth in India's electricity consumption without the need for other generation, an interesting figure for just one factory. What appears to be needed for long life and prosperity to educating women through high school. Having a bit of light at night sure helps with that.

Chris

Having traveled quite a bit in Brazil and India (my father in law is from Mangalore) trust me, I am sympathetic to the cynicism. No doubt, urbanization could be a great opportunity or a great tragedy. There is some signs of hope however. India is reducing poverty, albeit slowly. And while their government is still battling corruption, they have recently passed a national urban renewal law that allocates billions of dollars to urban infrastructure and policy reforms. There is an intense focus on sustainability and efficiency with these projects. About a dozen cities have changed building codes for mandatory rainwater harvesting for example. The implementation plan is also netting private international investors. For example, this week Deutsche Bank announced it will be investing $1 Billion in Indian infrastructure.

I have personally walked around in a Rio favela - a truly eye opening experience. Again, we have seen unprecedented progress in the effectiveness of Brazil's government in getting some positive things done quickly. Their elimination of foreign oil dependency is one example. I think if they can accomplish that, there's hope that they can improve the housing/infrastructure situation going forward as well.

Here's a link to a description of how we reduced the electrical usage in our home from 56 kWh/day to 9kWh/day largely via retrofitting passive solar: http://ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/webview/senddoc.pgm?dispfmt=&it...

It's not actually that hard (highly dependent on site specifics, of course) and as you say, absolutely a no-brainer. But so few do this sort of thing...

That is a beautiful letter.

Chris

Thanks, Chris.

"the average vehicle fleet would need on the order of 17 years to turn over "

That's misleading. 50% of vehicle miles are driven by vehicles less than 6 years old. That % could be expected to increase if new vehicles were significantly better than old ones, which hasn't been the case for many decades.

When you build a nuclear or hydro power plant you can dismantle a coal plant and assign the land and people to other jobs.

When you build windmills and solar cells you can burn less coal, but the plant remains. The cost, energy and emissions associated with backup power should be included in the analysis of wind and solar.

This does not seem to be the case. Adding nuclear plants in France kept the level of coal generation constant though oil was displaced. This is because nuclear power is more expensive than coal. Nuclear can't even be built without extreme subsidies. Wind is getting to be competitive with coal and solar will be less expensive than coal around 2017 so they have the economics to replace coal while nuclear does not. Generally the backup for wind and solar will be batteries so long as transportation is electrified so there would be no need to retain coal plants though initially fossil fuel use would be shifted towards gas and away from coal as wind and solar get to 15% or so penetration each. Thus, in the 15 years it takes to bring a nuclear power plant on line, wind will have displaced much more coal burning and will have covered for nuclear plants that have to be retired as well.

Chris

mdsolar:

Adding nuclear plants in France kept the level of coal generation constant though oil was displaced.

Your assertion that nuclear didn't displace coal is only valid if you contend that none of the 3.5 times increase in electricity demand from 1971-2005 would have been provided by coal in the absense of nuclear power. Given France's lack of indigenous sources of gas and oil this seems unlikely.

mdsolar:

Thus, in the 15 years it takes to bring a nuclear power plant on line...

Hmmmm, France decides to go nuclear big time in 1973 and in fifteen years is producing more electricity via nuclear power than its entire grid was initially. Best avert your gaze from the chart, eh Chris, lest it dent your anti-nuclear fervour. I know, why not try to find a similar trend for a non-hydro renewable?

It is a very sad chart as we see contamination from waste beginning to affect the butter from Normandy: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-29-02.asp
The chart shows how France will no longer be France as the champagne is also contaminated: http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0530-03.htm

One feels sorry for the loss.

Chris

Could we please have ONE SINGLE DAMN THREAD without the pro-nukers pushing their little glowing cart?

It's an article about renewables and their EROI. Can we talk about that?

It would seem unlikely while those who advocate renewables believe that this must necessarily entail opposing nuclear (as in the comment by Chris above, where drinking the 'contaminated' champagne would result in a dose of radioactivity roughly equivalent to eating a banana).

It does solve France's nuclear waste problem though, just mix the waste with the wine and export it. No wonder they are so testy about the champagne brand. It is a secret weapon ;-). Still, there are alternatives and those concerned about their health may want to avoid French products. This is what is done with English mutton as a result of Chernobyl.

Chris

It looks to me that mdsolar was the first to raise the issue of nuclear vs renewables. Using the apparently false claim that "adding nuclear in France did not replace coal". Just one look at the graph above shows that's simply not the case.

I'd appreciate if you kept to the more civilized tone this discussion had, at least until now.

You sem to be unable to read either words or charts. I was responding to an erroneous statement about nuclear power. If you look at the chart, both hydro and coal remain flat. Why? Because they are cheaper than nuclear power.

Chris

I'm sorry but one of us seems to have vision problems and I think it is not me.

Both coal and oil (individually and combined) are on the rise from 1970 to 1980 and then go into decline, displaced by nuclear. The difference between their peak around 1976 and 2005 is more than three times. Hydro's contribution is flat.

But what you miss from the picture is the rising demand which has been overwhelmingly met by nuclear. If it was to be met by renewables, every newly build wind mill or solar panel would have to be backed up by additional conventional capacity, so both would have increased in lockstep, not even remained flat.

Of course the situation is different if you have large existing conventional capacity and small contribution by renewables, when they would make sense as fuel savers. The bottom line is they can not do what nuclear did - they can save some fuel and limit FF growth but not displace them or meet rising demand by themselves. And it makes perfect sense - the whole idea that renewables can completely replace something (fossil fuels) which they require (as a backup) is kind of a nonsense, isn't it?

I don't see renewables needing backup in that way and this seems to be a fundemental error in your thinking. Storage is part of renewable development and when the time comes, coal plants will be retired. With nuclear they won't be, as the chart shows.

Chris