174 comments on What does Sustainability Mean for Energy?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
174 comments on What does Sustainability Mean for Energy?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Lesse, we have steel for the mounting hardware, Si for the panels, Al for the larger wiring, what am I missing that isn't present in sufficient amounts? In terms of the limiting factor, it would seem to be Al/Fe for mounting the panels and the wiring since Si is present in the crust in much greater amounts. I suppose we could look at the copper/lead on any circuitry in the panels, but even weighted for relative abundance that's below the limits presented by Al/Fe. Looking at current production of Fe/Al for one year, one quarter of that limiting factor would provide enough material to construct enough panels to supply enough energy for 10 billion people to live at a European standard of living the next forty years or so. The high quality Si, as well as the Al/Fe can all be recycled, so production for just forty years can supply enough in the way of solar panels for the next 6000+ years, not including recycling, which is already at ~70-80% IIRC and would undoubtedly increase in light of scarce supply, extending that to 30,000+ years.
Given that, I find it very unlikely that solar PV will be the limiting factor in sustainability, especially compared to current human impacts. Course, predicting anything past even a hundred years is more or less impossible, so at the very best all we can do is concentrate on being more sustainable, not planning for sustainability to infinity and beyond.
I don't have a full list of materials that go into the panels and the infrastructure to support the manufacture, distribution and operation of the panels and the resultant electricity but I'm sure it is far more varied that you imply. I understand indium is used in many/most panels, for example, and steel requires a carbon source. Ore extraction facilities require resources (and can do environmental damage). Manufacturing facilities require varied resources (for construction and operation).
Solar PV is a limiting factor in sustainability, just as using any limited resource (no matter what the theoretical size of the resource) would be. But solar PV could certainly be a help in providing energy at a limited but sustainable level.
There are more materials, but the bulk of overall materials is in the infrastructure, not manufacturing, unless we're destroying and rebuilding our manufacturing line every year. ;) Transmission is almost all Al/Fe. For steel news on biocharcoal seems to be picking up a bit, although it's not receiving a lot of publicity since coking coal isn't going to be in short supply any time soon, compared to oil at least. Indium is used in thin film panel manufacturing, specifically in CIGS, but thin film is only projected to capture ~30% of the market by 2012, and has been and will represent the minority of panels produced for a while. Even then, it's not like we can't make solar panels w/o Indium, just that at the moment they appear to be the cheapest, at least in bulk, with thin film Silicon not too far behind IIRC. While Indium may present a limit to CIGS based thin film, solar panels in general do not require it, it just happens to allow for the cheapest manufacturing at the moment.
Besides, saying that solar PV is a limiting factor in sustainability because it uses limited resources is kind of pointless since the sun's useful lifespan is also limited for the same reason. I mean, when looking at sustainability, we should be looking at likely (and present in some cases) limiting factors, not trivial ones. Sure, we can't have an infinite number of solar panels, just like we can't have an infinite time with the sun as it is now, but neither one is a meaningful limiting factor in terms of sustainability, at least not yet. If we manage to get to that point that they are likely limits whenever in the future I'll happily concede the fact, but as of right now we have thousands of years worth of other crap that'll provide a limit far sooner than solar panels, or for that matter the sun's lifetime, will.
You keep saying things like "the bulk of" and "almost all", as though they mean the same as "all". If any resource becomes scarce, no matter how little is used, that will define the limit unless there is a ready substitute of at least equal quality.
Even if we don't destroy our manufacturing capability each year (with or without a smiley), to increase the capacity will take extra resources.
Even if Al and Fe are vast resources, theoretically, in practical terms they are more limited. But just because a resource will last (and be able to be extracted at constant or increasing rates) for hundreds of years or thousands of years, or more, that doesn't make it infinite.
You also use throw away terms like "isn't going to be in short supply any time soon" without defining "soon" or citing sources for such optimism.
It is not pointless to point out that PV is not unlimited and has a limit for sustainability. It IS pointless to state the Sun's useful lifespan, since solar energy, per se, is not a limiting factor for sustainability but our diversion of solar energy, and the resources needed to do so, will be limiting at some level. We should not assume that there is no practical limit because that can lead to unsustainable strategies. Why not tread carefully? I don't see what the downside would be other than having to think before acting.