🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4bvh39$hvv@cloner3.netcom.com>,
John DeFiore  <john_de@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Rob,
>  It was 1987 when I saw the calculations- I remember because I was
>working for Lockheed at the time, and one of the other engineers in the
>new division I just transferred to showed me the report.  Unfortunately
>I can't remember any of the details. Assuming 4.5 megawatt hours is the
>lifetime output, and $.08/KWh market value for electricity, that puts
>the total output dollar value at $360.00 How much does a 1M^2 solar
>panel cost?  What percentage of that cost is attributable to energy
>cost vs labor, profit, and raw material cost?  All comments welcome- 
>Let's get to the bottom of this.

John

Thanks for a very reasonable response. I agree that we should try
to get to the bottom of this. As a start, let me throw out a retail
cost of $5-6 per peak watt, or $500-600 per m**2 . (Corrections accepted
cheerfully). Locally, I believe that grid supplied electric runs
$.10-$.12 / kwh, with new sites running more if there is a hookup
cost that has to be ammortized. I recently saw an ad from Cannon
mentioning a photovoltaic roofing material currently under
development, which leads me to believe that larger scale PV
may be in the works.

I am in agreement with you and others that we ought to be able to
use $ as a rough indicator of energy costs, in the same way that
archaeologists and geologists are able to infer something about
age from radiocarbon or photo-luminescence properties of an object
that they study. 

I would also suggest that rather than speculating about solarizing
the planet, it is more productive to consider individual applications.
A couple of factors to consider might be new vs. existing grid connections,
peak vs.  baseload power and stored vs. immediate use of PV generated
electricity. What this leads us to, (I think) is that selective use
of photovoltaics can lead to a net reduction in our consumption of "mined"
energy stores, and that photovoltaics are at least an energy producing
technology in the same way that better insulation produces "negawatts".

If we assume some kind of constant energy/cost ratio, then we have
a reasonable basis for calculation. Even if we do not make this
assumption, we ought to be able to infer some high/low bounds for
energy, in that the "true" energy investment would have to have 
subsidized cost to the producer. If we assert that NOTHING (excuse
the caps) can be inferred about energy from $ cost, then I would be
very interested in a better method.

Finally, we have the question of what is a reasonable method of
attributing straight energy costs. If we try to do a simple joules/watts
calculation, can we assume all energy costs associated with the care
and feeding of a workforce are attributable to the end product ?
It is unlikely that we would leave the worker and his family to
starve in a cold house. For the worker's kids, do we attribute costs
to the worker's product or  to that which is later produced by the
kids ? I think that without some cost/energy assumptions, we
are treading on very swampy ground indeed.

Rob Kleinschmidt

"Therefore, that which is is, and that which is not is not"..12th Night