How much CO2 is reduced by solar panels compared to how much CO2 is required to manufacture them?
I was reading an article that stipulated that much of the CO2 issues purported to be reduced were practically negligible when compared to how much CO2...
I was reading an article that stipulated that much of the CO2 issues purported to be reduced were practically negligible when compared to how much CO2 was expelled in their manufacturing. The idea was that many of the attributes of Solar technology that relate to Climate change and going Green were in effect totally moot and considerably over-stated.
Is this true?
I’m not sure the article would help much even if I could remember where I read it.The comment that generated my question was more toward the general growth of the Solar industry – it was in the subtext as something like "and in all honesty there is little net CO2 reduction with Solar when offsetting against the amount of CO2 used in the mfg process, blah, blah,.." It wasn’t the thesis of the article and there was no other detail provided which is why I was trying to figure out the real meaning of it. My real intent here is that I’m considering working for a Solar company and am just doing some due-diligence on the industry – that statement popped in something I was reading but I’d have to look for it.
Thanks Violet for the detailed answer, although I’m not sure that provides a direct comparison of CO2 released. I think we would have to know how many KW’s of energy are needed to produce a Solar panel in order to net the difference against energy use avoided once in use.
Hey WLTK, that article you read is probably dating itself, I’ll explain why. There was an argument that solar power is a bad idea back in the 90′s because it was estimated that a solar panel will never produce as much power as was used in manufacturing it. There were several studies done on the subject, probably the most indepth was done by Solar Energy International. What they are referring to is the, "Embodied Energy," in the panel, that is, the amount of energy used to mine for the raw materials, ship to the factory, make the product, ship to the user point and install. It is difficult to quantify, but using a range of variables, it turns out that the average solar panel does actually earn back its embodied energy in 1.5 to 6.25 years, well within the life expectancy of the panel. But in the end, none of this matters.
Electricity has been around for over a century now, so it isn’t going away anytime soon. As a people we simply need to ask ourselves, "What is the best way to produce it?" Suppose you built a 200 watt solar panel, and put it along side a 200 watt modern conventional electric generator, something efficient, like a natural gas fired turbine generator. Which will earn back its embodied energy first? Turns out the natural gas generator never does. We forget that while both the solar panel and the generator are subject to the use of embodied energy to manufacture them, the natural gas generator also has to be fed fossil fuel in order to operate for the rest of its life. It converts the natural gas to electricity at some rate less than 100%, so in the end, it keeps on digging itself a deeper and deeper energy hole that it can never crawl out of. The same is true of coal and oil, in addition to the embodied energy in the plant, it needs fuel to run. Solar and wind power simply draw their energy out of thin air once you have manufactured the devices.
It’s a shame it has taken us so long to see the point here, but with the number of wind farms being erected today, it’s clear that the power companies have finally figured it out. While a wind farm takes capital to build, once it is running, it looks really good on the balance sheet because they never need to buy fuel again. This says nothing for its environmental benefits.
We actually live in a solar and wind powered home. It might sound uncommon, but there are over 100,000 homes and businesses using some level of renewable energy in the US alone today, and virtually all the equipment used to provide that power is paying for itself, financially and environmentally. Forget the article, that was someones last stab at the new frontier. What’s unfortunate is that most of the people doing most of the talking on the renewable energy front have actually never laid their hands on a solar panel or a wind turbine. When we started on our home over 10 years ago, it was really hard getting good information on the subject. It’s gotten better over time, but there are still the articles that keep popping up, turning people in the other direction. I’m including some other sources for articles below you might find interesting. Good luck, and take care, Rudydoo
today this is true.
maybe someday we find another way to manufacture them with lesser CO2..
just maybe..
With some thought, the assertion appears to be baseless. The primary source of CO2 generated is attributable to the electrical energy used to manufacture the panel. A large portion of the electrical energy is generated by burning fossil fuels which produce CO2.
That energy costs money and the cost is bundled into the price of the panel.
Industry has almost achieved the golden goal of producing a panel for $1 (USD) per watt. That 1 watt will produce typically 5 watt-hours per day. In one year it will produce about
5 wh/day x 356day = 1.825 kwh/yr
At $.13/kWh that amounts to a cost savings of:
1.825 kwh/yr x $.13/kwh = $.24/yr
The payback will be about:
$1 / $.24/yr = 4.2yr
A 4 year payback is a value often stated.
Solar panel manufacturers state that the panels will produce at least 90% of their rated at the end of 20 years. The panels may last much longer than 20 years.
The thing to remember is that all of the electrical energy generated after the panel has paid for itself will go toward offsetting the burning fossil fuels. So by creating and using the panel, you are reducing the future amount of fossil fuels that will be burned, and thereby you are reducing future CO2 production.
How about posting a link to the article so that it can be critiqued?
It is not just the CO2 it is the energy. A solar cell takes about 20 years of energy to manufacture a cell. They have to get up to about 1700 degree F to form the cell. They just are not worth it.
zero monthly interest, instant endorsement and easy on-line balance transfers, nevertheless beware of the number one factor that will void the 0% easy