Skip to main content

Energy comparison: solar (PV) panels

Image
By
Hi everyone,

Today I'm looking into the first on a long list of energy sources: solar (PV) panels. Are they actually sustainable and could they become our main energy source in the near future? After all, enough energy from the sun reaches the earth in 90 minutes to cover the entire world's energy consumption for a whole year!

How they work

There are a couple of ways to transform energy from the sun into electricity. The one we are looking at today is solar panels also known as solar photovoltaic technology. Photovoltaic (PV) technology is the key to solar panels. A solar panel is made of many PV cells. A single PV cell will produce 1-2 watts of power. They are very thin and are normally protected by glass and/or plastics. This is the best explanation I could find (click here for the source):
When the semiconductor is exposed to light, it absorbs the light’s energy and transfers it to negatively charged particles in the material called electrons. This extra energy allows the electrons to flow through the material as an electrical current.
The electric current produced is a direct current, so a converter is added to convert it into an alternating current used in households. Some PV systems will have structures that angle the panels to face the sun for maximal energy production.

Energy storage

Solar panels themselves do not store energy. However, there are batteries for storing solar energy. They are quite expensive. Lithium-ion batteries are at least 90% efficient. That isn't terrible but you would still lose 10% of your electricity. Lead-acid batteries may be the most affordable, but they have an efficiency of 60%-80% (depending on model and brand). That's quite bad. Flow batteries, which are the newest model have 85% efficiency. So all in all, solar batteries aren't amazing and it's definitely one of the biggest problems for the industry.

Energy in production

To produce one 100-watt solar panel, you need about 200kWh (varying massively). With enough sunlight, the 100-watt solar panel would produce enough electricity to cover that in about 2 years. A solar array (multiple solar panels) has a carbon footprint about 20 times smaller than a power plant (when both produce the same amount of energy). A solar panel becomes net zero after about 4 years of being used. We're hoping that it will soon be possible to use solar panels to power the factory making solar panels. However, there would still be CO2 emissions due to transportation and maintenance.

Downsides

In 2016, 250 000 tonnes of 'solar panel waste' were generated in the whole world. Estimates say it could be 78 million tonnes in 2050. Cadmium and lead are contained in this waste and can be washed into local rivers and bodies of water, causing extreme health risks for nearby people.
As mentioned above, fossil fuels, normally coal, are needed to produce solar panels. During production, hydrofluoric acid and sodium hydroxide are used. Most of this is dumped in local bodies of water, where they release toxic substances and chemical waste. There are also allegations of a lack of the needed safety gear and regulations that protect the workers producing the solar panels.
19 different rare metals are needed for PV cells, and most of them require mining. So we cannot create endless solar panels without running out of materials.

Covering the Sahara?

Many people think we should cover the Sahara desert with solar panels. This may sound like a good idea at first. After all, it would produce enough electricity to easily power the whole world, there is plenty and as not many species live in the desert, it wouldn't destroy too much habitat. However, it is a very bad idea.
  1. We have already mentioned the fact that we do not have the needed resources to produce that many solar panels.
  2. We do not have the infrastructure to build a massive solar field.
  3. Such a project would produce massive greenhouse gas emissions during production.
  4. As already mentioned, we can't effienciety store solar energy and transporting it to another part of the world would be difficult.
  5. We would have to replace the solar panels after about 25 years, which would cause massive amounts of waste.
  6. It would cost trillions of dollars.
  7. While it is night in the Sahara, there will be no electricity production. However at this time, it is broad daylight in Australia meaning that they need electricity. As said before, the storage is not optimal.
  8. A power cable from the sahara to the rest of the world would have at least a 20% power loss.
  9. The solar panels would cool the desert, meaning plants would grow. Then it wouldn't be a desert anymore and we would be destroying more habitat.
  10. The dust and sand that the wind in the sahara picks up, fertilises the Amazon rainforest. With all those solar panels in the way, the dust wouldn't fertilise the Amazon. The amazon dying would be a catastrophy.
  11. Due to point 9. hurricanes and storms would rampage the Americas more frequently.
  12. Global oxygen levels may drop due to losing the amazon (point 10.) and the atlantic also being affected.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Covering the entire Sahara and trying to power the whole world with it, is a really bad idea. However, it could be implemented on a much smaller scale to provide local populations with electricity. Morroco has the world's largest solar farm in the Sahara.



All in all, solar panels aren't great for the environment. However, the idea of using the sun's energy is actually not too bad. If the technology surrounding the production, waste and storage of solar panels could be drastically improved, then we could use solar panels as the world's main power source. We just need the technology to be efficient first. This is already in the making, hundreds of scientists world-wide are working on how to improve solar panels. There are also ideas of creating solar farms in space, which would eliminate the problem of solar farms being reliant on the weather.

Your Green World Blog Team💚


Sources:

Image: 
This image, owned by Wolfram Burner (on flickr.com) is liscensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment