One of the first images my diminutive kop conjured up, on hearing the words “thin film technology” was a DVD … of course, in the hands of someone like Professor Vivian Alberts of the University of Johannesburg (UJ), thin film technology — based on CIGSse alloy composed of Copper, Indium, Gallium, Sulphur and Selenium — constitutes the means toward perfect energy.
According to the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), “The whole of Africa has sunshine all year round. The annual 24-hour global solar radiation average is about 220W/m2 for South Africa compared with about 150W/m2 for parts of the USA and about 100W/m2 for Europe and the United Kingdom.
“This makes South Africa’s local resource one of the highest in the world.”
The DME’s baseline study on solar energy revealed that our country receives solar radiation to the value of 6 000MJ/m2 – 9 500MJ/m2 (direct plus diffuse) annually.
CIGSse modules maintain a 20% efficiency rate, on par with conventional polysilicon panels. The photo-responsive paper-thin absorber layers are five microns thick; in contrast, a human hair is said to be 20 microns thick.
Professor Chris Engelbrecht of UJ wrote, “Less than one micrometre of CIGS in the form of a thin film absorbs more than 99% of available incident solar energy, compared to the 350 micrometres of silicon needed to do the same job.”
In an interview with the Central Energy Fund (CEF), I was told that the panels, presently glass-on-glass measuring 50cm by 1.2m, have a 20-year warranty and comply with all building regulations. The panels give off the impression of dark glass. Once the warranty expires, the panels can be recycled again.
CIGSse panels also work well in low light conditions, generating energy even in the winter season of countries like Germany.
Raoul Goosen of the CEF said, “Thin film modules produce significantly more electricity (Wh) than the traditional PV modules under real world conditions.
“The main technical reason is that our module is made up of five elements in an alloy, allowing us to harness a wider spectrum of light – example in the mornings and evenings, but even in diffuse light such as shade.”
On the number of panels an average house with an under-roof size of 180m2 would require, the CEF responded that, “a 20-square metre installation would be sufficient”.
In 2005, UJ founded their commercialisation arm PTIP: Photovoltaic Technology Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd, and entered into a technology sharing agreement with IFE Solar Systems, a German company that was later renamed Johanna Solar Technology (JST).
JST reportedly agreed on the sum of R800-million, to be paid in installments, with Alberts acting as technical advisor. The CEF is a shareholder in JST, as is Anglo-Coal and Venfin. JST is licensed ex-Africa.
Goosen said, “The plant we are constructing in Paarl will make 30MW per year of panels.”
Though South Africa, and Africa, have yet to take advantage of solar resources, end-2007 saw global production [PV panels] at 12 400 MW.
In SA, the public consumes around 12% of energy; the mining industry uses 36%, with industry retaining 84%. About 90% of our energy is generated by coal; Eskom produces 95%. Though 80% of the country resides within the 27 000 km national energy grid, less than 43% actually have access to energy.
An article in the M&G, quotes Peet Du Plooy of WWF Trade and Investment Programme stating that actual costs for coal production range from R16 per watt, “and that’s capital costs only”. He cited Medupi, a new coal-fired power station as an example. Medupi hopes to supply 4 800 MW; the plant cost R78.6-billion to construct
Alberts placed the cost of a manufacturing plant at R144-million, with 60W panels sold for R650 per panel.’
Very rarely are externalities related to the extractive industries taken into account, concealing the hidden costs.
Muna Lakhani, an environmental consultant, said, “The entire fuel chain is problematic; for coal use issues such as mining, the non-renewability of the resource, local air and water pollution and the mountains of ash that are generated are all hidden.”
Lakhani qualified the life cycle of solar panels, ‘(gCO2e/kWh) in the order of 32, with coal going to 1 000 without scrubbing off the emissions.’
Alberts, who spent the better part of 13 years working on the technology, has stated that “One hour of solar radiation is equivalent to the total energy consumed by the world in a year.”
Renewable energy is also one of the most job-intensive industries in the world, from factories to distribution and end-users. The CEF said that already in Germany there were over 300 000 people involved in the nascent industry.
Integrating decentralised or interlocked grid technology for low income housing, schools, clinics etc would stimulate the development and gentrification of rural regions, slow the rural to urban shifts; democratise energy and opportunity outside of monetary paradigms by catalysing the growth of small and medium businesses; eliminate water-borne illnesses that account for 80% of all diseases in Africa etc.
“Key areas would include: a drop in externalities, reduced pressure on biomass such as trees, a reduced need for grid infrastructure – a ‘mini-grid’ is both cheaper and more amenable to local operation and maintenance, and a reduction in the need for a cash income.” said Lakhani.
Energy self-sufficiency would also mobilise the concept of multiversities, increase the growth of local processing and manufacturing industries, adding value to the national economy whilst strengthening local communities. Deserts and arid land could be used to harvest energy.
“Deserts are considered ‘climax environments’ and have an important ecological and social component to them,” he said, “Common wisdom has it that 2% of our deserts can generate the total electricity consumption of the world – quite a thought!
“The solar technology I would favour in arid regions is the solar chimneys, as 99% of the land can still be used profitably, and the ‘greenhouse’ built around the tower can be used for agriculture, multiplying the local benefits.”
“Solar energy is the fastest growing renewable technology, currently in the order of 40% per annum since 2005. Globally, something in the order of 8 000 MW, with nearly half being installed last year alone.”
Our Bill of Rights makes provisions for housing, education, healthcare, social security, food and water; an environment that is protected from degradation, with an emphasis on sustainable development. Needless to say, none of the above is really viable without access to energy, nor can sustainable development become a reality without enumerating the externalities of the extractive industries.
Each year, the extractive, technology and agricultural industries “liquidates” between $2- trillion to $5-trillion in forested lands globally; some examples of the many dire consequences include rapid depletion of air and water ‘manufacturing’ and purification spaces, carbon sinks, critically endangered species, habitat destruction, as well as the depletion of invaluable medicinal properties, many as yet undiscovered.
In fact, the carbon-offset trade has perpetuated the illusion of carbon reduction, while legitimising the commercialisation of pollution, with carbon considered a “profitable” commodity.
Unlike coal, uranium and oil technology, CIGSse panels accords people the inclusive, non-invasive right to power that is directly accessed, and not wholly reliant on a handful of extractive industry monopolies.
These same monopolies, bridging the connect between capital, securities, extractive industries and technology entities, are guilty of financing and abetting the apartheid regime, as can be seen in the case of Khulumani vs Barclays et al.
The progenitor of this technology, CIS or copper-indium-deselenide, was developed in the US in 1974, coinciding with the 1973 oil embargo, which resulted in massive energy shortages and drastic price escalation.
In 1975, Don Craven of the Federal Energy Reserve issued a report stating that 89% of public (taxpayer) funds channelled into Solar Research and Development (R&D) by the US government went directly into the hands of arms and energy multinationals such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Westinghouse, a nuclear reactor manufacturer, – all entities that depend on the military/economic war for resources.
In doing so, then and now, the rate in which renewable energy develops and is utilised rests entirely on the “generosity” of these companies. Is it any wonder infinite, clean and renewable technology has lagged behind finite capital-intensive industries?
In the Seventies it was estimated that the US government subsidised Big Oil to the tune of $7-billion.
And now we come to the beautiful Barack Obama, vehement supporter of US policy profiteering from GMOs to USAfricom.
Obama recently told IPS in an interview that he would consider eliminating the current $40-billion per annum in subsidies to the oil corporations. In another interview, he emphasised the need for “alternative” energy — biofuels and nuclear.
[Given that 40% of black kids and Hispanic kids in the US are classified as sitting on the poverty belt (dirt poor), does a war-mongering petrochemical corporation like Chevron with revenue of $220-billion (2007) really deserve charity?]
As the president of the largest controlling economy in the world, with a currency relying on the built-in invoicing of petro-dollars, a great deal is riding on Obama.
Obama stated, “I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer.” ADM (of Illinois), the supermarket of the world, – as well as corn-based ethanol, is known as a political “placement” agency. The former CEO defined their primary enemy as the customer.
His fourth largest “official” patron, also from Illinois where Obama hails, is Exelon Corp, America’s leading nuclear operator. Over 200 financial backers or bundlers, as they are known, banked on Obama as being the perfect industry player – young, black, “liberal” and smart enough to be a well-oiled populist/ political Washington machine.
Why does Big Industry from biofuels to nuclear and oil, wield so much clout? Why has solar energy been deliberately overlooked?
Power. Seven of the top ten multinationals are oil firms. Lobbyists from oil, finance and agribusiness injected over $2.4-billion during the presidential race.
An industry-insider described Obama to Harpers, with the words, “What is the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”
The main drawback to solar energy has been its cost – estimated at about R22 (US$2.80) per watt. In contrast, with such an abundance of coal, South Africa currently produces the world’s cheapest electricity at about R10 (US$1.30) per watt. However, with fast-improving technology, experts are predicting 99c per watt in the near future which will make solar energy a more attractive proposition than coal.
peace x
I have no doubt that the Jews and Israelis control the industries that are suppressing solar energy. Check carefully under your bed and you will see all sorts of other conspiracies. They lurk there to catch you by night. Big business, The IMF, Jews – THEY WILL GET YOU!!!
Personally, I’m not so sure that there are universal conspiracies and maybe solar power is just a stupid idea.
I can think of many reasons why solar power on more than a micro scale is plain dumb
- Solar power happens during the day, we use most power at night. How do you store the KWH? (Don’t give me the battery or energy pile answer because they are far far to inefficient.
- You can achieve 200W, even 250W per SqM at midday, the panel is far less efficient before 10:30am and after 2:30pm. A house roof is about 1/3 the area required for a small to moderate household’s usage. Are you prepared to have hundreds of thousands of Hectare of farmland covered with ugly solar panels?
- Solar energy was vastly too expensive at an oil price of US$130 and a coal price of SAR3 600 (about 30 weeks ago). Do you truly think it’ll fly now at an oil price of US$47 and a coal price at SAR650. (we are in a different economic world to what existed just 20 weeks ago!!!)
I suggest you read this first class blog before you write anything else on electric energy. Written by a professional, with an open mind, it presents a clear picture of the problems of South African energy and later, in the comments, Hatfield discusses why solar energy isn’t an option.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/readerblog/2008/03/25/energy-crisis-myths-misrepresentations-and-fallacies/
This may be a bit off topic, but how much electricity does it take to produce each panel and how long does it take to offset this energy cost?
Hi Total, thanks for the read. Coal is actually more expensive than solar when taking externalities into account. Also, pollution costs – in China it is 10% of their GDP @ $200 billion.
We don’t have the cheapest electricity in the world – Argentina, Russia, China etc have lower household costs..The data used by Eskom – the product of study by NUS, used a controlled group of countries, discounting the above mentioned.
Our electricity is heavily subsidised to artificially reduce costs; SA sells electricity to other countries at ‘below cost’ which SA citizens then pay for. Economist Schussler placed the figure at 274 times below cost, at R3.3 billion.
As you correctly pointed out, the American Economy is usually a controlled economy, controlled by the laws of supply and demand. In 1750, a guy called Adam Smith spoke of the “Invisible hand” of trade. This forms the basis of the free world economies. To slightly misquote one Sir W. S. Churchill “a free market economy is the worst sort of economy… until you consider the horrendous alternatives!”. There are areas where the state should set limits to the free market activity. The failure of the US SEC to enforce existing banking law and the enthusiasm that the top five US banks to squeeze additional profits and market share out of toxic bonds has graphically illustrated what happens to the whole world when a government gets it wrong. I believe that one mistake in 22 years of world GDP growth can be condoned. Well done Alan Greenspan (retired FED chairman and a Jew, yet he steered the US towards a more market driven economy – Clearly he wasn’t one of the “Elders of Zion”, not much conspiracy there)
It is naive to believe that a few people pull the strings that control the US economy. The global economy is so disparate and so diverse that if America does not deliver the right goods or services at the right price, then the international consumer will either buy elsewhere buy some other product. We are seeing this in the US automotive industry right now.
So, to come back onto the topic – Solar energy
Individuals will only adopt solar energy when the benefits outweigh the costs (not just financial). Trouble is, there are far more ecologically friendly, cheaper technologies available right now. This technology is not pie-in-the-sky stuff where the whackos try to promote their hobbyhorse and misquote statistics. This is technology where one can verify the results over the last 5 or 10 years. The most ecologically friendly and besides fossil fuel thermo stations, the cheapest are the nuclear stations. Even when you factor in the disposal of the waste, these stations are economic. They are considerably cheaper than the third most economic alternative, Hydro Electric. They also have a small footprint, something that is vitally important to a nature lover like me. The third option is Hydro Electric. It’s big, covers vast areas of land (I don’t consider drowning land as ecologically friendly!) and initial costs and social disruption are huge.
I suppose we could always cover the Karoo with ugly solar panels. 300 square kilometres would produce sufficient power to replace one 300 Megawatt power station. We just place a strip of panels 25 kilometres wide alongside the Johannesburg – Cape Town highway, all the way from Johannesburg to Cape Town, and I repeat that this is only 300 megawatts (equivilent to one powerstation) – for four hours a day – only on sunny days, at the one time we don’t need electricity. It is also low voltage and direct current, making matters much more difficult. (How do you EFFICIENTLY convert 24 Volts from a solar panel to 110 000 volts AC for grid transmission? – solve that and you’ll become famous)
So then, explain to me again, what are the benefits of solar energy that make it superior to Nuclear, Hyrdo or modern fossil fuel stations burning good fuel and fitted with stack scrubbers… Would you suggest that one shouldn’t let the laws of physics, economic realities or any other facts come in the way of a good argument. It does spoil things a bit.
You can’t drive a car on solar, but you can on biofuels.
The lack of common sense in our politicians always astounds me. We can’t use maize for biofuels – so farmers will not grow maize but another crop like hemp (which can’t be eaten ) reducing the maize supply even more!
BEFORE the petrol companies were protected by government legislature SA had a biofuel, Union Spirit, the by product of the sugar industry! SA government and the petrol companies banned it! The MORE maize the better – for both food and fuel!
Hi Mark; thanks for reading. Depending on analysts – between 5 to 9 years to offset costs, also taking into account efficiency, surface area, whether on-grid/grid-connected, or off-grid, as well as whether user sells surplus energy – if not permitted, the purchaser will have excess power on his hands. Our government is one of eight non-oecd to subsidise energy to the costs of (total) $95 billion + annually. Eskom recently submitted figure of R363 billion to Nersa, much of which revolves around irrecoverable primary costs.
The Stanford prof who founded SunPower claims to have achieved 22% + efficiency. Nanosolar has figure of $0.99c per watt etc so technology may well reduce period to under five years.
Hi Lyndall; thanks for reading- is biofuels the solution? who represents the interests pushing for monocultures? biofuels represents the opposite of a carbon sink, results in mass desertification, deforestation, run-offs, marine dead-zones, rapid water depletion – 72% of fresh water used for cash crops etc etc There is progress made on the solar car/plane front in Iran, China, UK etc The primary problem remains a lack of funds injected into R&D.
The Zephy-6 solar powered aircraft for eg. has set an unofficial record..solar power charges lithium-sulphur which keeps the plane going at night. A Chinese firm has developed a car that runs for 150 km on solar energy; still being developed but that is the progress thus far.
At $1=R7.5, it was estimated that Medupi power station would cost R80 billion for 4700MW, or R17 per watt. That’s over R21 per watt at current exchange rates if all costs were dollar based, which they are not.
Coal based power stations are not cheap, even if we disregard the environmental pollution of the air and groundwater (from coal mining).
I have not seen estimates for the cost of building nukes, but one rumour was R120 billion for 3600MW (around Feb 2008). Eskom talks of R700 billion for 4 nukes.
Molten salt is very efficient at storing heat from solar collectors (not the photovoltaic generators) and can power a turbine for 2-12 hours, depending upon the size of the storage tank and generator capacity. A 30 ft x 80 ft molten salt storage tank can power a 100MW turbine for 4 hours.
I thought the main drawback with solar is that it just can’t produce the kind of volume of power industry needs. Its fine for the general public and a good thing to have as a component of a larger power grid, but it can’t replace coal or nuclear for large scale industrial use. Or so I understand it.
I just so happened to be reading about the Danish island of Samsoe this morning, where 100% of their energy comes from renewable sources. Its amazing actually – very grassroots. People own their own wind-turbines or shares in bigger communal wind turbines, use solar power in their homes, etc. They are a very windy place though, so it wouldn’t work everywhere.
But I think its really rather great that its just a project run by this community of people. I read that Sasol (I think it was Sasol…) approached them to get involved in building the wind farm. Sasol would then own the wind farm, so the community said no thank you very much, we will own it, goodbye Sasol
Hi Oldfox
Tis true: Areva estimates Nuke 1 at 3 500MW @ R120 billion. Medupid is estimated at R16 per watt, capital costs alone. The total is in the range you said – R21/R22 per watt. Solar is not viable primarily because extractive industries will no longer hold monopolies over access to energy.
I have long since realised that the overwhelming majority of non-scientists (thankfully, there are many notable exceptions) simply don’t wish to take the time to think clearly about scientific and technological issues, and prefer to let their views on science and technology be based on belief rather than fact. The numbers quoted by John Bond are so preposterously misleading that someone needs to correct them publicly. Firstly, a 25-km wide strip running alongside the N1 from Jhb to Cape Town would cover 72000 square kilometres, not 300 as stated (if the strip runs along only one side of the highway, then it would cover 36000 square kilometres). That number can be attained by a 9-year old armed with a pocket calculator. Secondly, a 300 square kilometre area covered by solar panels operating at at a very ordinary 10% efficiency, would deliver 66 billion kWh of usable electrical energy over the course of a year (based on decades-long insolation measurements in South Africa, which I can send to anyone who is interested) after the effects of day, night, summer and winter, cloud and rain are averaged out. That is roughly one third of the total electrical energy sold by Eskom in one year (using their 2001 Annual report). In terms of the purported wastage of land, an interesting comparison to 300 square kilometres is the limited development zone adjacent to the Koeberg power station: approximately 230 square kilometres. If it is justifiable to set aside that area for a power station that produces about 15 billion kWh per year of electrical energy at the best of times, why baulk at a slightly larger area to produce more than four times more energy?
Laura,
Photovoltaic generators convert solar radiation directly into electricity. Photovoltaic cells are small, so huge numbers have to be connected together to be able to generate a huge amount of energy/power. These cannot generate energy when there is no sunlight.
Solar radiation collectors use mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto tubes (kilometres of tubes) , or onto a large receiver on top of a single tower. A very large array of mirrors+ tower could generate around 100MW. By heating a large amount of molten salt, energy stored in the salt can be used when there is no sunlight, to drive large electrical generators for a few hours.
The largest electrical generator generates around 600-800MW each, so giant coal power stations use typically 6 of these.
Very windy parts of the world, such as Scotland and a part of Xinjiang province in China, can generate electrical energy from wind very economically. Already, Xinjiang generates one third of all the electrical output of Eskom.