Air Travel » Air Travel Flight » Reduction of CO2 Emissions by Using Photovoltaic Modules
Question:
I’ve just finished these calculations… and decided to make it up into an article for the Summer Maine Sun (which I am supposed to be doing this weekend anyway, so this makes me feel better about taking the time out to do some REAL physical chemistry for a change [after all, this is what I was trained to do]). Feel free to pass this on anywhere you wish but please give credit and remember that this will be published next week in the Maine Sun so give the credit to that and MESEA. I hope you find this useful. Rich Richard J. Komp, President Maine Solar Energy Association (MESEA) RR 2 Box 7751 Jonesport ME 04649 Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Using Photovoltaic Modules in Remote Areas By Richard Komp How much reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can be accomplished by using photovoltaic systems? I have just made some calculations of just how many tons of CO2 emissions could be mitigated by using photovoltaic systems instead of fossil fuels to either generate electricity or replace kerosene lamps. Photovoltaics compared to small Diesel Generators For the first calculation I looked up some performance specs on web sites for small gas and diesel generators. Picking a Yanmar L90AE 9 hp. Unit, I found that the generator would produce 5 kW continuously using up about 1/2 gallon of diesel fuel per hour. (This is at full output, at part throttle, the engine is probably less efficient but would last considerably longer between overhauls.) Diesel fuel has a density of about 0.78 Kg/liter. (I converted all the numbers to metric units for ease of calculation but will give the final answer also in old fashioned "English" units.) Diesel fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons with an average weight ratio of 12 parts carbon to 2 parts hydrogen with small amounts of other elements like sulfur (which is supposed to be taken out in the next few years anyway). Therefore 1 liter of diesel fuel has 0.67 Kg of carbon and will produce 2.45 Kg of CO2. The Yanmar generator will produce about 2.5 kWh. per liter of fuel used, which works roughly out to the easy to remember number of 1 Kg of CO2 produced for each Kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. (2.2 pounds/kWh.) Home PV system in Maine: A typical off-grid home system in Maine might have a 1000 watt (1 kW) pv system to give an approximation of a middle class life style. (My home system is 400 watts but I have given up on trying to be middle class.) Given average weather conditions, such a system would produce about 1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year in Downeast Maine. This system would mitigate 1 Tonne of CO2 per year. (Those are metric Tonnes of 1000 Kg, or 1.1 English short tons.) Over the 25 year lifetime of the system (somewhat arbitrary, since pv modules come with 25 year guarantees nowadays), that adds up to 25 Tonnes (or over 27 Tons) of CO2. Home PV system in Nicaragua: The Grupo Fenix I have been working with in Nicaragua has been installing 25 watt pv systems on remote homes for Nicaraguan campesinos (no pretense of middle class here at all). Based on the weather and solar insolation data furnished to us by Padre Julio Lopez de la Fuente (a Jesuit priest at the University of Central America who has been measuring the sunlight intensity for more than the past 30 years), this system would furnish about 120 watt-hours per day or about 44 kWh per year. Over the 25 year "lifetime" of the system, this adds up to 1.1 Tonnes (1.2 Tons) of CO2. Photovoltaics compared to Kerosene Lamps The second calculation is a bit more difficult to quantify since the amount and quality of light from a photovoltaic powered fluorescent lamp is quite different from poor quality, yellow illumination from the typical kerosene lamp. Therefore I will use another example from Nicaragua and assume the pv array with two 20 watt fluorescent lamps in the campesino’s home simply replaces two kerosene lamps, one per room, without attempting to match illumination (The rooms are very much brighter after the pv system is installed.) I am also assuming that the campesino would have been using about 250 ml (one US pint) of kerosene per day before the changeover. Kerosene has a density of 0.82 Kg/liter, slightly higher than diesel fuel but the same type of calculation applies, giving 2.6 Kg of carbon dioxide for each liter of kerosene burned. This adds up to 240 Kg/year for the 91 liters of kerosene eliminated by installing the 25 watt pv system. Over the 25 year "lifetime" this is 6 Tonnes (6.6 tons) of CO2 mitigated for the $400 photovoltaic system. Implications for Carbon Emission Trading Recently there has been a good deal of interest in the concept of "buying the right" to emit carbon dioxide. There is even an International Carbon Bank and Exchange; and the price of CO2 emission mitigations is expected to soon be about $20 per Tonne ($18 per ton). Using the example above, a large multinational corporation may be willing to pay at least $120 of the cost of the Nicaraguan campesino’s system if they got some sort of certificate giving them the "right" to pollute the 6 Tonnes of CO2 saved by the system. The philosophical implications of this line of reasoning can be far reaching but I will leave those for another article. I will, however, point out that a common Conservative argument for doing nothing to cut the wasteful use of energy in the US and subsequent release of CO2; is that the Third World Nations are unwilling to commit themselves to drastic reductions of their small (per capita) CO2 emissions. Billions of people in the world live by the meager light of kerosene lamps and each of the thousands of small pv systems now being installed for these people, in addition to markedly improving the quality of their life, will cut the carbon dioxide emission by about 6 Tonnes per system over their lifetime.
Response:
> I’ve just finished these calculations… (snip)
Thanks for the info, Nick, it’s interesting. However, it would be good if the physicist also took into account the environmental cost of producing and maintaining the PV panels, batteries, controller, cables, connectors and light bulbs during their typical life in a third world setting before he suggested them as an alternative to kerosene lamps. Gerry
Response:
Of course, this type of analysis has a place in truly rural situations, but there’s an element of hypocrisy involved. Instead of asking, are more emissions avoided by a microturbine or pv, why not ask a question that does not doom the respondent to the poverty of having to rely on the vagaries and intensely lower-class output of small pv system. You may be willing to live like that, but I’m not, and I do not see why I should be so patronizing to the Nicaraguan campesinos as to assume they’ll settle for it. After all, which of us could afford to live on 120 watt hours per day? Not me, and I very much doubt you could either for very long. Why should they have to? Why don’t you really try to help them? Hook the village up to a power line, the power line to a substation, and all of the substations to a nuke on the outskirts of Managua. Not only are the greenhouse gas emissions lower than you propose, but the campesinos have a chance to use enough energy to avoid the consequences of persistent poverty. I suspect that many capesinos throughout the third world are about to really get ripped off by emissions trading. Maybe someday they’ll get smart and realize they shouldn’t take part in such foolish schemes proposed by friends who may not be really helping them at all. Policy Pete web site: http://qv3.com/policypete/policypete.htm
| | I’ve just finished these calculations… and decided to make it up into | an article for the Summer Maine Sun (which I am supposed to be doing | this weekend anyway, so this makes me feel better about taking the time | out to do some REAL physical chemistry for a change [after all, this is | what I was trained to do]). Feel free to pass this on anywhere you wish | but please give credit and remember that this will be published next week | in the Maine Sun so give the credit to that and MESEA. I hope you find | this useful. | | Rich | | Richard J. Komp, President | Maine Solar Energy Association (MESEA) | RR 2 Box 7751 | Jonesport ME 04649 | | Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Using Photovoltaic Modules in | Remote Areas | | By Richard Komp | How much reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can be accomplished | by using photovoltaic systems? I have just made some calculations of just | how many tons of CO2 emissions could be mitigated by using photovoltaic | systems instead of fossil fuels to either generate electricity or replace | kerosene lamps. | | Photovoltaics compared to small Diesel Generators | For the first calculation I looked up some performance specs on | web sites for small gas and diesel generators. Picking a Yanmar L90AE 9 | hp. Unit, I found that the generator would produce 5 kW continuously | using up about 1/2 gallon of diesel fuel per hour. (This is at full | output, at part throttle, the engine is probably less efficient but would | last considerably longer between overhauls.) | Diesel fuel has a density of about 0.78 Kg/liter. (I converted all | the numbers to metric units for ease of calculation but will give the | final answer also in old fashioned "English" units.) Diesel fuel is a | mixture of hydrocarbons with an average weight ratio of 12 parts carbon | to 2 parts hydrogen with small amounts of other elements like sulfur | (which is supposed to be taken out in the next few years anyway). | Therefore 1 liter of diesel fuel has 0.67 Kg of carbon and will produce | 2.45 Kg of CO2. The Yanmar generator will produce about 2.5 kWh. per | liter of fuel used, which works roughly out to the easy to remember | number of 1 Kg of CO2 produced for each Kilowatt-hour of electricity | produced. (2.2 pounds/kWh.) | Home PV system in Maine: A typical off-grid home system in Maine | might have a 1000 watt (1 kW) pv system to give an approximation of a | middle class life style. (My home system is 400 watts but I have given up | on trying to be middle class.) Given average weather conditions, such a | system would produce about 1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year in | Downeast Maine. This system would mitigate 1 Tonne of CO2 per year. | (Those are metric Tonnes of 1000 Kg, or 1.1 English short tons.) Over | the 25 year lifetime of the system (somewhat arbitrary, since pv modules | come with 25 year guarantees nowadays), that adds up to 25 Tonnes (or | over 27 Tons) of CO2. | Home PV system in Nicaragua: The Grupo Fenix I have been working | with in Nicaragua has been installing 25 watt pv systems on remote homes | for Nicaraguan campesinos (no pretense of middle class here at all). | Based on the weather and solar insolation data furnished to us by Padre | Julio Lopez de la Fuente (a Jesuit priest at the University of Central | America who has been measuring the sunlight intensity for more than the | past 30 years), this system would furnish about 120 watt-hours per day | or about 44 kWh per year. Over the 25 year "lifetime" of the system, | this adds up to 1.1 Tonnes (1.2 Tons) of CO2. | | Photovoltaics compared to Kerosene Lamps | The second calculation is a bit more difficult to quantify since the | amount and quality of light from a photovoltaic powered fluorescent lamp | is quite different from poor quality, yellow illumination from the | typical kerosene lamp. Therefore I will use another example from | Nicaragua and assume the pv array with two 20 watt fluorescent lamps in | the campesino’s home simply replaces two kerosene lamps, one per room, | without attempting to match illumination (The rooms are very much | brighter after the pv system is installed.) I am also assuming that the | campesino would have been using about 250 ml (one US pint) of kerosene | per day before the changeover. | Kerosene has a density of 0.82 Kg/liter, slightly higher than diesel | fuel but the same type of calculation applies, giving 2.6 Kg of carbon | dioxide for each liter of kerosene burned. This adds up to 240 Kg/year | for the 91 liters of kerosene eliminated by installing the 25 watt pv | system. Over the 25 year "lifetime" this is 6 Tonnes (6.6 tons) of CO2 | mitigated for the $400 photovoltaic system. | | Implications for Carbon Emission Trading | Recently there has been a good deal of interest in the concept of | "buying the right" to emit carbon dioxide. There is even an | International Carbon Bank and Exchange; and the price of CO2 emission | mitigations is expected to soon be about $20 per Tonne ($18 per ton). | Using the example above, a large multinational corporation may be willing | to pay at least $120 of the cost of the Nicaraguan campesino’s system if | they got some sort of certificate giving them the "right" to pollute the | 6 Tonnes of CO2 saved by the system. | The philosophical implications of this line of reasoning can be far | reaching but I will leave those for another article. I will, however, | point out that a common Conservative argument for doing nothing to cut | the wasteful use of energy in the US and subsequent release of CO2; is | that the Third World Nations are unwilling to commit themselves to | drastic reductions of their small (per capita) CO2 emissions. Billions | of people in the world live by the meager light of kerosene lamps and | each of the thousands of small pv systems now being installed for these | people, in addition to markedly improving the quality of their life, will | cut the carbon dioxide emission by about 6 Tonnes per system over their | lifetime. |
Response:
well, they aren’t going to get a nuke. so instead, they will install dirty generators. Now does a clean source make more sense than a dirty generator? — — Steve Spence Renewable Energy Pages – http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages – http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation – http://www.webconx.com/x10 (212) 894-3704 x3154 – voicemail/fax If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for people who we disagree with, we don’t believe in it at all. —
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Of course, this type of analysis has a place in truly rural situations, but > there’s an element of hypocrisy involved. Instead of asking, are more > emissions avoided by a microturbine or pv, why not ask a question that does > not doom the respondent to the poverty of having to rely on the vagaries and > intensely lower-class output of small pv system. You may be willing to live > like that, but I’m not, and I do not see why I should be so patronizing to > the Nicaraguan campesinos as to assume they’ll settle for it. After all, > which of us could afford to live on 120 watt hours per day? Not me, and I > very much doubt you could either for very long. Why should they have to? > Why don’t you really try to help them? Hook the village up to a power line, > the power line to a substation, and all of the substations to a nuke on the > outskirts of Managua. Not only are the greenhouse gas emissions lower than > you propose, but the campesinos have a chance to use enough energy to avoid > the consequences of persistent poverty. > I suspect that many capesinos throughout the third world are about to really > get ripped off by emissions trading. Maybe someday they’ll get smart and > realize they shouldn’t take part in such foolish schemes proposed by friends > who may not be really helping them at all. > Policy Pete web site: > http://qv3.com/policypete/policypete.htm > | > | I’ve just finished these calculations… and decided to make it up into > | an article for the Summer Maine Sun (which I am supposed to be doing > | this weekend anyway, so this makes me feel better about taking the time > | out to do some REAL physical chemistry for a change [after all, this is > | what I was trained to do]). Feel free to pass this on anywhere you wish > | but please give credit and remember that this will be published next week > | in the Maine Sun so give the credit to that and MESEA. I hope you find > | this useful. > | > | Rich > | > | Richard J. Komp, President > | Maine Solar Energy Association (MESEA) > | RR 2 Box 7751 > | Jonesport ME 04649 > | > | Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Using Photovoltaic Modules in > | Remote Areas > | > | By Richard Komp > | How much reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can be accomplished > | by using photovoltaic systems? I have just made some calculations of just > | how many tons of CO2 emissions could be mitigated by using photovoltaic > | systems instead of fossil fuels to either generate electricity or replace > | kerosene lamps. > | > | Photovoltaics compared to small Diesel Generators > | For the first calculation I looked up some performance specs on > | web sites for small gas and diesel generators. Picking a Yanmar L90AE 9 > | hp. Unit, I found that the generator would produce 5 kW continuously > | using up about 1/2 gallon of diesel fuel per hour. (This is at full > | output, at part throttle, the engine is probably less efficient but would > | last considerably longer between overhauls.) > | Diesel fuel has a density of about 0.78 Kg/liter. (I converted all > | the numbers to metric units for ease of calculation but will give the > | final answer also in old fashioned "English" units.) Diesel fuel is a > | mixture of hydrocarbons with an average weight ratio of 12 parts carbon > | to 2 parts hydrogen with small amounts of other elements like sulfur > | (which is supposed to be taken out in the next few years anyway). > | Therefore 1 liter of diesel fuel has 0.67 Kg of carbon and will produce > | 2.45 Kg of CO2. The Yanmar generator will produce about 2.5 kWh. per > | liter of fuel used, which works roughly out to the easy to remember > | number of 1 Kg of CO2 produced for each Kilowatt-hour of electricity > | produced. (2.2 pounds/kWh.) > | Home PV system in Maine: A typical off-grid home system in Maine > | might have a 1000 watt (1 kW) pv system to give an approximation of a > | middle class life style. (My home system is 400 watts but I have given up > | on trying to be middle class.) Given average weather conditions, such a > | system would produce about 1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year in > | Downeast Maine. This system would mitigate 1 Tonne of CO2 per year. > | (Those are metric Tonnes of 1000 Kg, or 1.1 English short tons.) Over > | the 25 year lifetime of the system (somewhat arbitrary, since pv modules > | come with 25 year guarantees nowadays), that adds up to 25 Tonnes (or > | over 27 Tons) of CO2. > | Home PV system in Nicaragua: The Grupo Fenix I have been working > | with in Nicaragua has been installing 25 watt pv systems on remote homes > | for Nicaraguan campesinos (no pretense of middle class here at all). > | Based on the weather and solar insolation data furnished to us by Padre > | Julio Lopez de la Fuente (a Jesuit priest at the University of Central > | America who has been measuring the sunlight intensity for more than the > | past 30 years), this system would furnish about 120 watt-hours per day > | or about 44 kWh per year. Over the 25 year "lifetime" of the system, > | this adds up to 1.1 Tonnes (1.2 Tons) of CO2. > | > | Photovoltaics compared to Kerosene Lamps > | The second calculation is a bit more difficult to quantify since the > | amount and quality of light from a photovoltaic powered fluorescent lamp > | is quite different from poor quality, yellow illumination from the > | typical kerosene lamp. Therefore I will use another example from > | Nicaragua and assume the pv array with two 20 watt fluorescent lamps in > | the campesino’s home simply replaces two kerosene lamps, one per room, > | without attempting to match illumination (The rooms are very much > | brighter after the pv system is installed.) I am also assuming that the > | campesino would have been using about 250 ml (one US pint) of kerosene > | per day before the changeover. > | Kerosene has a density of 0.82 Kg/liter, slightly higher than diesel > | fuel but the same type of calculation applies, giving 2.6 Kg of carbon > | dioxide for each liter of kerosene burned. This adds up to 240 Kg/year > | for the 91 liters of kerosene eliminated by installing the 25 watt pv > | system. Over the 25 year "lifetime" this is 6 Tonnes (6.6 tons) of CO2 > | mitigated for the $400 photovoltaic system. > | > | Implications for Carbon Emission Trading > | Recently there has been a good deal of interest in the concept of > | "buying the right" to emit carbon dioxide. There is even an > | International Carbon Bank and Exchange; and the price of CO2 emission > | mitigations is expected to soon be about $20 per Tonne ($18 per ton). > | Using the example above, a large multinational corporation may be willing > | to pay at least $120 of the cost of the Nicaraguan campesino’s system if > | they got some sort of certificate giving them the "right" to pollute the > | 6 Tonnes of CO2 saved by the system. > | The philosophical implications of this line of reasoning can be far > | reaching but I will leave those for another article. I will, however, > | point out that a common Conservative argument for doing nothing to cut > | the wasteful use of energy in the US and subsequent release of CO2; is > | that the Third World Nations are unwilling to commit themselves to > | drastic reductions of their small (per capita) CO2 emissions. Billions > | of people in the world live by the meager light of kerosene lamps and > | each of the thousands of small pv systems now being installed for these > | people, in addition to markedly improving the quality of their life, will > | cut the carbon dioxide emission by about 6 Tonnes per system over their > | lifetime. > |
Response:
>Of course, this type of analysis has a place in truly rural situations, but >there’s an element of hypocrisy involved. Instead of asking, are more >emissions avoided by a microturbine or pv, why not ask a question that does >not doom the respondent to the poverty of having to rely on the vagaries and >intensely lower-class output of small pv system. You may be willing to live >like that, but I’m not, and I do not see why I should be so patronizing to >the Nicaraguan campesinos as to assume they’ll settle for it. After all, >which of us could afford to live on 120 watt hours per day? Not me, and I >very much doubt you could either for very long. Why should they have to?
It isn’t an issue of getting people in developing nations to settle for something less, it’s an issue of getting them electricty at all. Your view seems to be that they should either have a complete, modern electrical grid or no electricty at all. Fine. Now where do the Nicaraguan campesinos get the billions of dollars to build it? Where do they get the expertise to maintain it? And how long will it take to get those things? Should they have to live with no electricity whatsoever in the meantime? Talk about patronizing… Someone currently living with no electricty can certainly "afford" to live on 120 watt-hours per day — in fact, studies exist which suggest that even a meager amount of electricity can improve productivity simply by allowing people to work after the sun goes down.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > x-no-archive:yes >Thanks for the info, Nick, it’s interesting. However, it would be good if the >physicist also took into account the environmental cost of producing and >maintaining the PV panels, batteries, controller, cables, connectors and >light bulbs during their typical life in a third world setting before he >suggested them as an alternative to kerosene lamps. > These manufacture "costs" are always raised with PV, but never with > the alternative. How about the costs to drill, crack, and transport > the fuel. How about the costs to mine, refine, and mill the steel in > the engine. How about the cost of maintaining a global strike force to > guard the crude producers > Makes the PV look downright tame
Agreed, but consider the trajicomic scenario of people switching to PV to reduce oil consumption, only to have the manufacturers’ cranked-up production actually increasing oil consumption, because no one considered that PV panels might actually have negative energy payback. Informed decisions are possible only if hard, objective, information is available for *all* forms of energy production. Maybe PV can lead the way!
Response:
Someone has worked themselves into a Valium crisis imagining the world oil refineries increasing their net output as PV modules replace fossil fuels. Alexandra von Meier showed in her paper, circa 1987 (not IEEE PVSC Proceedings, maybe European PVS), PV modules have energy payback periods ranging from 4 months to 10 years, depending on the technology.
Response:
>…it would be good if the physicist also took into account the >environmental cost of producing and maintaining the PV panels, >batteries, controller, cables, connectors and light bulbs during >their typical life in a third world setting before he suggested >them as an alternative to kerosene lamps.
Actually I am very aware of all these issues. I am attaching some information about the Grupo Fenix down in Nicaragua who do all the things you mention. In fact the Grupo Fenix has gotten work repairing systems for NGO’s who have come down, given a system and then thought their work was done. They now have a contract with Terrasol to find their "orphan" pv systems and restore them to operation. We make ALL the components down there now, even the special deep-cycle batteries, high-frequency electronic ballasts for the fluorescent lamps, charge controllers, and can maintain them all. Have you ever lived with kerosene lamps? When you get the electric light it is so much better. Rich Richard J. Komp, President SunWatt Corporation RR 2 Box 7751 Jonesport ME 04649 SHORT COURSE on SOLAR ENERGY IN NICARAGUA An opportunity to offer your hands, heart, and a unique gift: Electricity! One doesn’t often think twice about turning on the light switch. But for more than 40% of Nicaragua’s population, this is not even possible: they have no electricity. For many, the cost of purchasing an electrical lighting system is way beyond their means. A farm laborer fortunate enough to have work all month in a country with massive unemployment makes about $40. His family in the countryside either goes without the luxury of light, or spends $10-$15 per month on candles and kerosene. Alternatively, some communities have managed to obtain noisy diesel generators that are silenced when they run out of expensive scarce fuel, while others use old car batteries, requiring money to recharge before they fail within months. In 1996 a group of third-year electrical engineering students at the National Engineering University in Managua (UNI), saw a need without a means. So together with their enthusiastic professor they created one: GRUPO FENIX. They are bringing electricity to Nicaragua’s countryside: not electricity born of large generators and high-voltage power lines, but of an abundant Nicaraguan natural resource — the sun. FENIX is supported by a diverse assortment of individuals who have a personal and/or professional vision of providing the world with renewable energy resources. Dr. Richard Komp, President of Sunwatt Corp., and Susan Kinne, Associate Professor of Electronics Engineering at UNI, are key leaders in this effort. Bridging the gap between North and Central America, Richard and Susan are combining their expertise and resources to make this project possible. FENIX invites interested parties to participate directly in its growth and vision. We are offering an 11-day workshop/tour in which participants will learn about solar energy systems, study applications specific to Central America, visit renewable energy installations, and install PV lighting systems in a rural village. The program includes recreational and cultural activities and excursions. The 11-day workshop will run from August 1st – August 11th. The cost of the entire trip, excluding air fare and airport expenses, is $750 per person, which includes a $200 subsidy towards a solar system for the village where we will work. The course will be taught in English (although Spanish ability greatly enhances your experience of Nicaragua). The Grupo FENIX, affiliated with Dr. Komp’s non-profit Foundation Skyheat, has been manufacturing and installing small photovoltaic systems in remote villages in Nicaragua. The entire system, consisting of a 25 Watt pv module, fluorescent lamps, a deep-cycle storage battery, charge controller and wiring is made by these pioneers in Nicaragua from local parts (except for the solar cells and some other special electronic parts). The system is sold to cash-poor rural dwellers on a long-term time payment arrangement geared to their limited means. FENIX is engaged in other renewable energy activities, such as designing, installing and maintaining village scale PV systems for rural health clinics. Future plans include developing an affordable but highly-efficient 12 volt refrigerator to be made in Nicaragua. THE SCHEDULE: Monday, July 31, 2000 or Tuesday August 1- Arrive in Nicaragua and be picked up at the airport. Reception and settling into the barrio (neighborhood) where we will stay in Managua. The housing is modest; participants will have an option for fancier accommodations in a local guest house or motel (for an additional fee). Tuesday, August 1, Tour of the barrio and the part of Managua where the UNI is situated. This is the heart of the new center of Managua, and universities, shops, art galleries and many other cultural features are located within walking distance. Meet Grupo Fenix participants and UNI faculty. Wednesday, August 2 through Friday August 4, Courses on solar energy at the UNI. These will include the history and philosophy of using solar energy, passive solar architecture, active solar systems for heating water and air, a half day session where we will build solar box cookers, and finally sessions on photovoltaics, where we will actually solder solar cells together to make small pv modules as well as learn the theory of operation of solar cells. Saturday, August 5, Visit solar installations in Masaya, including a solar powered wood drier at a local furniture cooperative and the large, high temperature solar water heater on the hospital. Visit the local Masaya Volcano National Park. Sunday, August 6, Activities with barrio residents mixed with (optional) field trips to nearby beautiful places like Lake Nicaragua at Granada or the overlook at Catarina. Monday, August 7 through Wednesday August 9, Leave for the remote village with renewable energy site visits on the way. Reception in the village and cultural exchange. Settle into sleeping accommodations in simple village homes. Install two Fenix photovoltaic systems on village buildings. Use the solar box cookers made earlier and now donated to the village. Evening, celebrate the light in the night! Then return to Managua, again visiting interesting places like Ciudad Dario and a large hydroelectric power plant, rest in the late afternoon and time to reflect on our trip. Thursday, August 10, Visit the Laguna de Apoyo, a beautiful volcanic crater lake where the participants can go swimming and visit a reforestation project sponsored by the American group, SeedTree. Meet with the elders of the Nicaraguan environmental movement. Shopping for handicrafts then fiesta in the evening! Friday, August 11, Final class session at the UNI, where we will review the various solar experiences and go into those aspects of solar energy of most interest to the participants. All full participants will receive a Certificate from the UNI, confirming their successful completion of the course. Friday afternoon or Saturday August 12, Leave Nicaragua from the Managua airport. Second weekend, Sat. August 12 / Sun. August 13: Optional overnight eco-tour to the Silva Negra or the San Ramon area (additional cost $100). We also plan to offer this course again January 2 – 12, 2001 with the same type of schedule. Note: fees may be higher for the second course. THE INSTRUCTORS: Richard Komp, Ph.D., the principal instructor, is the author of PRACTICAL PHOTOVOLTAICS and has been working on solar cells since 1960. He has taught numerous courses and workshops on solar energy all over the world; is currently the president of the Maine Solar Energy Association and has a small photovoltaics company, SunWatt Corporation. Richard will also be teaching a graduate course on Solar Energy at the UNI. Susan Kinne, the tour leader and second instructor, has been teaching electrical engineering courses at the UNI for the past 9 years, has traveled and studied in Central America and Cuba, is fluent in Spanish, and speaks German as well as her native English. Susan has worked in the manufacture of silicon wafers for electronic integrated circuits at Cincinnati Milicron and is the organizer of the Grupo Fenix. Many of the engineers working on photovoltaics in Nicaragua (as well as a good number of electric utility engineers) are her former students. THE COST: The total cost of the course, including all meals and accommodations in Nicaragua, is $750. This includes local transportation costs, the fee to the UNI for the course, and a copy of Dr. Komp’s book. $200 of the course fee will go to subsidize Fenix photovoltaic systems installed in the villages, and an additional $100 will go to improvement funds in the barrio and villages. The extra cost for staying on longer should amount to around $30 per day, depending on the type of activities and accommodations. PAYMENT: A $50 deposit by July 17th will save you a place in the course, which will be limited to total of 20 participants. All checks should be made out to SKYHEAT ASSOCIATES, the non-profit US group that Richard Komp has been associated with since 1974. The checks can be sent to Richard Komp’s address. While we have discussed the possibility of some scholarships for students with limited means, we suggest that you consider organizing your own donations, with discussion groups and other fund raising ideas. AIR TRAVEL: Although July 31st is the better arrival date, flights may be difficult to schedule, so you may also arrive on August 1st. We can recommend a "Green" travel agency, EARTH ROUTES, 04476. FOR MORE INFORMATION,
… read more »
Response:
> Someone has worked themselves into a Valium crisis imagining the world oil > refineries increasing their net output as PV modules replace fossil fuels. > Alexandra von Meier showed in her paper, circa 1987 (not IEEE PVSC > Proceedings, maybe European PVS), PV modules have energy payback periods > ranging from 4 months to 10 years, depending on the technology.
Party pooper! If they can’t argue that PV production will actually increase oil consumption, then they’ll have to argue that increased PV installations will result in a wave of injury and death due to installers plummeting from rooftops. ("Sure, the installer knew the risks, but what about the poor innocents on the ground?") I’ll bet that if there had been an internet when power steering was introduced, that we would have read about how everyone’s arm muscles were going to atrophy. At this stage of PV development, it seems like there’s enough for the critics to complain about without getting into the goofy stuff. Whenever I read such, my immediate reaction is that the writer is trying too hard. Wayne "what about the glare"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->…it would be good if the physicist also took into account the >environmental cost of producing and maintaining the PV panels, >batteries, controller, cables, connectors and light bulbs during >their typical life in a third world setting before he suggested >them as an alternative to kerosene lamps. > Actually I am very aware of all these issues. I am attaching some > information about the Grupo Fenix down in Nicaragua who do all the things > you mention. In fact the Grupo Fenix has gotten work repairing systems > for NGO’s who have come down, given a system and then thought their work > was done. They now have a contract with Terrasol to find their "orphan" > pv systems and restore them to operation. We make ALL the components > down there now, even the special deep-cycle batteries, high-frequency > electronic ballasts for the fluorescent lamps, charge controllers, and > can maintain them all. Have you ever lived with kerosene lamps? When > you get the electric light it is so much better.
That’s great! I wasn’t meaning to sound negative for no reason; it just annoys me when high technology is dumped in a third world scenario and then not supported. After the batteries sulfate or a PV array blows down the villagers shrug and go back to kerosene. Glad that’s changing. Gerry
no comment untill now