<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think they were talking about the silicon, aluminum, what else? wires, inverter… Most people don't use batteries anymore, but if an off grid installation is requested, that would have to be taken into account too. I was very disappointed when I read it and it's been gnawing at me ever since. I'd love to find out some real facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Reuben Deumling<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 20, 2011 11:17 AM<br><b>To:</b> Green Building<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Greenbuilding] Photovoltaic Life Expectancy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I did some research on this fifteen years ago. The 'will never pay itself back' claim is I think not generally sound. The fondness for using lots of aluminum in the frames and support structures does weigh heavily in the equation, however. I think a few years to pay back the energy is probably much closer to the truth. But it does make a difference whether you're including just the panels, or the rest of the materials/structure that usually accompanies an installation. When I lived off grid and had PV panels I used wood frames. Worked fine.<br><br>Reuben Deumling<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:10 AM, J Messerschmidt <<a href="mailto:john@fourpointscg.com">john@fourpointscg.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I read in an article a few weeks ago that the embodied energy of PV panels<br>is greater than they will ever produce in their lifetime. I can't seem to<br>find the article for reference, but I was under the impression that it would<br>take 4 years of producing electricity to even out. Does anyone have any<br>information on this?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>