Coal’s Importance For Solar Panel Manufacturing

From blog.unpopular-truth.com

Dr. Lars Schernikau

Content

  1. Metallurgical-grade silicon making
  2. Carbon sources for silicon making: Coal, petcoke, hardwood
  3. Solar-grade silicon (SoG-Si) making and wafering
  4. Finalizing solar panel manufacturing
  5. Coal and China
  6. Summary

Coal is not the favorite “child” these days. It seems that almost the entire western political world has sworn to send coal to its grave. Not only have the United Nations and the IEA literally declared “war” on coal, but countless political, activist organizations and even leading financial institutions have pledged, if it had to be in their power, to immediately stop the usage of coal.

The reason for all of this is of course this “terrible” chemical element called carbon (number 6 on the periodic table). Please remember though that the same carbon is the 2nd most abundant element in the human body and it is a key building block for all life on Earth. By the way, carbon is not only essential because CO2 is plant food and plants grow best at 1.500 ppm of CO2 in the air (current atmospheric content is 420 ppm), CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, contributing to keeping our Earth temperature temperate and livable.

I have to mention that the prize for keeping Earth livable has to go to water, or better yet, water vapor, the most important and most abundant greenhouse gas. We all understand that increased greenhouse gas concentrations will contribute to slight warming, though only a few of us have learnt – including me only after studying it – that there are so-called saturation levels to consider which means that higher concentrations of any greenhouse gas have less and less impact on temperature changes (the warming impact logarithmically declines).

But today’s blog is not about globally measured temperature changes, its causes and its negative or positive impacts, but about coal and solar.

So why are coal and solar so closely interlinked? Why is it that solar panel manufacturing is impossible without coal?  I always thought that coal is “only” important for electricity, contributing to 36% of global power demand, or over 8h of 24h every single day of the year. I always thought that coal is “only” required to produce all steel. Let us have a look at solar panel manufacturing, which is really about silicon production.

The vast majority of all energy required to make solar panels is consumed during silicon production, purification, and wafering. But first let’s talk about purity. 6N pure silicon means 99.9999% purity level, 11N pure silicon means 99.999999999% purity level, you get the point.

You may now have a first glimpse of the chemical and mechanical difficulty of making such a pure metal from a natural product.

In this blog post, you will see how important uninterrupted power supply is, especial for industrial processes such as silicon smelting. Obviously, this power comes from coal in China, and cannot come from wind or solar. Let’s dig deeper.

Elemental silicon (Si) is not a naturally available element. Largely unchanged for over 100 years, silicon (Si) is produced by chemically reducing mined high purity quartz (SiO2) using carbon (C) in submerged-arc furnaces. The arc furnaces are each powered by up to 45 megawatts of electricity also to produce the heat required for the processes. As the mix of quartz stone and carbon heats, the carbon reacts with the oxygen in the quartz and forms CO gas, this is called silicon smelting. Consider it like iron ore (Fe2O3) being reduced using coke from coking coal (C) to make iron (Fe).

All simplified

  • Iron making: Fe2O3 + 3C + heat => 2Fe + 3CO
  • Silicon making (smelting): SiO2 + 2C + heat => Si + 2CO

This means that each ton of silicon roughly releases 5-6 tons of CO2 in this silicon smelting process alone.

High purity quartz sand (HPQ) is the feedstock for metallurgical-grade silicon. It is generally considered that the starting quality of feedstock for solar panels and semi-conductors is 99.95% silicon oxide (SiO2), with only <500 ppm of total impurities. Such HPQ is scarce and needs to be mined, processed, and of course transported before it is ready to be used for smelting (Chemical Research 2023 and Troszak).

 The typical processing sequence for high-purity quartz includes: 

  • (a) pre-treatment, which involves crushing, scrubbing, desliming, screening, and grinding; 
  • (b) physical separation methods, including radiometric sorting, dense media separation, gravity separation, magnetic–electric separation, and flotation; 
  • (c) chemical treatments, such as calcination-water quenching and leaching; and
  • (d) advanced treatments, encompassing chlorination, roasting and vacuum refining (Zhang et al 2023).

Estimates of the energy and therefore also CO2 footprint of silicon manufacturing diverge widely in the literature or “scientific community”. Though I believe we already understand that global silicon purification and solar panel manufacturing is dominated by China (Figure 1).

If you are interested to learn more about the physical and chemical characteristics of coal, please read the author’s newly published Coal Handbook available at your favourite book store.

Figure 1: China’s share in global solar panel manufacturing and its process step.  Source: BloombergNEF, April 2024, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-16/china-extends-clean-tech-dominance-over-us-despite-biden-s-ira-blueprint

Interesting is that various sources of carbon are used for the silicon smelting process. These carbon sources are derived largely from coal, petcoke (a byproduct of oil refining) and hardwood. Coal, to make coke, is the most important, but this coal must be of special quality, very low ash, high fixed carbon, with specific reactivity (tested using SINTEF tests), and of a specific size. This coal is rather scarce globally, with Colombia playing an important role. For more detail on silicon smelting please also see Troszak’s 2019, Burning coal and trees to make solar panels.

The mining of such coal is not only expensive, because it is scarce and requires large overburden removal, but also the coal processing (washing) requires energy and “wastes” resources. Once washed and ready, only a fraction of the coal consisting of specific sizing, usually 3-12mm can be used in the furnaces used for silicon smelting. The finer material has to be sold at lower values. Furthermore, to maintain the sizing, the coal should be shipped in bulker bags or sea containers so the sizing does not degrade with handling.

You can see why such special coal demands a large premium and a significant amount of energy for mining, processing/upgrading/sizing, and then of course transportation to the smelters (thanks also to Rob Boyd from New Zealand for his valuable input).

Hardwood is a remarkable one. Shredded hardwood must be mixed into the silicon smelter “pot” to allow the reactive gasses to circulate, so that the liquid silicon that forms, can settle to the bottom for tapping, and to allow the resulting CO (and other gasses) to escape the smelter “charge” safely (Troszak 2019). Woodchips provide a large surface area for the chemical reaction to take place more completely and at improved rates. 

Hardwood helps to maintain a porous charge, thereby promoting gentle and uniform – instead of violent – gas venting. Woodchips help regulate smelting temperatures to keep the furnace burning smoothly on top, reducing conductivity, promoting deep electrode penetration, reducing dust, and help in preventing bridging, crusting, and agglomeration of the mix (Wartluft 1971).

Of course, aged hardwood trees are required to be burned to make woodchips. Hardwood is biomass that is extracted from nature but those trees, i.e. in the Brazilian Amazon, you may not be surprised, take more than a couple of years to grow.

The production of charcoal in a traditional manner in the forest
Figure 2: The production of charcoal in a traditional manner in the forest

For solar panel manufacturing to be complete, more is required. Metallurgical grade silicon (MG-Si) from the smelter, usually of 98% purity, does not meet the purity requirements of the photovoltaic industry, it must undergo two more energy-intensive processes before it can be made into solar cells and then into panels.

Firstly, the Siemens Process converts metallurgical grade silicon (MG-Si) from the smelter into polycrystalline silicon (called polysilicon) by using an extremely energy intensive process, a high-temperature vapor deposition process (Troszak 2019). The purity requirement for solar grade silicon (SoG-Si) is currently 9-11N (99.999999999%), a factor of 10.000 to 100.000 more pure compared to the 5-6N purity required for solar PV a decade ago and likey the basis for the solar panels on your roof (if you have some).  In the Siemens process, silicon is crushed and mixed with hydrochlorous acid (HCl) to create Trichlorosilane gas (SiHCl3). This gas is heated and deposited onto very hot rods of polysilicon (1.150C) while the reaction chambers walls are cooled.

Each batch of polysilicon “rods” takes several days to grow, and a continuous, 24/7 supply of electricity to each reactor is essential to prevent a costly “run abort.” Polysilicon refineries depend on highly reliable conventional power grids, and usually have two incoming high-voltage supply feeds. (Sources Mariutti and Schernikau 2024, unpublished academic paper, Troszak 2019).

Secondly, the Czochralski Process turns the liquid silicon metal from the smelter and doping materials (gallium or phosphorous) into the silicon ingot, a large monocrystal, 20-30 cm diameter and 1-2 m in length. Next, the ingot is sawed into rectangular bricks, which are sliced into wafers using a diamond wire sawing process (Figures 3 and 4). This process requires several days, and uninterrupted 24/7 power supply. An ingot/wafer/cell plant can use more than 100 MWh additional energy per ton of incoming polysilicon, which is about 6 times as much as the original smelting of the silicon from ore.

Estimates of the energy and therefore CO2 footprint of silicon purification and wafering also diverge widely in the academic literature, mainly due to two reasons. On the one hand, there is no agreement on the estimated energy demand for these core processes. For example, solar grade silicon (SoG-Si) is the most energy-intensive step in the silicon purification process and should best be understood. Yet, SoG-Si inventories report an electricity demand ranging from 50 kWh/kg to 110 kWh/kg, which appears quite low. 

On the other hand, secondary and pre-smelting processes are rarely included when considering the definition of an energy footprint, applicable to the average Chinese silicon industry. Currently, reporting used by governments for decision making, tend to be based on best-in-class plants, like in Europe or North America, which is far removed from reality.

Figure 3: Czochralski silicon ingot being pulled from melted polysilicon.  Source: ​Siltronix​, from Troszak 2019

Once wafers are produced a few more steps are required before we have a ready-made solar panel. All of these steps require a significant amount of energy in addition to the raw materials required to build the factories and machines, the running of processes and operations, and the supply of electricity and heat required to perform these processes.

  • Wafer sawing: Silicon “bricks” are sliced into thin wafers for later manufacturing of solar cells
  • Solar cell and module production: requiring aluminum, glass, copper, plastic, rare earths, acids, and over 400 chemicals
  • Mounting structure supply: requiring aluminum or steel frames, cement foundation, etc.
  • Transportation: everything needs to be transported to the point of use i.e. in the US or Germany consuming at least oil products 

I am not covering decommissioning and disposal of solar panels here. But it will suffice to mention that the average operational lifespan of the newest utility scale solar panels, is a fraction of the 20-25 years marketed in the media, proving to be more like less than 15 years. While older solar panels used to “live” longer, newer ones are optimized for the lowest raw materials and energy use, negatively impacting lifespan. Libra et al 2023 details that after about 10 years, serious failures of 1st tier (bankable) PV panels occur at an increasing rate.

It is obvious that decommissioning and disposal, and certainly any recycling, require again energy and actually also equipment made out of raw materials.

Figure 4: Czochralski process whole ingot (left), and brick and chords after sawing (right), crown and tail (upper right)  Source: SVM from Troszak 2019

From this blog, you can now better see how important uninterrupted power and heat supply is especially for industrial processes such as silicon smelting. Obviously, this power comes from coal in China, and cannot come from wind or solar. Figure 5 illustrates how China increased its power consumption more than 5-fold in 20 years and how coal-fired power generation continues to grow with the economy. The large wind and solar installations can be seen as addition, rather than transition. For comparison, I added lines to illustrate the approximate electricity consumption of the US and Germany respectively.

Figure 5: Chinese electricity generation by sources compared to US and Germany.  Source: Schernikau based on Ember, details here

Global electricity generation is dominated by thermal power. Coal and gas alone account for about 60% (Figure 6). We understand that the world, and especially China (Figure 7), continues to build large coal power plants to provide reliable uninterrupted power and domestic and industrial heat. Wind and solar enthusiasts often underestimate the importance of inertia of rotational mass for the stability of our grids. 

Coal consumption hit another record in 2023, globally (8,6 Bn tons) and in China (over 4 Bn tons). At the same time, China also led the global installation of new solar plants domestically in addition to selling its solar panels globally. 2023 and 2024 show another upswing of new coal power plant installations amounting to numbers surpassing 2018 levels (Figure 7).n

Total global installed capacity for electricity generation is probably around 8,6 TW (including coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc.), of which coal is about 2,1 TW. Thus, 25% installed capacity provide for 36% for actual power generation. Utilization of coal plants will continue decreasing as more wind and solar hits the grids, but the installed coal capacity is still required and has to grow along with peak power demand.

Figure 6: Global electricity generation by source.  Source: Schernikau based on Our World in Data and Global Electricity Review

Figure 7: China coal power capacity additions.  Source: BNEF, details here

Solar power and coal are closely interlinked. Today, there is not one single solar panel that can be produced without coal (or even oil and gas). The coal is required as a reducing agent for silicon making and as source for heat and electricity for the industrial process required to manufacture solar panels, not only in China. As unpopular as it may be, the world requires coal, even for the so called “energy transition”.

That is why I support investment in, not divestment from, coal technologies to make the production and utilization of coal as efficient as possible, not only to minimize its environmental impact, but also to keep costs low, which supports economic development and benefits in particular the less fortunate.

I hope this post helps you to understand my passion for coal and gives you a new insight into the “clean” world of solar power.

To learn more about how wind and solar work in our modern energy systems please read our recent book The Unpopular Truth… about Electricity and the Future of Energy available at your favorite book store.

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 23, 2024 2:15 pm

The Green Blob assumes solar cells are made with unicorn droppings.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 23, 2024 4:58 pm

But they do work as well as unicorn droppings…

Scissor
May 23, 2024 2:16 pm

The time for antediluvian biomass is now.

Reply to  Scissor
May 23, 2024 5:02 pm

I had to think about that for a moment but I got it! 😉

But wouldn’t it be more accurate to say Permian Biomass? Antediluvian isn’t ‘ante’ enough for coal to have formed.

Scissor
Reply to  PCman999
May 23, 2024 5:25 pm

First draft.

I like yours. How about highly composted biomass, beyond peat, impossible biomass, primal spirit biomass, beyond carbon, or natural fuel?

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
May 23, 2024 5:49 pm

Don’t let Uncle Deluvian hear you say that

May 23, 2024 2:17 pm

CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, contributing to keeping our Earth temperature temperate and livable.

I now tend to doubt it. It seems more likely that variable hydrology (evaporation, convection, condensation) completely negates any forcing due to CO₂.

Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 2:37 pm

Completely negating is unlikely IMO, but my intuition of atmospheric process tells me that the impact of CO₂ is dominated by negative feedbacks for the equilibrium climate state. And certainly not a 3x multiple as the alarmists believe.

Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 3:15 pm

 negates any forcing due to CO₂.

You are correct to doubt it because it only takes a minute of thought to appreciate it is nonsense. In fact “CO2 forcing” does not exist.

Convection controls the energy uptake and is a surface temperature dependent process. The stuff that the Singapore Airlines plane went into. The ice that forms between 8 to 14km limits the energy coming in by reflecting sunlight. Attached shows where the Singapore flight hit the turbulence. 2300J/kg will produce an updraft of 67m/s and there will be corresponding but less intense downdraft surrounding the convecting zone. But that updraft sends water vapour as high as 14km where it gradually solidifies to form persistent cloud.

Convective potential is ubiquitous across the tropical oceans.

Screen-Shot-2024-05-23-at-8.43.59-am
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 24, 2024 4:20 am

“It seems more likely that variable hydrology (evaporation, convection, condensation) completely negates any forcing due to CO₂.”

I find the Band 16 images and animations of those images from the geostationary satellites to be a confirmation of this point. Full explanation in the description text of this very short time-lapse video.

https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE

By the way, I understand much better now how important it was that you started with published cloud fraction error in your 2019 “Propagation of Error…” paper. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

Reply to  David Dibbell
May 24, 2024 8:41 am

As described in “Rainergy” (Willis Eschenbach) article a few days ago it seems to me that variable hydrology (evaporation, convection, condensation) “completely negates any forcing due to CO₂.” has everything to do with the temperature of the “Globe” and CO2 is just an “onlooker” The enthalpy of evaporation, condensation, solidification, fusion, liquefaction releasing/absorbing quadrillions – quintillions of Jules of energy as these rivers of water move around the Globe and are completely ignored in the “FAKE” Climate Models.

[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/21/rainergy/ ]

Reply to  usurbrain
May 24, 2024 10:34 am

See my above comment

Reply to  David Dibbell
May 24, 2024 12:08 pm

Amazing dynamics in that video, David. They make a joke of a ‘static warming effect’ as you note, and of the ceteris paribus assumption in climate modeling.

Your video shows the climate as a complex dissipative system, maintaining a stable state far from equilibrium. Dissipation rates can increase or decrease in response to radiative influx.

It seems reasonable that, apart from a trajectory bifurcation, the dynamics you show will maintain a nearly isothermal climate state no matter small changes in radiative forcing.

Thanks for the comment about “Propagation…” Clouds control the tropospheric thermal flux, so it seemed only natural to start there. Really, the whole paper is just calibration and propagation of the resultant uncertainty. Basic stuff to any physical scientist or engineer.

Reply to  Pat Frank
May 24, 2024 10:30 am

Exactly correct.

CO2 plays about a 0.68% role regarding retained energy in the atmosphere.
WV about 41 times larger than CO2

RE ratio of WV/CO2 = 41.1

From:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming

Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
RE in atmosphere is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water. 
Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity.
The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex approach would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio intact. 
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2. How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z process, will keep many academia folks busy for many years.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax. 
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) Worldwide, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg 
2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air 
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat 
Worldwide, enthalpy of CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air.
.
RE In 2023; 16 C; 421 ppm CO2; 4028 ppm WV
.
World: (16.10 + 6.33 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 116,263 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.3%, 28% and 0.68% RE roles. RE ratio of WV/CO2 = 41.1
.
Tropics: (27.16 + 43.36 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 144,804 EJ. 
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.4%, 61.4% and 0.22% RE roles. RE ratio oWV/CO2 = 281.6 
The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
.
RE in 1900; 14.8 C; 296 ppm CO2; 3689 ppm VW
.
World: (14.89 + 5.79 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 107,015 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.6%, 27.9% and 0.52% RE roles. RE ratio oWV/CO2 = 53.8
.
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.086, a 9,248 EJ increase

Reply to  wilpost
May 24, 2024 2:21 pm

Climate Change EnviroWhacos need to educate themselves about the effects of positive and negative “Feedback” on a closed loop system.

It has been over 60 years but in my electronic engineering courses back then the rule of thumb was that a ratio of over 20 to 1 Db for positive feedback, with the desired signal being 20 Db and the unwanted noise, static, distortion, etc. = 1 Db could be ignored in linear amplifier design – [That was back when Vacuum tube amplifiers were still being taught. ]
With CO2 a 0.68% role regarding retained energy in the atmosphere and WV about 41 times larger than CO2 that is a ratio of about 40 Db difference [in terms of energy] and near that of a quality amplifier. Even if CO2 and WV were both Positive (highly unlikely) the CO2 effect would be swamped out by the feedback from the WV.

Reply to  usurbrain
May 24, 2024 6:17 pm

And CO2 is even more swamped by WV in the tropics.

Note, the RE of the tropics is greater than the entire world, i.e., the tropics sends about 35% of its energy to areas that do not enough solar energy.

Of course, the people in those areas require heating systems in winter, because the sun is nearer the -23.5 parallel

May 23, 2024 2:39 pm

Perhaps better,

iron: 2Fe₂O₃ + 3C → 4Fe + 3CO₂
silicon: SiO₂ + C → Si + CO₂

Each ton of Si (At. Wt. 28.09 g/mol) yields 1.57 tons of CO₂ (FW 44 g/mol) assuming perfect efficiency.

Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 3:26 pm

I noticed that too..

I get the impression that English is not Lars’s first language. 🙂

There are several similar minor errors and several “odd” ways of putting thing.

Things may have been “lost in translation” ?

Someone does need to correct the chemistry equations, though. !

Scissor
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 3:59 pm

Coal is also used to heat the furnaces, typically well in excess of 1500C, to drive the reaction to make Si. SiC and CO are intermediate products in a more complex mechanism.

“Simplified” is a wiggle word the author used to avoid the complexity.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 4:49 pm

There might be a very good reason for the reaction to terminate at CO and not CO2.

For example, molten silicon, in the presence of CO2, will strip oxygen from the CO2, whereas the CO is still a strong reducing agent.

Reply to  Eng_Ian
May 23, 2024 5:00 pm

You could be correct….. A long, long time since I did process chemistry !! 🙂

Unfortunately my dear father is no longer alive to clarify.

Mr.
Reply to  Eng_Ian
May 23, 2024 5:45 pm

Please forgive my inadequate knowledge of chemistry, but Is molten silicon a result of over-exuberant use of marital aids?

Reply to  Eng_Ian
May 23, 2024 6:07 pm

whereas the CO is still a strong reducing agent.

Correct. The CO rich off-gas is likely used as a heating fuel for the process or plant auxiliaries.

I am not familiar with silicon smelting and refining but it is not common to vent large amounts of CO in a hot gas stream when it can be used to generate power for the plant.

Reply to  RickWill
May 24, 2024 3:26 am

At the refinery where I worked after college, there was a furnace specifically for burning CO to produce steam. The CO came from the regeneration of fluid-bed catalyst in the FCCU – the “Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit”, which produced gasoline from the heavier cuts of the crude oil.

Reply to  Eng_Ian
May 23, 2024 9:18 pm

The reaction of carbon with SiO₂ reduces the SiO₂ and oxidizes carbon.

However, looking further, the reaction does apparently stop at CO, which surprises me. Apparently CO cannot react further under those conditions.

CO is a serious poison, binding strongly to hemoglobin and blocking O₂. The industrial SiO₂ reduction process must have some way of neutralizing the CO waste product.

Lars S.
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 8:42 pm

thank you, good idea, i will adjst. i did mention CO which indeed is anogther very good reducing agent

Reply to  Lars S.
May 23, 2024 10:46 pm

Nice article .. wish my chemistry learning from 20+ years ago was more intact. 🙂

It is great to see a really good breakdown of the massive amounts of coal and energy required to manufacture solar panels.

Well done.

Reply to  Pat Frank
May 24, 2024 2:00 pm

But that 1.57 metric ton is the PROCESS CO2

It takes at least 100 kWh/kg, or 100 MWh/metric ton, (from mine? to this process?), to make the pure silicon ingots, using coal fire power plants, with more CO2 after that, so 5 to 6 metric ton of CO2 per ton of square solar wafers looks about right, more CO2 comes after making finished PV panels and shipping, and installing, before start up.

The insanity of it all is beyond the pale

Reply to  wilpost
May 24, 2024 6:22 pm

Oh, and the highly pure, more fragile panels have a life of about 15 years, much shorter than the alleged 25 years of older panels. What kind of progress is that?

Reply to  wilpost
May 24, 2024 6:43 pm

Many things affect reliability in PV modules beyond the cells themselves — the encapsulation system in particular is critical (made with polymers from petroleum refining, of course).

May 23, 2024 2:46 pm

Article says:” SiO2 + 2C + heat => Si + 2CO”

The next sentence says “5-6 tons” of CO2 is produced. Is the CO2 coming from the “heat” and not chosen?

Scissor
Reply to  mkelly
May 23, 2024 3:59 pm

Yes.

Reply to  mkelly
May 23, 2024 5:12 pm

As suggested above, the equation may be an intermediate equation..

… add heat to CO in an oxygen environment… next step would be CO2.

Reply to  mkelly
May 24, 2024 10:50 am

I fished this from the internet

a. The theoretical yield of silicon (Si) is approximately 72.66 kg.
b. The percent yield for the reaction is approximately 90.92%.
.
To calculate the theoretical yield and percent yield for the reaction of silicon (Si) production from silicon dioxide (SiO2) and carbon (C), we need to start with a balanced chemical equation:
SiO2 + 2C → Si + 2CO
.
From the equation, we can see that 1 mole of SiO2 reacts with 2 moles of carbon to produce 1 mole of silicon. We can use this stoichiometry to calculate the theoretical yield.
.
a. Theoretical Yield (Yield from the balanced equation):
.
1. Calculate the molar masses:
 – SiO2: Molar mass = 28.0855 g/mol (Si) + 2 * 15.999 g/mol (O) = 60.085 g/mol
 – C: Molar mass = 12.011 g/mol
.
2. Calculate the number of moles of SiO2 and C:
 – Moles of SiO2 = 155.3 kg / 60.085 g/mol = 2583.67 moles
 – Moles of C = 79.3 kg / 12.011 g/mol = 6601.49 moles
.
3. Determine the limiting reactant (the one that will be completely consumed):
 – The balanced equation shows that 1 mole of SiO2 requires 2 moles of C.
 – The moles of C are in excess, so SiO2 is the limiting reactant.
.
4. Calculate the theoretical yield of Si:
 – Moles of Si produced = Moles of SiO2 used = 2583.67 moles
 – Theoretical yield (in grams) = Moles of Si * Molar mass of Si = 2583.67 moles * 28.0855 g/mol = 72,660.42 g
.
To convert the theoretical yield to kilograms:

Theoretical yield (in kg) = 72,660.42 g / 1000 = 72.66 kg
.
b. Percent Yield:
.
To calculate the percent yield, we use the actual yield (given as 66.2 kg) and the theoretical yield:
.
Percent Yield = (Actual Yield / Theoretical Yield) * 100
Percent Yield = (66.2 kg / 72.66 kg) * 100 ≈ 90.92%

May 23, 2024 3:37 pm

“… 2nd most abundant element in the human body…”

What % mass of a human body is carbon?

Scissor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 23, 2024 5:30 pm
Reply to  Scissor
May 24, 2024 3:37 am

In order to decarbonize the planet- we’ll need genetic engineers to determine how to get that terrible “carbon pollution” out of bodies! /s

Chris Hanley
May 23, 2024 3:50 pm

Solar PV is the least viable generation system with a miserable EROI of 1.6 (Weißbach et al. 2018), solar PV in regions of moderate insolation is a net energy sink (Ferroni et al. 2017).
Why anyone in their right mind would seriously consider it as a feasible utility-scale energy system is an utter mystery.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 23, 2024 3:53 pm

Doesn’t work at all for more than 50% of the time !

And in peak times for most modern societies… it is also basically zero.

Scissor
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 23, 2024 5:31 pm

There are off-grid apps and other niches. For the most part it’s a nuisance.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 23, 2024 11:33 pm

Follow the money, mostly state grants, that explains all otherwise unexplainable decisions….

MyUsername
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 24, 2024 5:30 am

Weißbach is from 2013 if I’m not mistaken. For PV he seem to use sources from 2000. The world has moved on a bit. Ferroni also quotes the old figures.

Last I found on Energy Payback is Fraunhofer from 2024 –

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf

Reply to  MyUsername
May 25, 2024 3:15 am

All production now moved to China.

All production now almost totally using 100% COAL.

Thanks, dopey !!

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 24, 2024 6:27 pm

I have been saying, PV solar is a dog that won’t hunt, with A to Z spreadsheets for at least 24 years
People looked at me with disbelieving eyes. Off the wall idiotic.

MyUsername
Reply to  wilpost
May 25, 2024 4:27 am

Have you posted your spreadsheets somewhere?

May 23, 2024 3:51 pm

> Lars is an energy economist, entrepreneur, commodity trader, and book author. He currently lives in Europe and Asia. Previously, Lars worked at the Boston Consulting Group in the US and Germany. He is co-founder, shareholder, and former supervisory board member of two Germany listed commodity companies (http://www.hms-ag.com) and founded, worked for, and advised number of other companies in the commodity & energy sector worldwide.

https://co2coalition.org/teammember/lars-schernikau/

Unsurprisingly:

https://hms-ag.com/business/our-markets/

Reply to  Willard
May 23, 2024 4:53 pm

You mean he actually knows about things….

…. unlike the scientifically illiterate dullard !

Can you counter a single thing he said.. with evidence ??

Reply to  Willard
May 23, 2024 5:00 pm

And of course, your last link is to a “carbon neutral” company..

MyUsername
Reply to  Willard
May 24, 2024 7:42 am

Most people posting articles here have ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 7:48 am

Got any evidence of this latest wild lie?

MyUsername
Reply to  karlomonte
May 24, 2024 8:03 am

I’ve posted often enough links to writers here in the past. CO2 Coalition gets money from Koch for example:

https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/

Heartland Institute, Cfact etc…they are all one big family. You’ll always find the same names in the background.

And if you look how many different people post here, they are not that many…why? Has some indomitable village vibes, right? IEA, EIA, Fraunhofer, all wrong. Oil sheiks? Top source! But maybe I’m just biased and 9 years old 😛

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 8:36 am

Still no real statistics.

In other words, another mindless bit of propaganda that you swallow whole without questioning.

And your exact words: Most people posting articles here” … in the shallow mind of the typical leftist, “any” becomes “most”.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 2:14 pm

And they receive a tiny fraction of the funding that the renewable scammers you like to quote receive.

Yes, you are totally brain-washed and biased.

And no, your mental age has yet to reach that of a 9-year-old.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 2:10 pm

You are totally reliant on fossil fuels for every aspect of your pathetic existence.

Everybody has a massive tie to the fossil fuel industry.

Scarecrow Repair
May 23, 2024 3:52 pm

Minor typos notwithstanding, this is very clear and I learned a lot. I only learned of coal’s use in de-rusting iron ore a few years ago, and now this.

Lars S.
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 23, 2024 8:43 pm

thank you, much appreciated. working on the typos

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 23, 2024 10:29 pm

Yes, highly educational…many thanks. I had only thought about coal/coke in reference to iron production so opened my eyes a lot!

Alexy Scherbakoff
May 23, 2024 3:54 pm

I’m wondering which part of this highly technical process requires slave labour?

Scissor
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
May 23, 2024 4:02 pm

Shaolin priests carry red hot vessels of molten liquids between their forearms, Grasshopper.

YallaYPoora Kid
May 23, 2024 4:03 pm

It is obvious that western nations use China to hid their guilt for the manufacturing of goods that have high CO2 producing processes. The likes of the EU, USA can then say how they have reduced their emissions and they are oh so Green and pious.
China says no problems we will take your CO2 guilt and your money as well but don’t blame us when we want to make more ‘lebensraum’ for our population through fair means or foul.

The ordinary Joe Blow on the street gets the Green propaganda shoved down their throat from politicians and is made to feel guilty for not driving an EV or for turning up the heating to a comfortable level. Such BS

May 23, 2024 4:04 pm

For the global renewable energy fantasy — Before we even consider the CO2 emissions from the manufacturing of solar (silicon), we have to get the raw materials, the ingredients, from the earth to make the renewable panels and turbines and batteries.

Mining, on a scale never imagined in human history. This is an anticipated scale up of large industrial processes, mining, transportation, extraction, refining, manufacturing, wastes, on unprecedented levels.

Studies have shown that for ‘de-carbonization’, mining for renewable energy minerals + metals will require a huge increase, up to 500-fold. Then one needs to consider, that thousands of new machines must be built and powered in order to create the mines (start digging) in the first instance, then to work the mines to exhaustion. Those machines will need to be continually serviced and replaced.

De-carbonization is a fantasy.

Tern11
Reply to  SteveG
May 23, 2024 5:46 pm

But think of all the jobs it creates!

May 23, 2024 4:09 pm

as more wind and solar hits the grids

A recipe for disaster.

Hydrochloric acid (HCl), by the way.

Lars S.
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2024 8:43 pm

thank you for finding it, will adjust…

May 23, 2024 5:17 pm

PV modules also require large amounts of sheet glass, which must be produced from raw sand (SiOx) with high temperatures, 1000-1600°C:

https://in.saint-gobain-glass.com/knowledge-center/glass-manufacturing-process

Bob
May 23, 2024 6:15 pm

It doesn’t matter how solar panels and wind turbines are made. There isn’t a market for them, they are unsuitable for the grid. The only reason they are an issue is because of government mandates, subsidies, tax preferences and environmental forgiveness. Get the government out of the energy business.

May 23, 2024 6:21 pm

There are three ways wafers are produced for solar cells, in rough order of efficiency and cost:

Cast polycrystalline Si bricks
Refined single-crystal Czochralski boules
Refined single-crystal float-zone boules

The article details the second one, the Czochralski process. The technical term for the finished grown single-crystal Si is a boule, not a brick.

Lars S.
Reply to  karlomonte
May 23, 2024 8:45 pm

thank you Karlomonte

Reply to  Lars S.
May 23, 2024 9:05 pm

You are most welcome, Lars.

D Sandberg
May 23, 2024 10:10 pm

The author mentions acid leaching and hydrochloric acid but skims over it. I would really like to know how many millions of gallons of acid are consumed every year to produce solar panels. My research indicates that hydrofluoric is popular as well as hydrochloric, but I couldn’t find any quantification.

The mining, acid leaching, high tonnage coal use for heat treatment and smelting with associated fumes and silicosis disease from dusts and much more makes solar manufacturing one of the filthiest processes ever. It costs 3x more to recycle than landfill, so recycling is nearly non-existent. The toxic heavy metals leach out over time.

Waste[edit]
Due to the rapid growth in manufacturing in China and the lack of regulatory controls, there have been reports of the dumping of waste silicon tetrachloride.[49] Normally the waste silicon tetrachloride is recycled but this adds to the cost of manufacture as it needs to be heated to 1,800 °F (980 °C).

The first step in cleaning silica to produce metallurgical grade silicon is to rinse it with a mixture of one part acid to one part water 1. This process is called acid leaching and is used to remove impurities such as iron, aluminum, and calcium from the silica 23. The purified silica is then heated with carbon in the form of coal or charcoal in an electrode arc furnace at a temperature of 1500-2000°C to produce metallurgical grade silicon that is 98% pure 45.

Details
The hydrometallurgical purification method with different types of acids as solvents was chosen to refine MG-Si. Effects of hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid in combination with each other as a solvent for purification of MG-Si were investigated.

Note: Yes, hydrofluoric acid!

1. link.springer.com2. link.springer.com3. academia.edu4. pveducation.org5. bing.com6. link.springer.com7. Home | SpringerLink

Reply to  D Sandberg
May 24, 2024 7:16 am

Yes, if I remember right, HCl-HF is the silicon etch.

Keitho
Editor
May 23, 2024 10:29 pm

An interesting read and I am sure similar articles could be written about many essential industries. Fossil fuels are essential for us to enjoy an advanced civilisation and that will not be changed by the ignorant activists amongst us.

May 23, 2024 11:02 pm

Most interesting article, plus some of the comments added and refined it.

Another win win for wuwt.

May 24, 2024 1:05 am

Very informative piece, thanks.

Even when you have made the panels with the use of coal, intermittency still rules:

According to a note from SEB Research, in the past 10 days, solar producers have had to take an 87% price cut during production hours. In fact, when production peaks, prices have slid well below zero.
On average, the price received was 9.1 euros per megawatt-hour, significantly under the 70.6 euros paid during non-solar-power hours.

“This is what happens to power prices when the volume of unregulated power becomes equally big or bigger than demand: Prices collapse when unregulated power produces the most,” the Swedish bank wrote on Tuesday.

Last year’s record wave of solar installations are what’s driving Germany’s price “destruction” as inventory outpaces consumption. While total solar capacity topped 81.7 gigawatts by 2023’s end, demand load only reached 52.2 gigawatts, noted SEB chief commodities analyst Bjarne Schieldrop.
The difference between the two actually widens even more in the summer, a season of peak production and lower demand.

Intermittency is bad news not just on the low side, when supply dies, but also on the high side. The basic problem, you cannot match demand to supply with either wind or solar. Hopeless.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/solar-panel-supply-german-electricity-prices-negative-renewable-demand-green-2024-5

MyUsername
Reply to  michel
May 24, 2024 4:40 am

The same problem brown coal and nuclear powerplants have at night – with the same solution – we build storage for it.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 4:58 am

You are talking utter gibberish as usual…

Brown coal in Victoria or anywhere else has always been able to wind down enough to account for less night-time usage.

Just like nuclear plants can and do.

Electricity storage is not needed and never has been.

MyUsername
Reply to  bnice2000
May 24, 2024 5:04 am

Not in central Europe, at least not economically – that’s why a lot of hydro storage was build in the past. Also why prices were far cheaper at night, and peple have their water heaters and electric storage heaters work at night.
Now we see the same, only instead of night it is now during the day.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 6:15 am

No, its not the same. Problem with solar is that in northern European winters you get 2-3 hours/day of limited output for several months. So this has to be made up from somewhere. This does not apply to conventional or nuclear. The amount of storage required to use solar effectively with this seasonal intermittency is far too great for battery storage. The only way to make it up is to have gas generation which basically supplies the full load.

This is not storage. Rather, its a situation where the solar is installed as a supplement to the dispatchable generation with the only possible justification being that it pays for itself on fuel cost savings. Never seen a case showing that it does.

McKay, in ‘Renewable Energy without the Hot Air’, free online, showed that the amount of storage required for the UK to convert to renewables, if done by pumped hydro, would basically require the Scottish Highlands, the Welsh mountains and the English Lake District to be transformed into pumped storage reservoirs.

Then, when its high summer and you do get the best output, first it is still not more than 10am-4pm, and within that its sharply peaked. So again, same problem, except now you have the added problem that its peaking at noon, when you can’t use it.

Yes, conventional generation does over produce at night, and yes, this is why discounts and storage heaters were used. But it never just shuts off totally, and it never has the sharp peaks that both wind and solar have.

From a policy viewpoint, the comparison does not show what you want it to. What it shows is why conventional works, and why wind and solar don’t, except very expensively as supplements to a basic gas capability.

By the way: an example of somewhere that is trying to deal with this is New York. They have not resorted to storage, probably because its dawned on them that it cannot be made to work. Instead they have invented a wholly imaginary new means of generating electricity, the so called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource. That is, something that does not exist and is not under development. Pure fantasy.

Renewable intermittency means there will be no move to wind and solar in functioning modern economies. Its a choice, you can go wind and solar and destroy the electricity supply, and the economy with it. Or you can u-turn and install lots of gas. The climate fanatics appear to driving hard to the first.

Reply to  michel
May 25, 2024 4:50 am

The New York gimmick relates to burning trees, which are declared to be renewable, hence emission free, which is total horse manure. It also applies to hydro imported from Quebec

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 2:19 pm

WRONG again.

They build hydro because it was a good reliable dispatchable power source.

It also meant that brown didn’t need to load follow as much..

Win-win for both

And costs are cheaper at night because there is less demand..

You really don’t have even a child’s understanding of how supply and demand works, do you.

Gormlessly ignorant about everything.

MyUsername
May 24, 2024 2:41 am

So today we learned why solar, like all other forms of energy, has a CO2 per kwh metric.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 4:19 am

Could you explain? Why is CO2 per kwh important?

Reply to  michel
May 24, 2024 7:14 am

He won’t, just another drive-by assertion.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  MyUsername
May 24, 2024 7:19 am

I believe your point is that, even assuming that construction of silicon panels results in emissions of CO2, the lifetime emissions are still far less on a per-kWhr basis than fossil fuel-powered plants.

Even assuming that is true, as michel points out, that metric is important only to you. Furthermore, it doesn’t address the primary problem of renewables, their intermittency. By the time you account for that, and the cost of supplementing them, or the even greater cost of doing without electricity when they aren’t producing, renewables become quite expensive. And the amount of CO2 generated in those supplementation activities climbs as well.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 25, 2024 4:55 am

And that it is expensive/kWh, and dysfunctional on an electric, and lousy in winter, but it is highly subsidized, so that makes it good for the moneyed elites who rule all, even brainwashed, single-track-mind, STEM-challenged Democrats.

We need more CO2 ppm to green the earth, increase fauna, reduce arid and desert areas
Stop clearcutting the tropics. They are the lungs of the world for a reason.

Dave Andrews
May 24, 2024 7:32 am

According to Future Coal (formerly the World Coal Association) in 2022 coal generated 60% of the electricity used for global solar PV manufacture considerably more than its 36% of global power production.

Verified by MonsterInsights