I may be being overly cynical, but given the blog is dedicated to showing how high technology solutions cannot work and has articles about PV generation leading with the claim that solar can be often worse than coal, before you drill down and realise that they are not talking about generation, but have segued into running the figures on what happens when they are glued to the casings of laptops and mobile phones ( http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html ), I think they are trying to find numbers to back an established view, rather than adjusting the viewpoint to the numbers.
---
edit - Actually, to be honest, I do not think in this case I am being overly cynical. The article I linked to, titled "The ugly side of solar panels" starts with:
"New research shows, albeit unintentional, that generating electricity with solar panels can also be a very bad idea. In some cases, producing electricity by solar panels releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal."
This claim is then not really addressed till right at the end of the article, where we find the following:
"For rooftop and ground-base installations, the eco-friendliness can be good or doubtful, depending on the solar insolation and the life expectancy. But if we consider solar panels mounted on gadgets like laptops or mobile phones, solar energy becomes a plainly bad idea.
If we take a life expectancy of 3 years (already quite optimistic for most gadgets) and a solar insolation of 900 kWh/m² (quite optimistic too, since these things are not lying on a roof), the result is 1,038 gram CO2 per kWh in the worst case scenario (high-efficient mono-crystalline cells produced in the US). That means that it is better for the environment to power a gadget with electricity generated by coal, rather than by a solar panel."
So, if you buy a laptop or mobile with a solar panel on it and then throw it away after three years, then it is worse than coal.
Which is obviously a completely rational point to make on the subject, given all those masses of mobile phones and laptops sold everywhere with solar panels on them.
Then it gets even better:
"All this does not mean that PV solar energy should not be promoted. For one thing, it’s much better using silicon wafers to make energy generating equipment instead of energy guzzling equipment (like computers, mobile phones and car electronics)."
And by this point I am not sure if this is satire, or if the author thinks their website is hosted on a steam powered abacus.
Yes, we are clearly better off using the traditional coal-fired laptops, even though the extra bulk of the thermal shielding and fire extinguisher can sometimes be an inconvenience.
Actually, now that I think of it, I can't remember ever seeing a laptop with its own coal fired power plant. I wonder why this isn't done?
---
edit - Actually, to be honest, I do not think in this case I am being overly cynical. The article I linked to, titled "The ugly side of solar panels" starts with:
"New research shows, albeit unintentional, that generating electricity with solar panels can also be a very bad idea. In some cases, producing electricity by solar panels releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal."
This claim is then not really addressed till right at the end of the article, where we find the following:
"For rooftop and ground-base installations, the eco-friendliness can be good or doubtful, depending on the solar insolation and the life expectancy. But if we consider solar panels mounted on gadgets like laptops or mobile phones, solar energy becomes a plainly bad idea.
If we take a life expectancy of 3 years (already quite optimistic for most gadgets) and a solar insolation of 900 kWh/m² (quite optimistic too, since these things are not lying on a roof), the result is 1,038 gram CO2 per kWh in the worst case scenario (high-efficient mono-crystalline cells produced in the US). That means that it is better for the environment to power a gadget with electricity generated by coal, rather than by a solar panel."
So, if you buy a laptop or mobile with a solar panel on it and then throw it away after three years, then it is worse than coal.
Which is obviously a completely rational point to make on the subject, given all those masses of mobile phones and laptops sold everywhere with solar panels on them.
Then it gets even better:
"All this does not mean that PV solar energy should not be promoted. For one thing, it’s much better using silicon wafers to make energy generating equipment instead of energy guzzling equipment (like computers, mobile phones and car electronics)."
And by this point I am not sure if this is satire, or if the author thinks their website is hosted on a steam powered abacus.