Budny 10:00
L09
Solar Energy and the Ethical Aspects Surrounding Solar Energy
Hunter Gaston (hgg4@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF SOLAR
ENERGY
The use of solar power, in itself, is difficult to argue against
from an ethical standpoint for many reasons. Although
Alexei Deinega and Sajeev John, members of the physics
department at the University of Toronto, state that even the
most efficient commercially available solar cells only operate
with an efficiency between 15 and 20 percent [1] it is still
possible to produce energy using solar power at a comparable
price of the cost nuclear power and with less environmental
risks. According to Werner Vogel and Henry Kalb, authors
of “Large Scale Thermal Power”, it is possible to produce
nuclear energy at an average of 2.9 cents per kilowatt and 4.1
cents per kilowatt using solar energy when produced on a
large scale [2]. However, in the simple question: “Is the use
of solar power ethically sound?” there may lie more complex
questions that bring the topic of ethics into greater focus.
These more complex questions of ethics will be the focus of
this paper.
OVERVIEW OF ETHICS
In the preamble of the Code of Ethics of the National
Society for Professional Engineers it states, “Engineers must
perform under a standard of professional behavior that
requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical
conduct” [3]. As an engineer this statement of ethics is the
basic guiding principle of all decisions made as an engineer.
Many specific engineering disciplines possess their own code
of ethics, in the case of this essay the code of ethics of
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) will be
consulted along with various articles written by engineers
discussing the topic of ethics in the profession of engineering.
CARBON NANOTUBES IN SOLAR
TECHNOLOGY
Solar power installation is expensive and therefore is a
lucrative opportunity for private companies. Currently the
average cost for a home installation, taking into account
federal tax breaks, is between eight and nine dollars per watt.
Most home installed units range from between two to five
kilowatts [4]. The U.S. Energy Information Administration
estimated the cost of a 600 square foot solar panel, the size
needed to power the average home, at $55,000 [5]. The
exorbitant cost is mainly due to the high cost of the carbon
nanotubes that play the most crucial role in collecting and
harnessing the sun’s energy. The production of these
nanotubes is an inexact science that often results in imperfect
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29
nanotubes. When produced with imperfections the nanotubes
are given properties of semiconductors. In some cases these
semiconductors will allow electricity to flow freely, but often
these semiconductors constrict the flow of electricity and
greatly contribute to the overall inefficiency of solar power
structures [6]. The CNT’s also lose efficiency year to year.
An estimate made by an article published in the Edmonton
Journal was that efficiency drops between .1 and .2 percent
every year. Some estimate this drop in efficiency to be as
great as one percent per year [7]. Adding to the cost of these
nanotubes is the attempt to increase efficiency of the CNT
cells. As stated by PHOTON Consulting, the largest
dedicated solar energy research consultancy, "Many capital
equipment upgrades offer average commercial cell efficiency
increases of only 0.1-0.5 per cent, and require relatively high
upfront investment [8]."
Not only are nanotubes produced with deficiencies, but the
production also can also be harmful to the environment. Mark
Crawford writes in an article published by the ASME, “The
common approach to manufacturing CNT’s (carbon
nanotubes) results in a complex mixture of volatile organic
compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons” [9].
These hydrocarbons contribute to the depletion of the ozone
layer. However, in the same article Crawford discusses an
experiment conducted by Desire’e Plata, a civil and
environmental engineer at Duke University. The findings of
this study were extremely encouraging, Plata was able to form
high-purity CNT’s with a 15 times greater yield than other
CNT’s and reduced the volume of hazardous byproducts by
fifty percent [9].
REAL LIFE SCENARIO
An engineer working for a company specializing in the
installation of solar energy structures may see this study and
suggest investing in these new carbon nanotubes. Sadly, this
engineer may be met with disapproval. The new nanotubes,
although more efficient and substantially better for the
environment in their formation, may present a much greater
cost to the company than that of the original CNT’s. The
company then advises the engineer to continue doing his job
with the use of the original CNT’s. This scenario forces the
engineer to ask himself two questions. First, what is the
engineer’s responsibility to the customer? Secondly, what is
his responsibility in regards to the environment?
The first dilemma faced by the engineer is whether the
client should be made aware that there are more efficient
carbon nanotubes available for use. In this situation the
engineer should consult the code of ethics by which, as an
Hunter Gaston
engineer, he is to uphold at all times. The fourth fundamental
canon of the Code of Ethics of the ASME addresses this topic,
it says: “Engineers shall act in professional matters for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees [10].” The
Code of Ethics of the National Society for Professional
Engineers also states this canon but in greater depth.
According to the NSPE “Engineers shall disclose all known
or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear
to influence their judgment or the quality of their services”
[3]. The order by the engineer’s authority to continue to use
the less efficient, cheaper nanotubes is likely to influence the
engineer’s judgment. This would also constitute as a conflict
of interest that influences the quality of service by not offering
the best available material, in this case the more efficient
carbon nanotubes.
employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall
notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further
service on the project” [3]. No code or book will explicitly
state the answer because no book or code of ethics can capture
the endless amounts of unique situations. This situation
perfectly illustrates the uniqueness that contributes to making
the answer more than a simple, obvious one. No matter how
hard one looks into various codes of ethics there must be a
final decision made by the engineer himself.
PERSONAL REACTION TO THE REAL
LIFE SCENARIO
In this described situation it would be easy to continue the
use of the initial carbon nanotubes, but if I was to make the
decision myself I would do all I could to use the more efficient
and less toxic CNT’s. If this was not option I would seek
another job. At first glance, this decision may seem
obligatory and insincere. However, in examining this
situation from less of an emotionally charged standpoint and
more so from an engineer’s responsibility it is easy to justify
the leaving of this hypothetical company.
The second question the engineer faces no longer involves
the engineer’s responsibility towards another person, but
rather it involves the engineer’s responsibility in regard to the
environment. Does the engineer’s intention of creating
alternative energy to fossil fuel justify using less
environmentally friendly materials? Does the end justify the
means? The engineer should again examine what the codes of
ethics has to say with regard to this situation, but from an
environmental standpoint. The code of ethics of the ASME is
vague from this standpoint and leaves substantial room for
interpretation. The eighth canon of the ASME code of ethics
is as follows: “Engineers shall consider environmental impact
and sustainable development in the performance of their
professional duties” [10]. In viewing this canon one can argue
that even with the use of the original carbon nanotubes the
engineer is taking into account the environmental impact.
The reduction of toxic emissions caused by the use of a solar
energy system outweighs the harm done by the production of
the CNT’s. Others may argue that by using carbon nanotubes,
aware of the adverse effects to the ozone that they may
contribute to, the engineer is making the wrong choice. The
wording of this canon simplifies the decision to a subjective
decision based on a personal opinion of greenhouse gasses
and carbon emissions. The code of ethics of the National
Society of Engineers does not explicitly state the proper
ethical position with respect to the environment, but the
second professional obligation listed is, “Engineers shall at all
times strive to serve the public interest.” The second
obligation goes on to state, “Engineers shall work for the
advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their
community” [3]. Much like the American Society of
Mechanical Engineer’s code of ethics, this professional
obligation requires the engineer to ultimately make a final
decision. Unlike the ASME, the NSPE code of ethics informs
the engineer of what to do if he finally decides that the use of
the original CNT’s goes against the ethics which he must
comply to. The second professional obligation in the NSPE
code of ethics concludes, “Engineers shall not complete, sign,
or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity
with applicable engineering standards. If the client or
FURTHER ASPECTS OF ETHICS
As Mark Coeckelbergh writes in Moral Responsibility,
Technology, and Experiences of the Tragic, “We should not
only consider the question of responsibility when the accident
already happened (backward looking responsibility); we
should also take measure to create more responsible
technological action in the future (forward looking
responsibility)” [11]. Although Coeckelbergh is discussing
mainly the ethics and responsibilities involved in accidents
related to technology, such as the Deepwater Horizon
disaster, this article can still be extremely insightful in this
case as well. The use of faulty and harmful nanotubes would
not technically constitute a disaster, but one could easily
describe it as a mistake on the part of all involved. The
mystery of the initial CNT’s contributed to this mistake, and
made it unavoidable for the hypothetical engineer to avoid in
the past. Due to this past mistake our hypothetical engineer
can do little in the case of backward looking responsibility.
In contrast, the engineer can take forward looking
responsibility to better the profession of engineering in the
area of solar energy. By making the decision to use the new,
less harmful nanotubes the engineer is carrying out the
fundamental creed as stated in the code of ethics of the
ASME, “Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor
and dignity of the engineering profession by using their
knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare”
[10]. Forward thinking is the key to the advancement of
human welfare. By continuing to use harmful materials in
solar energy structures while aware that there are better
alternatives is a failure on the part of that engineer.
2
Hunter Gaston
Another aspect that an engineer must look at when making
a decision such as this is the engineer’s role in the ethics of
engineering as a whole. Authors Basart and Serra write, “It
seems to be a frequent practice in academic papers to
transform any analysis of professional ethics into a study of
ethics for the respective professional” [12]. The decisions
made by one engineer are more far reaching than just that
certain engineer’s situation. To believe, as an engineer, that
the choices I make only affect my immediate circumstances
would be ignorant and selfish. Basart and Serra go on to
further explain, “Engineers are not a singularity inside
engineering; they exist and operate as a node in a complex
network of mutual relationships with many other nodes” [12].
The network referenced in this article consists of several
different entities including but not limited to, suppliers,
organizations, and other stakeholders. The entities may not
be made of engineers in and of themselves but relate to
engineering ethics all the same. I agree with this idea but,
Basart and Serra downplay the importance of the singular
engineer in the entire ethical landscape of engineering. To
this notion I am inclined to disagree with the authors. The
engineers play the most crucial and leading role in this
network. As the leaders of this network engineers are the
driving force for development and progress. In relation to the
hypothetical situation mentioned in this paper, an engineer
who is unwilling to work for the advancement of solar
technology by using more efficient carbon nanotubes is sure
to have a negative effect on engineering ethics as a whole.
[1] A. Deinega, S. John. (12 October 2012). “Solar Power
Conversion Efficiency in Modulated Silicon Nanowire
Photonic Crystals.” Journal of Applied Physics. (Online
Article).
http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v112/i7/p074327_s1?vie
[2] W. Vogel, H. Kalb. (2010). “Large-Scale Solar Thermal
Power.”
Wiley-VCH.
(Print
Article).
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pitt/docDetail.action?docID=10383
642
[3] C. Mitcham. (October 2013). “National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics.”
Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics.
[4] L. Pinkham. (2013). “Calculating Solar Power Costs.”
Mother
Earth
News.
(Online
Article).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE
%7CA213855524&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&
sw=w&authCount=1
[5] (2013). “Solar Energy Statistics.” U.S. Energy
Information
Administration.
(Online
Article).
http://www.statisticbrain.com/solar-energy-statistics/
[6] (May 2011). “Biological Methods to Enhance Efficiency
of Solar Power Generation.” Advanced Manufacturing
Technology.
(Online
Article).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA260582887
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
[7] J. Pearce. (December 2011). “Solar Power Costs
Dropping.” Edmonton Journal. (Online Article).
[8] (August 2011). “Novel Solar-Cell Processing Key to LowCost Solar Power.” Asia Pulse News. (Online Article).
http://bi.galegroup.com/global/article/GALE%7CA2631406
47/ed88ad43eb9ad35da4e4e2672adf54bd?u=upitt_main
[9] M. Crawford. (February 2013). “Making Carbon
Nanotubes Safer for the Environment.” American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. (Online Article).
[10] (February 2012). “Code of Ethics of Engineers”.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (Online Article).
[11] M. Coeckelbergh. “Moral Responsibility, Technology,
and Experiences of the Tragic.” Science and Engineering
Ethics. (Online Article).
[12] J. Basart, M. Serra. (April 2011). “Engineering Ethics
Beyond Engineers’ Ethics.” (Online Article)
CONCLUSION: FINAL DECISION
In conclusion, when simply discussing the use of solar
power there is no moral or ethical debate. However, by
digging deeper into the topic of solar power one will find that
it is a more complex issue than first thought. One must not
only ask themselves, “Should solar power be used?” but also,
“How should solar power be used in an ethically acceptable
way?” Many factors must be taken into account such as the
engineer’s responsibility to his profession, his community,
and overall human welfare. Engineers are able to use codes
of ethics such as the ASME’s or NSPE’s as well as literature
similar to the pieces referenced above to guide them in
making these difficult decisions. Although, in the end the
decision lies solely on the shoulders of that engineer. This
ethical aspect of engineering is often overlooked or
unappreciated, but the pressure added by this moral
responsibility is what makes the profession of engineering so
difficult and crucial to society.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thanks to Gabriel Wells and James Anthony.
Without whom this paper would not have been possible.
REFERENCES
3