Budny 4:00
L05
THE BUSINESS OF SOLAR POWER: DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
Mohamed Kashkoush (mak280@pitt.edu)
SCENARIO: WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
You are senior chemical engineer who, after 25 years of
networking and hard work, has just been appointed as the
CEO of a medium-sized engineering firm named Total Solar
Solutions (TSS). Total Solar Solutions is a subdivision of
Total Energy Solutions (TES), a large and powerful
corporation dedicated to manufacturing alternative energy
systems. TES’s mission statement declares that one of its long
term goals is to provide cheap, efficient, and environmentally
clean alternative energy that will surpass fossil fuels as the
primary source of energy by the year 2050. As the CEO of
TSS, you are expected to uphold TES’s mission statement by
expanding and optimizing the solar systems that you oversee.
A few months after your promotion, you receive an offer
from Moonpool, a large petroleum company interested in
buying a 1,000 acre piece of land that TSS is currently
building a solar farm on. Your intelligence unit informs you
that the piece of land has been discovered to be directly above
an oil reserve estimated to be the tenth largest in the world.
Because of how valuable the oil reserve is, Moonpool is
willing to pay TSS $500,000,000 for the piece of land. The
total cost of building the solar farm (including the original
purchase of the land) is approximately $10,000,000, leaving
TSS with a massive potential profit of $490,000,000.
The first construction phase for the solar farm was to
manufacture and chemically treat 100,000 solar panels for
industrial use. This phase has already been completed, only
leaving the panel installation to complete the construction of
the solar farm. However, Moonpool is demanding that, as part
of the deal, the 100,000 solar panels must be disposed of at a
predetermined landfill. This is a strategic power play that
Moonpool is using in order to cripple its alternative energy
competitors.
If you accept Moonpool’s offer, you would be
contradicting TES’s values and mission. You would be giving
Moonpool the means to extract fossil fuels that will eventually
harm the ozone layer. You would be allowing the fossil fuel
industry to expand, hindering the progress of the alternative
energy industry. Also, the disposal of the solar panels in a
landfill, as Moonpool is demanding, is environmentally
damaging. However, $490,000,000 could provide TSS with
enough funding to expand the solar energy industry and
research new techniques to optimize solar technology. What
should you do?
ENGINEERING ETHICS VERSUS
ENGINEERS’ ETHICS
The phrases ‘engineering ethics’ and ‘engineers’ ethics’
are two linguistically similar phrases that realistically
1
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
represent two different concepts. The term ‘engineering
ethics’ refers to the ethical rules that all engineers are
expected to abide by. This usually refers to an established
code of ethics that outlines what is and what is not acceptable
in the realm of engineering. Engineers’ ethics, on the other
hand, refers to an idealistic image of an ethically sound
engineer who is “someone both quite individualistic and
strong enough to deal with all the moral challenges that could
arise” relating to the field of engineering [1]. Both of these
concepts apply to the Moonpool deal, as there are not only
overarching ethical rules that apply to this situation, but also
individual moral questions that the engineer must answer.
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS (NSPE) CODE OF ETHICS
The NSPE code of ethics states in its fundamental canons
that all engineers shall “Hold paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public” and “Act for each employer or
client as faithful agents or trustees” [2]. These are two ethical
issues that are brought into question when discussing the
presented scenario.
Safety, Health, and Welfare of the Public
According to Moonpool’s offer, 100,000 solar panels must
be disposed of in a landfill. Photovoltaic disposal policies are
not outlined by judicial law, and are purely regulated by the
combined economical and ethical tradeoff perceived by the
producer. Decommissioned solar panels can create hazardous
byproducts if not disposed correctly. Cadmium, tellurium,
lead, and selenium are all examples of harmful substances
used in silicon-based photovoltaic cells that can enter water
systems as runoff from landfill sites. These poisons can also
enter the ozone layer as emissions from incineration-based
disposal techniques [3]. Therefore, it is ethically agreeable to
responsibly dispose of solar technologies via recycling
services that involve separating unsafe substances from
recyclable components such as metal supports and glass
surfaces of the panels. However, it is currently economically
advantageous to simply dispose of the solar panels at a
landfill. It is estimated that choosing to recycle one ton solar
panels would cost a company $151,000 more than it would
cost to dump the solar panels in a landfill [4]. Therefore,
choosing to recycle 100,000 solar panels (about 20 pounds
each) would cost Moonpool $151,000,000.
Mohamed Kashkoush
A few initiatives have been taken to decrease the cost of
recycling solar panels in order to advocate for responsible
disposal. First Solar, a solar power generating company, now
offers low-cost recycling services achieved through
optimizing the recycling process. First Solar’s recycling
process model can be observed in the flowchart in Figure 1.
From one viewpoint, the offer expands the fossil fuel industry,
which contradicts TES’s overall mission to replace fossil fuel
as the primary source with clean energy sources. On the other
hand, it is plausible to argue that accepting the offer gives TSS
$490,000,000 to expand the company by constructing more
solar farms and researching solar technology. Through this
research, it is likely that TSS can innovate solar technology to
lower the costs of solar systems and optimize solar cell
efficiencies enough to economically compete with the fossil
fuel industry.
Since this decision is controversial and ethically charged,
it is imperative that the responsible engineer consults all
parties that may be affected by the acceptance or refusal of
Moonpool’s offer. Under the fundamental canon stating that
engineers must be faithful agents to their employers, the
NSPE code of conduct adds that “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” [2]. It is important to receive advice and feedback
from third parties before making a decision because they will
share opinions, viewpoints, and desires that will assist in
reaching the most comprehensively beneficial conclusion. In
the case of TSS, being a subdivision of TES, it would be
required by the NSPE code of ethics to consult the president,
board of trustees, CEO, or any governing body of TES before
accepting or declining Moonpool’s offer.
FIGURE 1 [5]
This low-cost recycling process developed by First Solar
could present economic incentives to prevent companies
from irresponsibly disposing solar panels.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL
ENGINEERS (AIChE) CODE OF ETHICS
This process would reduce the total cost of recycling 100,000
solar panels to approximately $37,550,000 [5]. Although this
approach is still costly, it may be considered by Moonpool as
an acceptable loss in order to protect the environment. Also,
theoretical approaches to recycling solar panels estimate that
the sale of the recycled product could actually yield a profit
of over $100,000 per ton. If these theoretical recycling
approaches can be implemented, Moonpool would be able to
earn $100,000,000 while preserving the environment in
recycling 100,000 solar panels [4].
Also, it is important to consider that fossil fuels are known
for emitting environmentally harmful greenhouse gases. 26%
of all greenhouse gases come from oil reserves such as the one
Moonpool is offering to purchase [6]. Selling Moonpool an
oil reserve would only add thousands of tons of greenhouse
gases into the ozone layer. Excessive greenhouse gas
emissions are definitely applicable as a violation to the NSPE
code of ethics canon against public safety and health.
The AIChE code of ethics outlines proper ethical behavior
for all engineers who specialize in the field of chemistry and
material sciences. Since solar panel innovation revolves
around treating the panels with chemical recipes, this code of
ethics also applies in the decision to accept or reject
Moonpool’s offer. The AIChE code of ethics mimics much of
the NSPE code of ethics, but specifies that engineers must
“Formally advise their employers or clients (and consider
further disclosure, if warranted) if they perceive that a
consequence of their duties will adversely affect the present
or future health or safety of their colleagues or the public” [7].
In reference to the Moonpool deal, the CEO of TSS should
seek advice from the governing body of TES in deciding
whether the massive profits TES would be receiving is worth
knowingly allowing greenhouse gas pollution and
irresponsible chemical disposal to take place.
Faithful Agents
Engineers, managers, and CEOs have almost always based
their decisions mostly on profit-loss analysis. They approve
or design projects that will maximize profits and minimize
costs. Ethics are usually overlooked as a deciding factor,
unless of course a major violation of a judicial law or code of
ethics is violated. However, recent trends in engineering
DISCOURSE ETHICS IN ENGINEERING
According to the NSPE code of ethics, all engineers must
act as loyal and trustworthy agents to their employers [2]. In
evaluating Moonpool’s offer, it is important to consider
whether or not accepting the offer will benefit or harm TES.
2
Mohamed Kashkoush
ethics have shown increased interest in prioritizing ethics as a
factor in judgments [8]. One recently recognized innovative
method of making ethical decisions is discourse ethics.
Discourse ethics is a decision-making process that, instead of
allowing private enterprises to make rulings that will
potentially impact the public, allows an independent ethical
judicial board to vote for or against the proposal. The ethical
board serves as a sort of ethical check and balance intended
to supervise profit-driven business opportunists [8]. In the
case of the presented ethical situation, an ethical judicial
board would be extremely beneficial, as certain portions of
the Moonpool offer include ethically controversial demands.
and often illegitimate. Using this logic to justify, for example,
the emission of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases as a
result of Moonpool deal is becoming less and less accepted in
today’s society.
Remaining True to a Company’s Mission
It has been established that, according to the NSPE and
AIChE codes of conduct, the CEO of TSS must present the
ethical scenario to the governing body of TES in order to
uphold his/her duties as a “faithful agent” to the company.
However, what should TES consider in evaluating the offer?
TES’s company values state that it strives, for the solar
industry as a whole, to surpass the fossil fuel industry as the
primary source of global energy by the year 2050. The United
States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Sunshot Initiative is a
group with similar goals as TES, focusing on optimizing solar
powered electricity so that by the end of the decade it will be
cost-competitive with traditional forms of electricity. To do
this, the DOE estimates that the Sunshot Initiative will have
to decrease the cost of producing solar power by 75% [9]. The
Sunshot initiative establishes two effective processes
vigorously being researched and tested in order to meet its
goal: maximize solar cell efficiencies and minimize
production costs of solar panels [10].
The Sunshot Initiative works with chemical engineering
firms such as Akrion Systems, which studies solar cell
efficiencies by treating solar cells with different antireflective coating chemical recipes and recording the
efficiency rate of each cell. Akrion Systems attempts to
maximize efficiency by forming thousands of microscopic
pyramidal structures on the surface of solar cells through
chemical reactions that occur within the recipe. These
pyramidal structures absorb maximum amounts of sunlight by
constantly deflecting light against the different surfaces of
different pyramids as seen in Figure 2 [11].
THE ENGINEERS’ ETHICS
Engineers, especially a senior engineer who is now CEO
of a medium sized company, are expected to act in an
honorable and ethical manner regardless of what is allowable
according to codes of ethics and laws. Since the concept of
engineers’ ethics is not officially laid out in any sort of
legislation, many engineers simply act in their own selfinterests as long as they are not directly contradicting any
ethical codes or laws. Many even try to find loopholes and
controversial canons in these codes of conduct in order to
avoid ethical obstacles that could hinder a project, design, or
transaction. It is important to understand that, depending on
the morals of the engineer, there are many different possible
outcomes to any ethically-charged engineering decision
Responsible Disposal of Solar Panels
Although it has already been made clear that disposing of
solar panels in a landfill is harmful to the environment, it is
important to understand that the degree of harm directed to
the environment is not detrimental enough for judicial
legislation to directly disallow it. Current U.S. legislation
bans industrial environmentally harmful acts such as dumping
hazardous waste into public bodies of water or land. However,
dumping chemically treated solar panels into a landfill is not
considered perilous enough to be included in these federal
laws.
Both the NSPE and AIChE codes of ethics demand that
engineering decisions that could be damaging to the
environment be presented to the employer or governing body,
but not necessarily rejected. This leaves the final decision
entirely up to the engineer and his/her superiors.
Here is where engineers’ ethics come into play. An
engineer who believes that morality and public safety is a
primary concern would attempt to persuade Moonpool to
recycle the 100,000 solar panels, or completely reject the
Moonpool deal and label it as harmful to the environment.
However, an engineer who is looking to maximize TSS’s
profits would accept the deal and label the harm to the
environment as a “necessary evil” required to expand the solar
industry. The logic of allowing necessary evils is very vague
FIGURE 2 [11]
Different pyramidal alignments are produced by different
researched chemical recipes. The alignments that absorb the
most sunlight are researched in depth for innovative
purposes.
Akrion Systems also studies how to minimize the cost of
production of solar panels. Akrion has discovered a new “feed
3
Mohamed Kashkoush
and bleed” silicon wafer treatment technique which entails a
system of bathing wafers with treatment without adding any
additional chemistry to the original chemical bath. This
differs greatly from previously used techniques which simply
shower chemical recipes onto the solar cells. Feed and bleed
methodology uses less chemistry, and thus significantly
lowers the cost of production [11].
Another cost of production that Akrion Systems is
currently attempting to minimize is the cost of labor. Akrion
Systems establishes that one way to minimize labor is by
using robotic wet benches to chemically treat solar cells that
could decrease costs of labor in industrial sized companies by
up to 20% [11].
I have personally shadowed a group of chemical engineers
at Akrion Systems, and can attest to the hard work and effort
that every employee puts forth in order to meet their
company’s goals. Engineers’ ethics can be applied to this
situation. If the CEO of Akrion Systems were to sell all of its
land and solar technology to Moonpool, not only would the
employees feel deserted, but the Sunshot Initiative would be
infuriated. Akrion Systems would be limiting the solar
industry’s potential to innovate and going against the Sunshot
Initiative’s goals. By giving Moonpool its resources needed
for solar innovation, Akrion Systems is hindering Sunshot
Initiatives progress in optimizing solar technology. Similarly,
selling TSS’s solar farm to Moonpool would be a violation of
the unwritten rules of engineers’ ethics. The CEO would be
contradicting TES’s mission statement of providing the world
with clean energy, as selling Moonpool the oil reserve would
eventually add thousands of tons of greenhouse gases to the
ozone layer. Many professional engineers in the solar
technology field would view accepting Moonpool’s offer as
“making a deal with the devil”, or accepting immoral money.
superiors, but the final decision I would be unsure of. If I had
to lean one way or the other, I would favor selling the land to
Moonpool simply so that TSS could buy many more solar
farms to expand the industry. To an extent, I believe that the
ends can justify the means as long as the means are ethically
questionable, but not ethically wrong.
REFERENCES
[1] J.Basart, M.Serra. (March 2013). “Engineering Ethics
Beyond Engineers’ Ethics.” Science And Engineering Ethics.
(Online
Article).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-0119293-z
[2]National Society of Professional Engineers. (April 2013).
“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” NSPE Ethics Site.
(Website).http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.ht
ml
[3]N.McDonald, J. Pearce. (November 2010). “Producer
Responsibility and Recycling Solar Photovoltaic Modules.”
Energy
Policy.
(Online
Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03014215
10005537
[4] J.Choi,. (10/12/2010). “Economic Feasibility of Recycling
Photovoltaic Modules.” Journal of Industrial Ecology.
(Online Article).
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6
178756
[5] First Solar Inc. (August 2013) “Committed to
Responsible Life Cycle Management.” First Solar
Informational Site. (Website).
http://www.firstsolar.com/en/Sustainability/Environmental/
Recycling-Service
[6] F. Bellucci, J. Bogner, N.Sturchio. (10/09/2013).
“Greenhouse Gas Emmissions at the Urban Scale.” Elements.
(Online
Article).
http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/content/8/6/445.full.pdf
+html
[7] American Institute of Chemical Engineers. (June 2013).
“Code of Ethics.” AIChE Informational Site. (Website).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[8] J.Mingers. (4/01/2011).“Ethics and OR: Operationalising
Discourse Ethics.” European Journal of Operational
Research.
(Online
Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03772217
10007526
[9] A.Knicks. (10/23/2013). “Sunshot Initiative.” United
States Department of Energy Informational Site. (Website).
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/index.html
[10]Sunshot Initiative. (February 2012). “Sunshot Vision
Study”. United States Department of Energy Informational
Site.
(Online
Presentation).http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/47927
_chapter4.pdf
CONCLUSION: MAKING A
DECISION
When analyzing an ethical scenario, it is important to
consider every aspect of the situation. In the case of the
Moonpool offer, one should follow the canons outlined in the
NSPE and AIChE codes of ethics, judge according to personal
morals, seek proper advice, and consider potential profits and
losses. Essentially, one must weigh out the potential benefits
and losses with the engineering ethics and engineers’ ethics
that surround the scenario. The only remaining step is to
make a decision.
Provided all of the above evidence, I still find this scenario
to be troubling at the least. I cannot say whether I would
accept Moonpool’s offer or not due to the massive risks that I
would be taking in deciding either way. Accepting the offer
would anger TES due to the environmental hazards and the
fact that we would be selling out by our competition.
However, declining the offer risks losing $490,000,000 that
could be used to expand the solar industry. I would, as an
engineer, fulfill my obligation to report the scenario to my
4
Mohamed Kashkoush
[11] I. Kashkoush, D.Jimenez. (7/15/2012). “Insights into cSi Processing for Photovoltaic Applications.” PAG Meeting
Presentations at Semicon West. (Online Presentation).
http://www.akrionsystems.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/insights-into-c-si-processing-forphotovoltaic-applications.pdf
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank everyone who assisted me in the
process of writing this ethics paper. Most importantly, I would
like to thank my father who works at Akrion Systems for
providing me with useful references and background
knowledge needed to write this paper. I would also like to
thank the group of chemical engineers who allowed me to
observe working in the laboratory at Akrion Systems. This
experience gave me an abundance of personal experience
related to the field of solar power, silicon wafers, and the
ethics involved. I am grateful to the engineering students
whom I reside with from Sutherland Hall who discussed this
writing assignment with me. Finally, I would also like to
thank Dan Mcmillan for taking the time to read this paper.
5
Mohamed Kashkoush
6