The Efficacy of Solar Power

[momeNt]

Nobody suggested "abandoning" solar energy as a possible source, but this big push for solar as a significant source of our energy needs and way to remove dependence on oil is just an eco-kook pipe dream.

This is a prime example of how nobody (especially the government) should pick a winner and try to push it. Let the marketplace determine what the best options are and a winner will emerge naturally.

You just lost about 98% of the readership here.

 

[Macamus Prime]

When can we start burning dead human beings for energy?

Better yet, we put prisoners on cycles and have them generate electrical power for us. The tax payers are giving their money to house these prisoners. And, since we aren't allowed to kill everyone put in prison (Gawd damn libruls!!) we might as well put them to work!!

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't think the power density is the problem, it's the cost. If it cost $5000 - $10000 to outift a typical American house with solar cells that would power it for 20 years, solar would be an easy sell.

Since 2006, the price of solar sells have decreased 50% and if progress remains steady, we'll be at that point soon.

No, without significant subsidies, it will take a long time before it becomes viable. We haven't even really gotten to point of "real world" good deal yet, it's not even theoretically a good deal, and won't be for a while. When you start factoring in failure rates and maintenance, along with degrading and reducing returns -- not to mention the reality that most of the country doesn't live somewhere with easy access to nice sunshine all year -- it's not the wonderful thing the eco-kooks are pretending it is.

Another factor that's not being considered is the cost in terms of "dirty" elements/metals/chemicals needed to actually manufacture the cells. Yes, the cost has come down quite a bit, but there's a significant amount of dirty processing that goes into making them, so the overall net impact to the environment might not be any better than "dirty" fossil fuels.

 

[rudder]

Yup, the Wright Bros. first couple flights were pretty pathetic too... I guess we should've abandoned flight altogether right then and there.



It sounds silly, but so does the overall tone of the OP.

First off, the Wright Brothers did not need any money from the Federal government. Manufacturing of the Wright flyer was also not an environmental nightmare that was transferred to China to avoid oversight.

The Wright Brothers also did not have access to super computers capable of testing nuclear weapons. Surely these supercomputers could assist in designing better solar cells.

Solar energy is useful in that it can be used to generate steam to turn turbines which ultimately is all coal and nuclear power does as well. I think the OP's point is the amount of federal spending going towards solar panels whether is be loans to companies or subsidies to get solar panels installed.

 

[PokerGuy]

<usual macamus idiocy snipped>
Better yet, we put prisoners on cycles and have them generate electrical power for us.

I've wondered why that isn't seriously considered as an option. Not as a mandatory thing, but as a way for inmates to be able to both make money and stay in shape. Pay them a rate per watt hour or something, and set up a bunch of stations the can be used to generate electricity using manpower. Win for all no?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Solar will never, ever, be an efficient source of energy for general use on a large scale. The energy density is just too low. The unsubsidized cost of solar panels cannot pay for themselves in their useful lifetime. They're only useful for niche applications.

Niche as in providing power for home and communities? What's being ignored is that the cost of solar is coming down while other sources of power go up in cost. While manufacturing and other demanding applications need a source of high density energy, that does not apply to residential needs. Note that when we talk energy the associated costs of an ever increasingly complicated grid are omitted. Let's see the TCO of nuclear plants including their decommissioning costs. You'll find out that it isn't cheap.

Again the trend is solar cheaper, everything else escalating. The point where they cross isn't all that far in the future.

 

[QuantumPion]

I've wondered why that isn't seriously considered as an option. Not as a mandatory thing, but as a way for inmates to be able to both make money and stay in shape. Pay them a rate per watt hour or something, and set up a bunch of stations the can be used to generate electricity using manpower. Win for all no?

It would be more efficient to burn the food you'd have to feed them in a furnace to run a turbine. Human power is very inefficient.

 

[momeNt]

When can we start burning dead human beings for energy?

Better yet, we put prisoners on cycles and have them generate electrical power for us. The tax payers are giving their money to house these prisoners. And, since we aren't allowed to kill everyone put in prison (Gawd damn libruls!!) we might as well put them to work!!

You're an idiot. Humans will never be burnt for energy, they will be processed into food.

 

[PokerGuy]

Niche as in providing power for home and communities? What's being ignored is that the cost of solar is coming down while other sources of power go up in cost.

That's a good point, and if it gets to the point of being viable, then the market will adopt it. Lets not forget though that the vast majority of people don't live in a place that gets perfect sunshine most of the time, you still need energy at night (so you'd need significant storage of some sort), and you need to factor in the cost of each individual installation and maintenance & repairs.

Let's see the TCO of nuclear plants including their decommissioning costs. You'll find out that it isn't cheap.

Again the trend is solar cheaper, everything else escalating. The point where they cross isn't all that far in the future.

I think when you factor in the cost to the environment of making the cells, the costs of installation and repairs, the inefficiency and all that, solar is far from cheap, and still far from competitive with other sources. If that ever changes, count me in for solar.

 

[Screech]

Most have probably seen this but still relevant:

http://www.solardave.com/images/efficiency-chart.gif

Solar ain't there yet but improvements have been making it better for a while and will continue.....someday it will probably be the way to go.

 

[QuantumPion]

Niche as in providing power for home and communities? What's being ignored is that the cost of solar is coming down while other sources of power go up in cost. While manufacturing and other demanding applications need a source of high density energy, that does not apply to residential needs. Note that when we talk energy the associated costs of an ever increasingly complicated grid are omitted. Let's see the TCO of nuclear plants including their decommissioning costs. You'll find out that it isn't cheap.

Again the trend is solar cheaper, everything else escalating. The point where they cross isn't all that far in the future.

Niche as in street lights, backup power, off-the-grid remote power, etc.

The reason why the cost of solar is going down and the cost of other power is going up is because the government is taxing conventional power to subsidize solar power.

Oh, and the decommissioning cost for nuclear plants is already built into the price, by law. Nuclear power is cheaper than coal, even including ALL associated costs including mining, enrichment, disposal, decommissioning, insurance, etc.

 

[PokerGuy]

It would be more efficient to burn the food you'd have to feed them in a furnace to run a turbine. Human power is very inefficient.

Yes, but aren't you feeding them already? Would the incremental food requirement be that great? Yes, it's very inefficient, but you have a very little cost - the power source (the people) are sitting there wasting their time day in day out anyway, and you have to feed them regardless.

 

[McWatt]

solar panels don't last. They are in a constant state of decay. The 20 year 75% output is shelf life not on the roof life.

I don't see evidence for this in your post. I suspect that the 20 year warranties offered by the manufacturers for installed systems are pretty good evidence that you're incorrect.

 

[monovillage]

Just look at who makes the big dollars from solar plants.

"The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG &#8212; even Google. "

That's right, a big race to put big dollars in the pockets of Goldman Sachs and huge corporations like GE. Makes sense to me for the so called 99&#37; ers here to be dumping largesse on the conglomerates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/b...or-renewable-energy.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

 

[momeNt]

I've wondered why that isn't seriously considered as an option. Not as a mandatory thing, but as a way for inmates to be able to both make money and stay in shape. Pay them a rate per watt hour or something, and set up a bunch of stations the can be used to generate electricity using manpower. Win for all no?

100 watts for a bicycle generator.

Let's take a billion people, half from India, half from China (bringing jobs back home to USA will mean they will have a lot of unemployed).

12 hour cycling days = 1,200 watts per person * 1bn = 1.2 TWh

USA according to wikipedia used 25,000+ TWh in 2009.

That's only .0048% of our daily consumption.

Combined PV and CSP solar capacity in the USA is is about .0025 TWh. (2500MW off of wikipedia).

So if we could get about a billion people to sign on we could produce nearly 500 times more energy than all the solar panels in the USA.

$40 billion a year industry (solar). So divide that up by 1billion. You have 4$ a person, times ~500 for the increased efficiency of bicycle energy, and you have $2,000 a year wage. Which is actually above their average wage.

 

[DrPizza]

The analysis in the OP has one HUGE flaw that no one has pointed out. You don't simply get the luxury of comparing the cost of the solar cell to the cost of mined coal. (*edit, actually it has been pointed out; I had this tab open for a while.) You need to include the cost of building that coal fired plant from the ground up.

Another flaw: since you mentioned that it depends on where you live (and not where the plant is located), I'm going to assume you're talking about solar cells at a residence. Unless you go completely off grid, there's no need for storage in batteries. And, you're certainly not going to have 40&#37; losses - that's an exaggeration you're pulling out of your ass to make your argument. Let's take a 4000 watt installation, for example. You're claiming that it's going to lose 1600 watts? That energy loss would go to heat. That's a lot of lost heat in the house. A 1600 watt heater running during all the daylight hours, in the summer? I'm very skeptical that that much heat is generated.

Coal costs closer to 2 cents to generate a kw-hr. But, that factor does not include the external costs that are born by society. Including these costs (deaths of miners, destruction of environment (including natural resources with a value, such as timber), etc.), some analysts put the price of coal well over 10 cents per kw-hr. Here's a link that describes many of those costs: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/the-true-cost-of-coal/4566/ (just a random link; I have no motivation for picking a particular source.)

Nonetheless, a dollar is going to buy you 50 kw-hr (or 100kw-hr, again, with your grossly rounded in your favor statistic.) That's 50000 watt hours. Since you're allowing for 100 square feet, and even accepting your worst case scenario of 2 watts per square foot, that's still 200 watts of generation. 50,000 watt hours divided by 200 watts is 250 hours. Or in other words, "these things are so bad... whole year", you're full of shit.


Now, other flaws in your analysis - you're comparing the consumer cost of energy via solar to simply the cost of the coal that's burned. You either have shit for brains, else are being incredibly dishonest. The average cost to the consumer is around 10 cents per kilowatt hour. THAT is the figure that you have to compare the costs of home generated solar power to. And, in that case, your $1 is only going to buy you 10kw-hrs, not 100.


A somewhat more realistic analysis is this, and I'll skew the numbers in your favor. $1 per watt for 10 watts per sq foot panels ($10 per sq ft.); But, after losses, let's say you only get 4 watts for that $10. $10 would buy you 100 kw-hrs from the power company. How long until you recoup your investment? So, 100,000 watt-hours, generating at a rate of 4 watt-hours per hour. 25000 hours to break even. At only 8 hours a day, that's 3125 days to break even; about 8 1/2 years.

Now, a lot of people wouldn't want to have that money tied up for 8 1/2 years before they break even. But, remember, after 8 1/2 years, your energy is close to free, while there's every reason in the world to expect that the cost of energy on the market is going to increase. (Hell, coal skyrocketed in price a couple of years ago.) People spend that kind of cash (or more) on vehicles for a 6 year loan; 8 1/2 years isn't really that long.

 

[PokerGuy]

At only 8 hours a day, that's 3125 days to break even; about 8 1/2 years.

That seems like reasonable analysis, except that you didn't include the cost of purchase, the cost of installation, the cost of maintenance, the fact that cells over time degrade in terms of efficiency, the time value of money you have to pay up front, and the reality that most people don't get enough direct sunlight to get those best case kind of scenarios.

If there was truly a solution out there that would break even after 8 or 9 years in real world costs, I'd buy the damn thing tomorrow.

 

[DrPizza]

That seems like reasonable analysis, except that you didn't include the cost of purchase, the cost of installation, the cost of maintenance, the fact that cells over time degrade in terms of efficiency, the time value of money you have to pay up front, and the reality that most people don't get enough direct sunlight to get those best case kind of scenarios.

If there was truly a solution out there that would break even after 8 or 9 years in real world costs, I'd buy the damn thing tomorrow.

I didn't use a best case scenario - I used a less than ideal scenario. The new cells are supposed to get 10 watts per square foot; I based my analysis on only 4 watts per square foot. In an ideal case - southern California, Arizona, etc., they average close to 12 hours of sunlight a day, and would get closer to those 10 watts.

You're right - around where I live, it would be hard to justify the cost; not enough sunny days, and including other costs, it might take 10-12 years to break even. As far as the time value of money - think of it as a low risk investment (risks being minimized by warranties.) If it takes 8 years to break even, and we assume it lasts for 20 years, then a $15,000 investment up front ultimately has a value in electricity of more than 37,500 over the 20 years (more than, because the price will increase.) I think it's a safe bet that within 20 years, the cost of electricity will double. http://lee.org/blog/2008/07/23/historical-electric-rates/ (sorry, this was the first historical prices that I could find.) Thus, $37,500 is way low. It'll probably be at least $50k worth of electricity over 20 years.

Now, find me a *low risk* investment of $15,000 that would be worth $50k after 20 years. (that's a little over a 6&#37; rate of return.)

edit: that math isn't correct; to make it correct, you'd have to deduct from that $15k each month to pay for the electricity; I don't have time at the moment, but can do that math later.

 

[woolfe9999]

Solar will never, ever, be an efficient source of energy for general use on a large scale. The energy density is just too low. The unsubsidized cost of solar panels cannot pay for themselves in their useful lifetime. They're only useful for niche applications.

I don't understand how you can say "never, ever" as if you know the future development trajectory of this technology. Are you both an expert on the technology and some kind of uber-futurist?

 

[momeNt]

I don't understand how you can say "never, ever" as if you know the future development trajectory of this technology. Are you both an expert on the technology and some kind of uber-futurist?

Ray Kurzweil (critically acclaimed futurist) believes that in ~20 years all energy will be solar.

Only have to wait 50 years for the singularity, then we all get to live forever and have planet sized computers woot!

 

[PokerGuy]

Now, find me a *low risk* investment of $15,000 that would be worth $50k after 20 years. (that's a little over a 6% rate of return.)

If your analysis is even remotely close to correct, then it's a complete no brainer for every person and business in a southwest state to do. The fact that we haven't seen that means that either everyone is dumb, or the analysis if deeply flawed in some way. The "real world" performance and numbers are probably way off from the assumptions.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Many people do not have $15K around or can justify the costs for a 5-10 year investment. Apartments will not have them. Business buildings do not have the relative surface area per use to justify the investment.

 

[mect]

Keeping one facility (or a small number of facilities) maintained and repaired is a heck of a lot more efficient than maintaining and repairing millions of solar setups on millions of homes and offices.

Solar is a great power source in theory, but until the actual power generated by cells increases by a factor of 20 or so, it's dumb to think of it as anything but a niche product.

If solar efficiency even increased by a factor of 10, everywhere possible would be utilizing solar panels in any situation possible tomorrow. That would require approximately 2 years for the panels to pay for themselves (unsubsidized), dropping the average solar installation price to $2,000-3,000.

Also, as far as maintenance goes, the only maintenance required for solar panels is keeping them cleared off (for an on-grid system), so long as all the electrical connections are properly weather sealed. This would be difficult in snowy areas, but otherwise not a problem. Maintenance of all solid systems with no moving parts is way simpler than combustion processes.

 

[gingermeggs]

This will be the next big thing-
http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/

 

[QuantumPion]

100 watts for a bicycle generator.

Let's take a billion people, half from India, half from China (bringing jobs back home to USA will mean they will have a lot of unemployed).

12 hour cycling days = 1,200 watts per person * 1bn = 1.2 TWh

USA according to wikipedia used 25,000+ TWh in 2009.

That's only .0048% of our daily consumption.

Combined PV and CSP solar capacity in the USA is is about .0025 TWh. (2500MW off of wikipedia).

So if we could get about a billion people to sign on we could produce nearly 500 times more energy than all the solar panels in the USA.

$40 billion a year industry (solar). So divide that up by 1billion. You have 4$ a person, times ~500 for the increased efficiency of bicycle energy, and you have $2,000 a year wage. Which is actually above their average wage.

You apparently ignored my previous post. There is no such thing as a free lunch, Literally in this case. You have to feed people food for them to be able to generate electricity on bikes. You can't get more energy out of the bike then the calorie value of the food eaten. But you could far more efficiently simply burn the food in a furnace to run a steam turbine then feeding the food to people to use muscle power.