The Efficacy of Solar Power

[QuantumPion]

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?

The situation will not change given today's current economic and technological capabilities. Unless you can produce solar panels about 100 times cheaper then they currently cost, or you can invent a solar panel that is bout 100 times more efficient, solar power is a NET LOSS for society in terms of productivity in for electricity out compared to conventional sources.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

$15k is the subsidized cost. If EVERYONE got solar panels, everyone's taxes would go up by exactly the subsidy amount. The actual real cost of a solar panel set for a single house is around ~$50k-70k.

 

[Patranus]

$15k is the subsidized cost. If EVERYONE got solar panels, everyone's taxes would go up by exactly the subsidy amount. The actual real cost of a solar panel set for a single house is around ~$50k-70k.

Exactly. There is the "cost" and then there is the cost.

 

[woolfe9999]

The situation will not change given today's current economic and technological capabilities. Unless you can produce solar panels about 100 times cheaper then they currently cost, or you can invent a solar panel that is bout 100 times more efficient, solar power is a NET LOSS for society in terms of productivity in for electricity out compared to conventional sources.

I don't think you need 100x the efficiency for it to be viable. That conflicts with everything I've read about the current state of solar. You need to substantiate that claim instead of just making unsupported assertions like the OP did.

 

[QuantumPion]

I don't think you need 100x the efficiency for it to be viable. That conflicts with everything I've read about the current state of solar. You need to substantiate that claim instead of just making unsupported assertions like the OP did.

Your numbers are probably based on ideal conditions + government subsidies + incorrect assumptions. The usual ones are:

* assuming unrealistic amount of daylight per year
* not taking into account all government subsidies, not just direct ones
* not taking into account cost of replacement/standby power capacity
* not taking into account short lifespan of solar cells

When you honestly and realistically evaluate your assumptions, it turns out solar power is 50-100 times more expensive than conventional power.

Good article here: http://www.instituteforenergyresear...r-power-continues-to-be-built-in-the-u-s-why/

 

[SP33Demon]

I know there have been strides in tech on coal scrubbers, hopefully that will be a reality someday because we sure as hell have a lot of coal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

The markets are not dependent on government taxation. The cost of acquiring energy increases on it's own. I remember 25 cent gas. I had a minimum wage job which could buy about 6 gallons of gas. Now that's about $20, far more than today's equivalent pay. That difference is taken and put into solar isn't going to fly. Energy costs more. Well frankly I'd like to see a whole lot more put into energy research, which will do more for our economy and national security than any war. Unfortunately our leaders are beholden to interests which do not support basic research to the degree which would open up new alternatives. If 1/10 of the Iraq war cost was given to academic and focused commercial research we'd not be having this conversation. We'd be looking at fossil fuels as we do the horse and buggy.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your numbers are probably based on ideal conditions + government subsidies + incorrect assumptions. The usual ones are:

* assuming unrealistic amount of daylight per year
* not taking into account all government subsidies, not just direct ones
* not taking into account cost of replacement/standby power capacity
* not taking into account short lifespan of solar cells

When you honestly and realistically evaluate your assumptions, it turns out solar power is 50-100 times more expensive than conventional power.

Good article here: http://www.instituteforenergyresear...r-power-continues-to-be-built-in-the-u-s-why/

Even if I accept your Koch Brothers funded analysis as fair and objective, none of what's in your link supports anywhere near the 100x assertion you've made. Look at the data in your own article. And it relies on 2009 data, when 2010-2011 have seen significant drops in solar cost.

Look, I'm not saying that solar is currently more efficient than other forms of energy. It clearly isn't. But solar cost ~$100/watt in 1970, ~$1/watt now. And its efficiency has improved 1.5-2x at the same time. That's 150-200x improvement in cost efficiency in 4 decades. Depending on which set of data you're looking at, from most optimistic to most pessimistic, overall solar cost efficiency only needs to improve anywhere from 2-5x to reach grid parity. That puts the most reasonable projections in the 2015-2018 time frame. Even if that is way too optimistic, and it's more like 2030, your "never, ever" statement is simply not warranted.

- wolf

 

[Double Trouble]

Even if that is way too optimistic, and it's more like 2030, your "never, ever" statement is simply not warranted.

- wolf

Yeah, I'd be hesitant to make any "never ever" type predictions about anything involving technology. Eventually solar will be a real possibility, but the process to make them is heavy in pollution, so there is definitely a big environmental cost to solar.

 

[Moonbeam]

The markets are not dependent on government taxation. The cost of acquiring energy increases on it's own. I remember 25 cent gas. I had a minimum wage job which could buy about 6 gallons of gas. Now that's about $20, far more than today's equivalent pay. That difference is taken and put into solar isn't going to fly. Energy costs more. Well frankly I'd like to see a whole lot more put into energy research, which will do more for our economy and national security than any war. Unfortunately our leaders are beholden to interests which do not support basic research to the degree which would open up new alternatives. If 1/10 of the Iraq war cost was given to academic and focused commercial research we'd not be having this conversation. We'd be looking at fossil fuels as we do the horse and buggy.

I believe that the frequency of numerical representation in the population of folk like you has a graphically symbolic reference on the American dollar bill, the eye stone of illumination that sees and sits atop an ever increasingly more blind and more and more densely numerous population of stones. The good news as I see it is that while real vision evolves only with necessity, we live in interesting times.

 

[1prophet]

Freedom, an expensive intangible item price wise yet desirable by all, the more energy independent a nation becomes the less it has to kow tow to places like the middle east,

the price of dirty coal, fracking or imported cheap energy has been very costly to America.

 

[Schadenfroh]

There are lots of people who depend almost solely on solar power...

Some members of the upper-middle class and rich might use it to power their homes. But, I doubt they are able to heat it with solar energy (at least up north), need gas for that. They still depend on coal (nuclear / hydro if they are lucky) power for virtually every building they visit. Their food is hauled into town via diesel truck, etc.

The median price for a new house in the US is ~$220,000. What percentage of the value of the house would be required to power it completely via solar power?

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

Indeed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE

 

[senseamp]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hidden-cost/

The numbers are startling: simply tallying public health impacts, the study found that coal costs the United States economy $140 billion to $242 billion a year. Much of this burden is borne by mining communities in Appalachia, where premature deaths associated with coal mining cost local economies an estimated $74.6 billion a year.

Yeah, coal is such a bargain, if you can make others bear its true costs.

 

[IGBT]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hidden-cost/



Yeah, coal is such a bargain, if you can make others bear its true costs.

eco-KOOK BS:


yet over all life expectancy in the US is higher then ever: U.S. Life Expectancy at All-Time High
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Americans are living nearly two-and-a-half months longer, according to new life expectancy statistics released today. In 2007, life expectancy in the United States reached a high of nearly 78 years, up from 77.7 a year earlier.

Life expectancy in the United States has been on the rise for a decade, increasing 1.4 years — from 76.5 years in 1997 to 77.9 in 2007, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The life expectancy data, compiled by the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics, are based on nearly 90 percent of the death certificates filed in the United States.

 

[silverpig]

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.

In order to do that you have to price everything correctly. The damage associated with coal isn't being accounted for in the price, so it's cheapest. Incorporate that and then let the free market decide. Coal is being subsidized because its waste is clear and gets pumped into the air.

 

[silverpig]

eco-KOOK BS:


yet over all life expectancy in the US is higher then ever: U.S. Life Expectancy at All-Time High
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Americans are living nearly two-and-a-half months longer, according to new life expectancy statistics released today. In 2007, life expectancy in the United States reached a high of nearly 78 years, up from 77.7 a year earlier.

Life expectancy in the United States has been on the rise for a decade, increasing 1.4 years — from 76.5 years in 1997 to 77.9 in 2007, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The life expectancy data, compiled by the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics, are based on nearly 90 percent of the death certificates filed in the United States.

You DO realize why your post doesn't address his point right?

(hint 1: they used coal back in 1900 too)

 

[zsdersw]

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.

But that's just it... solar can be a significant source of our energy needs, especially as the improvements we see mature and turn into actual products.

Just like air pollution, a huge chunk of our energy demand comes from "non-point sources". Solar's best bet is use in areas and on surfaces that are bathed in sunlight: roofs of homes and buildings. Incorporating solar cells into these surfaces (in ways that are as reliable as the building materials themselves) can provide a huge amount of energy.

Every kWh we fully provide for with solar is one less that needs fossil fuels to sustain.

I generally loathe government action in this area, but spending to improve energy technologies... even if it doesn't improve a particular technology to the point of market viability... does get the technology further along. Technology advancement, whether sponsored by either private or public investment, makes future advances possible. That's hardly a bad thing.

I also think it's pretty pathetic to whine about this aspect of federal spending while doing nothing to pressure political leaders to seriously tackle the truly significant areas of spending: entitlements. Cutting spending on technology development does precisely nothing to reduce the welfare state yet does take away from the advancement of human knowledge. If there must be government spending (and, unfortunately, there has to be some), it should be on advancing human knowledge... not entitlements for the lazy and incompetent.

Investments, whether public or private, are good or bad depending on the rate of return. Investments in advancing human knowledge and technology (even technologies that are not currently viable in the market) always have a much greater rate of return than investments in entitlements, especially considering the difference in the amount that is spent.

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.

I agree that the market should pick winners and losers, but the government isn't picking solar as a panacea. Clearly it will never provide all or most of our energy, but it should provide as much as market-driven technology and costs will allow.

No one knows what technologies will ultimately make it to market in a big way, but for something as important to everyone as energy I think we need someone to invest in developing any of them that are even remotely viable... and where the market will not initially go, the government should. I don't generally agree with government spending in many areas, but this one is an area I have no problem with.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

If that was his point he shouldn't hide it behind so much anti-progress bullsh!t.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hidden-cost/



Yeah, coal is such a bargain, if you can make others bear its true costs.

Yeah "green.blogs" is such a good and believable source .

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

Again, you are already feeding them, you might as well get something back.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Even if I accept your Koch Brothers funded analysis as fair and objective, none of what's in your link supports anywhere near the 100x assertion you've made. Look at the data in your own article. And it relies on 2009 data, when 2010-2011 have seen significant drops in solar cost.

Look, I'm not saying that solar is currently more efficient than other forms of energy. It clearly isn't. But solar cost ~$100/watt in 1970, ~$1/watt now. And its efficiency has improved 1.5-2x at the same time. That's 150-200x improvement in cost efficiency in 4 decades. Depending on which set of data you're looking at, from most optimistic to most pessimistic, overall solar cost efficiency only needs to improve anywhere from 2-5x to reach grid parity. That puts the most reasonable projections in the 2015-2018 time frame. Even if that is way too optimistic, and it's more like 2030, your "never, ever" statement is simply not warranted.

- wolf

Please stop quoting this $1/watt price. That is the cost for panels only. The installed cost is still in the $2-4 range (minimum) which is the appropriate metric to use both for financial analysis and to compare to other types of power.

edit: Also watch what happens to the that price if people get their way and we put a countervailing tariff on China because of their currency manipulation and dumping panels. That cost far below anything we can produce them at.

 

[zsdersw]

Research and development is generally a good use of government funding. The X-ray is pretty good, so is penicillin... and neither were discovered with a practical or marketable objective in mind. When the electron was discovered it was useless, and now we have an entire world run by electronics. Great achievement has no roadmap.

 

[Dman8777]

Research and development is generally a good use of government funding. The X-ray is pretty good, so is penicillin... and neither were discovered with a practical or marketable objective in mind. When the electron was discovered it was useless, and now we have an entire world run by electronics. Great achievement has no roadmap.

Not to mention all the nice things we have thanks to NASA.

 

[woolfe9999]

Please stop quoting this $1/watt price. That is the cost for panels only. The installed cost is still in the $2-4 range (minimum) which is the appropriate metric to use both for financial analysis and to compare to other types of power.

edit: Also watch what happens to the that price if people get their way and we put a countervailing tariff on China because of their currency manipulation and dumping panels. That cost far below anything we can produce them at.

Yes I understand that $1/watt is not the total price. But look at the context in which I used that number. I was comparing it to the $100/watt of the panels in 1970. My point was the cost ratio $100/1 from 1970/2011 to illustrate how much more cost effective solar has become. The point is that solar is on a trajectory to be competetive, not that it is more efficient than other forms of energy now. It's what I've said in every single post I've added to this thread.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Yes I understand that $1/watt is not the total price. But look at the context in which I used that number. I was comparing it to the $100/watt of the panels in 1970. My point was the cost ratio $100/1 from 1970/2011. In comparing it to other types of power today, total cost has to be used.

Fair enough but unfortunately the installed cost is not going to move as much because it doesn't benefit from technological improvements. Even if the panels went to zero the cost install 1 sqft of panels isn't going to move below a certain point. It puts a floor on the total system cost.