The Efficacy of Solar Power

[IGBT]

I see you love that eco kook term. I wonder, do you think this planet can support an unlimited amount of people?

so let's stop subsidizing family growth. Get rid of free education/dependent deduction/home mortgage deduction/welfare/food stamps/SSI/WIC/homeless shelters/charity/unlimited emigration..the un settled continent (US) era is long over with. No need for cheap labor since it's all going to china/mexico/india learn to mow your own lawn.

 

[Bowfinger]

I see you love that eco kook term. I wonder, do you think this planet can support an unlimited amount of people?

It used to be "eco-theist" but he apparently got new talking points.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Blah blah blah. We have people on the forums right now who have solar installs giving them near zero monthly electric bills, the cost of which will be recouped within the panels' warranty period and would even without subsidies and at the current rate.

Solar is doing nothing but decreasing in cost. Fossil fuel, OTOH, is increasing.

You idiots really need to find sources of information better than conservative ego-stroking propaganda. "Oh dem libs are sooo stupid look at 'em puttin up useless roof joolry and let's rage at 'em costin us munney!"
Please. Solar is economical for the Sun Belt, there is a good reason to subsidize it -- to promote advancement and so the rest of us aren't living with the pollution tax that the fossil-fuel utilities certainly ain't paying for.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

I was thinking the same thing...and that's EXACTLY what the OP is saying. Technology that's constantly improving isn't ideal yet, therefore it's junk. Of course that's pretty much how people treated airplanes for several decades after they were created.

Solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth can EASILY meet our demand for electricity, it's just a matter of capturing it. And the technology to do so is getting better all the time.

 

[dank69]

so let's stop subsidizing family growth. Get rid of free education/dependent deduction/home mortgage deduction/welfare/food stamps/SSI/WIC/homeless shelters/charity/unlimited emigration..the un settled continent (US) era is long over with. No need for cheap labor since it's all going to china/mexico/india learn to mow your own lawn.

Okay, so you don't think the planet can support an unlimited amount of people. Do you think people/businesses should be able to pollute the planet as much as they want? No restrictions at all?

 

[sm625]

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.)

It's not even a low risk investment. You put $15k worth of stuff up on your roof and you might come home one day to find it wont even be there.

 

[sm625]

Blah blah blah. We have people on the forums right now who have solar installs giving them near zero monthly electric bills, the cost of which will be recouped within the panels' warranty period and would even without subsidies and at the current rate.

Solar is doing nothing but decreasing in cost. Fossil fuel, OTOH, is increasing.

The costs of solar go down one of two ways.

1. The cost of fuels and materials of construction go down. (ie we export more coal to be used to power solar mfg plants.) In our currency, it may appear the costs of energy are rising, but if you're in some country where you're making 50 billion a year on t-bill interest, then your costs of importing coal, while technically increasing, are in fact irrelevant. It's basically free.

2. The amount of toxins from solar released into the environment are allowed to increase. Go look up TCS gas used in polycrystalline solar mfg. They are literally dumping this stuff in the back yard at these plants in china.

Innovation is only a distant 3rd when it comes to lowering the cost of these things. The true cost is pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago.

 

[Rainsford]

The costs of solar go down one of two ways.

1. The cost of fuels and materials of construction go down. (ie we export more coal to be used to power solar mfg plants.) In our currency, it may appear the costs of energy are rising, but if you're in some country where you're making 50 billion a year on t-bill interest, then your costs of importing coal, while technically increasing, are in fact irrelevant. It's basically free.

2. The amount of toxins from solar released into the environment are allowed to increase. Go look up TCS gas used in polycrystalline solar mfg. They are literally dumping this stuff in the back yard at these plants in china.

Innovation is only a distant 3rd when it comes to lowering the cost of these things. The true cost is pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago.

I don't mean to suggest you're making things up here or anything, but what you're saying is basically the opposite of everything I've heard about solar from any other source...do you have any data to back your argument up?

For instance, when it comes to solar being "cheaper", most of what I've heard has been that the payback period is getting shorter for every level of investment in solar panels people make. There is no way you get that kind of result from the panels being cheaper to make, they have to actually work better...which is also what I've heard.

I know it's Wikipedia, but it's all I could find with a short Google search from some actual data. And assuming it's accurate, it does seem to suggest that solar cells are getting more efficient with time, sometimes significantly so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff(rev111103).jpg

 

[PokerGuy]

I see you love that eco kook term. I wonder, do you think this planet can support an unlimited amount of people?

Nope, it certainly can't. Thus, our efforts are better spent reducing population growth.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

Aren't they looking into heliostats more than panels now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliostat

Think of it as a big tower surrounded by mirrors that reflect sunlight to heat liquid in the tower to turn the turbines. I think they recently finished construction of a major one somewhere in Europe, Spain was it?

 

[QuantumPion]

I'm not reading this thread. It doesn't matter you f'n spreadsheet kings of depreciation this and long term this. All, I know is that a country that you would never think could be a candidate for solar power, because of the incentives to home owners to put solar panels on their homes (Germany), is now a net exporter of power,

But keep spreading out those cos on your modern Jxxs harps till the cows come home and ingore reality

That's because they just built several new coal and natural gas plants (to help offset the eventual planned retirement of their nuclear plants). Are you so profoundly ideologically blinded that you just without any facts or actual knowledge pull statements out of your ass? And honestly believe your own fabrications? That is the textbook definition of double-think.

If you bother to look up the numbers, the amount of solar power produced in Germany in 2010 was about equal to the output of 1 nuclear plant. At a cost to the German tax payers of $1 billion per month on top of the electric rates they already pay.

For comparison, a large nuclear plant may cost somewhere from $2 to $5 billion to fully construct and can run for 40-80 years. Natural gas is even cheaper to build and run. Hence my claim that solar power is ~100 times more expensive than fossil or nuclear.

 

[QuantumPion]

Blah blah blah. We have people on the forums right now who have solar installs giving them near zero monthly electric bills, the cost of which will be recouped within the panels' warranty period and would even without subsidies and at the current rate.

Are you referring to solar thermal (e.g. water heaters)? Because there are no solar photovoltaic panels which can pay for themselves unsubsidized, not even close.

Solar is doing nothing but decreasing in cost. Fossil fuel, OTOH, is increasing.

Not natural gas. Recent extremely large finds have caused natural gas to plummet in price, so much so that it is challenging the economics of coal and nuclear power for the foreseeable future.

You idiots really need to find sources of information better than conservative ego-stroking propaganda. "Oh dem libs are sooo stupid look at 'em puttin up useless roof joolry and let's rage at 'em costin us munney!"
Please. Solar is economical for the Sun Belt, there is a good reason to subsidize it -- to promote advancement and so the rest of us aren't living with the pollution tax that the fossil-fuel utilities certainly ain't paying for.

My reference is thermodynamics. Liberalism cannot overcome reality. At best it can ignore it for a while until everything collapses.

 

[QuantumPion]

For instance, when it comes to solar being "cheaper", most of what I've heard has been that the payback period is getting shorter for every level of investment in solar panels people make. There is no way you get that kind of result from the panels being cheaper to make, they have to actually work better...which is also what I've heard.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff(rev111103).jpg

The decrease in payback time is due to an increase in subsidy payouts! Solar only pays for itself insomuch as other taxpayers are paying for your electricity (and ego).

 

[Modelworks]

Solar is only viable in areas where you have nothing else that can be used. It isn't cost competitive with any other form of energy. Right now wind is the best choice for green energy. You can equip an average home with wind power for $15k total cost. Some of the newer blade designs can generate power with as little as 5mph winds.

Consider the space needed for solar panels and what they would cost to a turbine like this, heck even amazon sells them now.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ND36SVBB5SNV838CQAH

 

[K1052]

Not natural gas. Recent extremely large finds have caused natural gas to plummet in price, so much so that it is challenging the economics of coal and nuclear power for the foreseeable future.

Domestically, hydraulic fracturing has caused the jump in supply and reduction in cost. A lot of environmental questions have not been sufficiently answered as to it's impacts. The comprehensive EPA study isn't due to be complete until 2014. Any adverse finding could easily spike prices making plants uneconomical.

I wouldn't be betting the farm on NG alone if I was a utility. Nukes are still the way to go for base load capacity given the ever increasing restrictions on coal plants.

 

[blankslate]

Aren't they looking into heliostats more than panels now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliostat

Think of it as a big tower surrounded by mirrors that reflect sunlight to heat liquid in the tower to turn the turbines. I think they recently finished construction of a major one somewhere in Europe, Spain was it?

These are very promising for areas like the Southwestern states in my opinion.

I think they were also mentioned in the Dec 16. 2007 issue of Scientific American which featured an article detailing a plan to move to mostly solar generated power by 2050.

found the .pf file.

http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Readings/uGrid/Solar_Plan_08.pdf

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Where do you live? In my state the average residential system pays for itself in 4-5 years. Cell degradation is really not as big of an issue as you make it to be, most panels come with a tiered 24 year warranty (95% rated power for 10 years, 85-80% rated power for an additional 15 years). There aren't many products in the world that are guaranteed to work at a minimum of 80% in 25 years while being exposed to the sun and weather AND working every single day of those 25 years. Besides, if they have already paid for themselves then its virtually free power and 80% for free is a hellofa lot better than 0%.

As far as maintenance, there is none. Well, if you live in the desert and never have rain its a good idea to hit them with a water hose a few times a year to wash the dust off but there is nothing in the panels themselves to break. You might have some maintenance costs with the inverter but that is the cheapest component and also carries a long warranty.

 

[Darwin333]

The decrease in payback time is due to an increase in subsidy payouts! Solar only pays for itself insomuch as other taxpayers are paying for your electricity (and ego).

Nuclear power only makes sense if the Feds pick up the tab if something goes wrong.

Coal power only makes sense if you subtract the related healthcare and environmental costs out of it (generally picked up by the Feds).

The Feds subsidize just about every form of energy we use in one way or another. It makes sense for them to do so because power is sort of a necessity for a modern society.

Solar has actually gotten a lot closer to grid parity faster than anyone thought. It isn't there yet but its gaining.

With the price of glass (traditional C-SI solar panels) plummeting the industry is working on improvements in inverter technology (such as micro-inverters) even some talk of inverters integrated into the panel from the factory, module level MPPTs (maximum power point tracking) instead of string MPPT, and imo the most important cost wise easier and quicker BOS (balance of system) which is basically everything else including the racking and wire management.

 

[Darwin333]

Are you referring to solar thermal (e.g. water heaters)? Because there are no solar photovoltaic panels which can pay for themselves unsubsidized, not even close.

You sir are wrong.

Granted they JUST pay for themselves in the warranted term and I would have to use a state with rather high cost of electricity but the price of solar has dropped drastically in the last few years and as I keep pointing out the panels don't ever actually "break" (other than physical damage which is covered by your homeowners insurance). So after 25 years they continue working at a slightly reduced output.

If I use the DOEs expected rate of inflation in energy prices I can get to well under 25 years. Unless of course you want to argue that the cost of electricity will actually be cheaper over the next 25 years.

Again, every form of energy we use is subsidized in one way or another. If the Feds announced today that they would no longer insure Nuclear (beyond the $10B fund the industry has) and that they must get private insurance that has the ability to pay for any and all damages should a worst case scenario event happen they would probably have to shut the reactors down. I am not saying that the Feds subsidizing nuclear is a bad thing because it isn't, I am just pointing out that solar is by far not the only subsidized energy source.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not even a low risk investment. You put $15k worth of stuff up on your roof and you might come home one day to find it wont even be there.

Huh? Is the wizard of Oz going to suck it up or something?

Maybe they are going to get pissed off at the working conditions and walk off the job? Union strike? One panel starts messing with another panels girl and a horrible murder suicide takes place? They like to fish so they packed up and moved to a house by the water?

 

[zsdersw]

Solar-generated power can also be used with molten salts to provide power at night. The challenges facing solar are basically a matter of efficiency (converting more of the sun's light into electricity) and materials. These are not insurmountable, particularly given the fact that efficiency has been constantly improving and more materials are being made suitable for solar power generation.

 

[zsdersw]

We'd be incredibly stupid to not leverage, as much as we can, the abundant and consistent power the sun provides us... and will continue to provide to us for about 5 billion years.

Even if, being pragmatic, it's only implemented primarily in areas that get the most direct sunlight most of the year, that's a huge chunk of the populated area of the Earth that won't need to depend on other ways of generating power.

The only places on Earth where solar power generation would be incredibly weak are the polar regions... where no one lives.

 

[PokerGuy]

Where do you live? In my state the average residential system pays for itself in 4-5 years.

A true 4-5 year payback (not including subsidies and such, that's just passing the cost to other taxpayers) would be great. I've moved around a lot but in PA now. Everything I've read puts the breakeven point at closer to 15 years. I'd take 4-5 year ROI, 15 years is a very long time.

As far as maintenance, there is none.

Not true. Just like with your roof, weather (wind, ice, rain and so forth) can cause damage, and you have to do maintenance. Also, I don't care what kind of setup you have, you're going to have glitches every now and again, I consider that maintenance. The guy down the street from me had panels installed at his house (I think he did some sort of lease thing) and the company has had to come out and make adjustments to the panel angles and other stuff several times. That's maintenance as well.

 

[DominionSeraph]

My reference is thermodynamics. Liberalism cannot overcome reality. At best it can ignore it for a while until everything collapses.

You're a philosophical neophyte who thinks that if reality and your napkin calculations differ, it is reality that is wrong.

Reality is under no obligation to fit within your broken little mind. Your errors do not translate into actual impossibilities.

The guy down the street from me had panels installed at his house (I think he did some sort of lease thing) and the company has had to come out and make adjustments to the panel angles and other stuff several times. That's maintenance as well.

That's installation, not maintenance.
Sigh @ idiots who don't even know word roots.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not natural gas. Recent extremely large finds have caused natural gas to plummet in price, so much so that it is challenging the economics of coal and nuclear power for the foreseeable future.

We use natural gas in my area for heat and prices haven't dropped ever, they just keep going up.