The Efficacy of Solar Power

[sm625]

So I hear the cost of panels is down to $1 per watt for 10 watt per sq foot panels. So with these new figures, it is time to re-evaluate the efficacy of solar power.

The verdict? They are still junk. 10 watts per sq foot, on a good day. Still absolute trash. This is why solar is nothing but a feelgood novelty... Even at 10x the density, 100w per sq foot, on a good day, these things would hardly be a panacea. Once you store and convert you are only talking 6 watts per sq foot, again on a good day. 3 watts per sq foot if you dont live in one of the few good areas for solar.

You are looking at less than 2 watt per sq foot on average year around at the average US residence. Its just awful. And that number goes down even more when the birds poop on it.

Coal literally costs a penny per KWh. It would take 100 square feet of panels running for an entire year to generate one lousy dollar's worth of energy based on the price of coal. That's how bad these things are. And the only reason these things are as cheap as they are is because of the low price of coal.

So, since solar power really is this bad, I have to question the motives of the people pushing it into the political arena. I wont name names but yall know who they are. Are they just stupid? Grasping at straws, chucking mudballs at the wall and hoping one will stick? Or is this stuff preordained in the halls of power such as the CFR? Of course I already know the answer to that. Hell yeah they planned it. Hell yeah they're pushing it even though they know it is bull. Just like ethanol. Just like fuel cells and hydrogen. It is all just a bunch of pie in the sky nonsense made possible only with the help of ultra-cheap fossil fuels. Its just another way to funnel money from the tax payers to the donors.

 

[Howard]

Agree with you about solar power. Disagree about fuel cells, ethanol, and hydrogen.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not saying solar is efficient, yet, compared to dirty and non-renewable sources of energy. The question is how much further does the cost have to drop for it to be competitive? Where is the OP getting his figures from? I call shens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

 

[fskimospy]

Also remember that the cost of coal ignores externalities that the rest of society must pay.

 

[Dman8777]

Edit: eskimo beat me to it

 

[sm625]

I'm not saying solar is efficient, yet, compared to dirty and non-renewable sources of energy. The question is how much further does the cost have to drop for it to be competitive? Where is the OP getting his figures from? I call shens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

10 watts per square foot is shens. No average end user is going to get anywhere near that unless they live in socal or nevada.

 

[lord_emperor]

Coal literally costs a penny per KWh. It would take 100 square feet of panels running for an entire year to generate one lousy dollar's worth of energy based on the price of coal. That's how bad these things are. And the only reason these things are as cheap as they are is because of the low price of coal.

I guess that's true if you have your own coal-fueled generator and are able to buy at the same bulk prices as your utility.

 

[Throckmorton]

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

 

[IGBT]

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.

 

[Dman8777]

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.

Everything is in a constant state of decay. Welcome to life.

 

[IGBT]

Everything is in a constant state of decay. Welcome to life.

eco-KOOKS don't care. We are all supposed to pile a bunch of solar junk on our roofs and run around and smugly tell everybody we are "saving the planet".

 

[fskimospy]

Everything is in a constant state of decay. Welcome to life.

Remember, coal plants never decay either and they require no maintenance.

 

[PokerGuy]

Remember, coal plants never decay either and they require no maintenance.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

That entirely depends on what the maintenance costs are for each type of power. It might be efficient to maintain one large coal plant as opposed to a number of small coal plants, but the requirements and costs for solar are totally different. I genuinely have no clue what the maintenance requirements per year of solar panels are as compared to coal, but that would be a good reason why I wouldn't make that sort of blanket statement.

 

[Dman8777]

Solar junk on the roof or mercury in your water or food supply.

Solar is definitely not economically competetive and there are plenty of good alternatives but coal power isn't among them.

 

[Murloc]

you know, if politics don't help innovation, you'll end up at some point with other countries having developed much better technology (and profitable), and you'll be stuck with coal.
This may happen in 20 years, but it will happen.
You have to "waste" money to avoid falling behind.
All scientific research is a short-term waste of money.

Research on liquid crystals started in 1888.
80 years of waste of money if you will.
Was it useless? hell no.

 

[momeNt]

So the better question is when can we bring our energy consumption down to make solar cells viable.

I typed this with my monitor off in an attempt to help bring that consumption down.

 

[PokerGuy]

That entirely depends on what the maintenance costs are for each type of power. It might be efficient to maintain one large coal plant as opposed to a number of small coal plants, but the requirements and costs for solar are totally different. I genuinely have no clue what the maintenance requirements per year of solar panels are as compared to coal, but that would be a good reason why I wouldn't make that sort of blanket statement.

Even if the required maintenance is very light (I have no idea if it is or not), doing such maintenance on literally millions and millions of installations each year can't possibly be more efficient than doing maintenance on a small number of central locations. Not possible, if you figure it's going to take some maintenance guy to come out to the house and replace or repair panels. Beyond maintenance, the cells (at this point) don't collect remotely enough power to make it a serious consideration as a power source for the country. They simply aren't efficient enough. Maybe some day in the future, but that day isn't here.

Nukular is the future IMO.

 

[Dman8777]

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.

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.

 

[momeNt]

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.

Tariffs will change that if Obama has any bite behind that bark. We would recover that 50% decrease in very short order.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

 

[herm0016]

lulz. nobody cars about PV power plants anyway. and the price was 1.35 per watt for a cheap panel you can use on your RV or similar. Not for panels you would use on your house for a grid tie system.

solar power plants have made more progress using mirrors and black bodies.

 

[NeoV]

improvements in solar tech have been very dramatic in recent years, but it isn't there yet

I'm a fan of nuclear as well, but I highly doubt that is going to happen here

 

[QuantumPion]

I'm not saying solar is efficient, yet, compared to dirty and non-renewable sources of energy. The question is how much further does the cost have to drop for it to be competitive? Where is the OP getting his figures from? I call shens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

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.

 

[PokerGuy]

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

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.