Solar power: why hasn't this improved

bigred · 14th September 2011, 07:51 PM

I remember them talking about this and it even getting a little "trendy" in the 70s. 30-40+ yrs later and it's still a fringe source of power at most. What the hell? There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? ??

Wowbagger · 14th September 2011, 08:18 PM

It's a LOT of power, but spread over a LOT of area. It's actually difficult to efficiently soak it all up. But, there are people working on it. Solar power towers seem to be getting a bit more efficient with every generation.

WildCat · 14th September 2011, 09:05 PM

My local grocery store just installed a bunch of solar panels.

Lowpro · 14th September 2011, 09:17 PM

was it a whole foods?

Roger Ramjets · 14th September 2011, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by bigred

There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet?

Don't worry, we have figured it out. Just need to make more of em..

Solar Power Plants in California

Solar Power Plants in Arizona and Nevada

Solar Power Plants in the USA - New Jersey

Solar Power Plants in the USA - Florida

Solar Power Plants in the USA - Midwest

Solar Power Plants in the USA - Hawaii

Solar Power Plants in the USA - other states

Top 5 Largest Solar Power Plants of the World

Roboramma · 14th September 2011, 10:15 PM

It has improved significantly in the last 30-40 years. However, fossil fuels are still a cheaper source of energy. That won't always be the case (though it may be true of nuclear for some time into the future).

You may find this of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

Quote:

Between 1970 and 1983 photovoltaic installations grew rapidly, but falling oil prices in the early 1980s moderated the growth of PV from 1984 to 1996. Since 1997, PV development has accelerated due to supply issues with oil and natural gas, global warming concerns, and the improving economic position of PV relative to other energy technologies.[22] Photovoltaic production growth has averaged 40% per year since 2000 and installed capacity reached 10.6 GW at the end of 2007,[23] and 14.73 GW in 2008.[24] As of November 2010, the largest photovoltaic (PV) power plants in the world are the Finsterwalde Solar Park (Germany, 80.7 MW), Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant (Canada, 80 MW), Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park (Spain, 60 MW), the Strasskirchen Solar Park (Germany, 54 MW), the Lieberose Photovoltaic Park (Germany, 53 MW), and the Puertollano Photovoltaic Park (Spain, 50 MW).

Anyway, we can harness sunlight cost-effectively. We just can't do so (for most applications) in a way that's cheaper than getting that same energy from mining and then burning coal.

ETA: This wikipedia entry is also interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_energy
Particularly:

Quote:

1977 - The world production of photovoltaic cells exceeded 500 kW
...
1983 - Worldwide photovoltaic production exceeds 21.3 megawatts, and sales exceed $250 million.
...
1999 - Total worldwide installed photovoltaic power reached 1000 megawatts.

Or:

Quote:

1959 - Hoffman Electronics creates a 10% efficient commercial solar cell, and introduces the use of a grid contact, reducing the cell's resistance.

1960 - Hoffman Electronics creates a 14% efficient solar cell.
...

2008 - New record achieved in solar cell efficiency. Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have set a world record in solar cell efficiency with a photovoltaic device that converts 40.8 percent of the light that hits it into electricity. The inverted metamorphic triple-junction solar cell was designed, fabricated and independently measured at NREL.[17]

Though I'm not sure whether or not the latter is comparing apples and oranges. If anyone has any good references for the increases in efficiency in PV, I'd be interested.

ben m · 14th September 2011, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by bigred

I remember them talking about this and it even getting a little "trendy" in the 70s. 30-40+ yrs later and it's still a fringe source of power at most. What the hell? There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? ??

Solar is pretty cost-effective compared to most things. Unfortunately it's not cost-effective compared to digging up coal, burning it with no carbon tax and with environmental and labor laws waived, and getting cash subsidies on top of that.

Not quite yet anyway. It's getting close.

The Don · 15th September 2011, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by ben m

Solar is pretty cost-effective compared to most things. Unfortunately it's not cost-effective compared to digging up coal, burning it with no carbon tax and with environmental and labor laws waived, and getting cash subsidies on top of that.

Not quite yet anyway. It's getting close.

And in some parts of the world it's basically unavailable at the peak energy demand times so you'd need an efficient way of storing the energy.

It also requires a considerable amount of space. According to one of the links provided by Roger Ramjets, 700 acres will be required for a plant which will generate 600MW (for 12 hours a day of course). To put this in perspective Drax power station in the UK is much smaller in area and has 6x660 MW generation units.

That's not to say that solar cannot be a very useful component in the overall energy supply

stevea · 15th September 2011, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Anyway, we can harness sunlight cost-effectively. We just can't do so (for most applications) in a way that's cheaper than getting that same energy from mining and then burning coal.

But that's exactly what cost-effective doesn't mean. All sorts of economic activity is viable with 0$.10/kwhr coal that isn't viable with $0.30/kwhr solar. If you take away the subsidies small scale installations don't make any sense.

I have serious doubts about the environmental impact of PV a well.

Concentrated solar is a different matter.

HansMustermann · 15th September 2011, 03:58 AM

Pretty much because it's hard.

Roboramma · 15th September 2011, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

But that's exactly what cost-effective doesn't mean. All sorts of economic activity is viable with 0$.10/kwhr coal that isn't viable with $0.30/kwhr solar.

For example?

Quote:

If you take away the subsidies small scale installations don't make any sense.

Asserted without evidence. I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but perhaps you could supply the evidence that led you to this conclusion?

Quote:

I have serious doubts about the environmental impact of PV a well.

I can agree with that: it's certainly not obvious anyway, that PV doesn't have major environmental impacts. I'd be interested in an in depth analysis.

Quote:

Concentrated solar is a different matter.

Agreed, and aside from small scale solar power (for instance, to supply power to places that don't have access to the grid) I think that's the major future of solar power. I could be wrong, of course.

bigred · 15th September 2011, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

But that's exactly what cost-effective doesn't mean. All sorts of economic activity is viable with 0$.10/kwhr coal that isn't viable with $0.30/kwhr solar. If you take away the subsidies small scale installations don't make any sense.

Exactly, thanks, I was

at people saying it's cost-effective. IMO it is not really, as if so it would be competing if not overtaking other fuel-gettin methods like oil, coal etc and I mean residential as well as businesses/govt.

Regardless, thanks for the responses, good stuff here.

Gord_in_Toronto · 15th September 2011, 01:23 PM

The efficiency of conversion of sunlight into electricity via photovoltaic cells is also improving. A good graph here:

File:PVeff%28rev110901%29.jpg^WP

rwguinn · 15th September 2011, 01:33 PM

At .892 kW/m² (1 hp/yd²) at 100% efficiency, it STILL takes a lot of area...

quarky · 17th September 2011, 05:53 AM

If big coal had to pay for its CO2 emissions and other environmental damages, solar might look a little better.

not_so_new · 17th September 2011, 08:49 AM

I have been on the fence about getting panels on my roof for about 8 months now.

We finally signed the papers last week, the sales guy said we were the longest close he has had in 5 or so years of selling the systems.

Anyway, the original system we spec'ed out was based on x panels (don't remember the model number). In the ensuing 8 months while we were working on this solution we actually talked about a new y model of panels and we ended up going with the latest and greatest z panel

The point is, the technology is changing pretty quickly, in 8 months there were 3 different models available, each more efficient than the last.

not_so_new · 17th September 2011, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by quarky

If big coal had to pay for its CO2 emissions and other environmental damages, solar might look a little better.

Correction, solar would look a LOT better.

Not getting into the details (some of which I don't remember completely anyway) but the solar dealer we have been working with for my home install said the coal companies have created a HUGE lobby to block any and all advancements by solar in our region (I suspect this is true in most regions but I am not sure).

I don't remember the exact numbers so this could be a little off but the coal / electric utility companies are stopping state legislation (Pennsylvania) which would require solar to go from .02 to .03 of the total electrical usage on the grid. That doesn't represent a huge amount of money for the utilities but it is still significant so they don't want solar to get a toe hold at all.

Solar is TINY in the U.S. and it looks like the electrical generation companies are doing everything in their power (pun intended) to make sure it stays that way.

WhatRoughBeast · 17th September 2011, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by bigred

There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? ??

Cost.

1 - It's intermittent (in the short term). It goes away just when you need it. Storage costs.

2 - It's unreliable (in the longer term). A big storm means a large area needs to be supplied from far away. Transmission costs.

3 - It's diffuse. A kw-hr per square yard per day takes a big installation. Big installations cost.

4 - It's inconvenient. The good generating sites are a long way from where people live. As mentioned above, transmission costs.

The result of all of the above is that you can't do solar-only locally. The size of the needed network requires a really monumental up-front investment. Partial solar is closer, but there is an understandable reluctance to complicate the power net by adding a new source that still requires the old sources to be kept in operation as backup.

Computing a carbon tax on coal use is a lot iffier than foks think. To begin with, the principle of national sovreignity says that, for instance, an American company need not concern itself with effects outside the US. And a Chinese company is not liable for acid rain in the US. Just as the power available is diffuse, so are the consequences. Short of wars of conquest, there is no obvious way either to assess or collect damages. And if you think the UN can be trusted to collect and distribute such wealth, I refer you to the Iraqi oil for food program.

quarky · 17th September 2011, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I have been on the fence about getting panels on my roof for about 8 months now.

We finally signed the papers last week, the sales guy said we were the longest close he has had in 5 or so years of selling the systems.

Anyway, the original system we spec'ed out was based on x panels (don't remember the model number). In the ensuing 8 months while we were working on this solution we actually talked about a new y model of panels and we ended up going with the latest and greatest z panel

The point is, the technology is changing pretty quickly, in 8 months there were 3 different models available, each more efficient than the last.

I built and lived in a solar house in Pa.; 82-86. Heat was passive gain; earth sheltered; electric was pv panels. We didn't have a huge array, but there were few problems for many years. Except, in the winter, if someone accidentally left a 10 watt bulb on all night, we'd be browned out.
It did help us tighten the belt, so to speak, on waste.
If you're ok without hairdryers and toasters and the like, it can work.

Or is the plan to sell it to the grid, and remain on grid for power use, and get a rebate on the bill?

Otherwise, its the batteries that are the problem. Not fun things.
I started with the pv panels on the roof, but snow eventually talked me into bring them down on a stand.
A hail storm trashed one of them. Kind of snuk up on me.
Also, the amount of sun available in winter (in Pa.) is depressing. Lots of overcast days; short days, right when you need the most lights and spend the most time indoors.

I bought the panels in 1982 from Solarex. They were bought out by a big oil company, through a subsidiary company; I forget the names.
For what its worth, the last of the panels crapped out last year. So almost 30 years use.

not_so_new · 17th September 2011, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

Or is the plan to sell it to the grid, and remain on grid for power use, and get a rebate on the bill?

Yeah, actually not using it for powering the house. We are selling back to the grid. We are getting SREC's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_R...y_Certificates

... and between the SREC's, Federal and state rebates we are actually going to be making $10 or $20 a month off the system after we pay for the loan on the system and we take into account the reduction in our electric bill. We don't use a lot of electric so we didn't need a huge system to off set a good chunk of our usage with a reasonable sized system.

The rebate programs combined with SREC's make the system sort of a no brainier but the PA state rebate is over now so it's not quite as attractive.

Quote:

Also, the amount of sun available in winter (in Pa.) is depressing. Lots of overcast days; short days, right when you need the most lights and spend the most time indoors.

Funny, that's something that comes up a lot when I talk about this with my friends but if you look at the amount of solar in Germany....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...rgy_in_Germany

.... then you look at the solar map and most of PA is as good as or better than Germany.

http://www.oksolar.com/abctech/world..._radiation.pdf

(sorry, couldn't find the better map that I was looking at a bit ago, this isn't the best but the idea is there)

Quote:

I bought the panels in 1982 from Solarex. They were bought out by a big oil company, through a subsidiary company; I forget the names.
For what its worth, the last of the panels crapped out last year. So almost 30 years use.

I believe our panels are warranted for 20 years and they say we should expected to get 30 to 40 years out of them with some general maintenance and upkeep.

Overall I am really happy with the decision. After rebates the whole system including install is going to cost $18k or so and it's going to reduce our carbon footprint, increases the value of the house and it makes us a couple of bucks every month. Not much but hey, it's a win /win / win, good for the economy, good for the planet and good for my bank account.

bottsranzee · 17th September 2011, 05:34 PM

Maybe it's been cloudier than in the past...?

14th September 2011, 07:51 PM	#1
bigred Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,525	Solar power: why hasn't this improved I remember them talking about this and it even getting a little "trendy" in the 70s. 30-40+ yrs later and it's still a fringe source of power at most. What the hell? There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? ??

14th September 2011, 08:18 PM	#2
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,504	It's a LOT of power, but spread over a LOT of area. It's actually difficult to efficiently soak it all up. But, there are people working on it. Solar power towers seem to be getting a bit more efficient with every generation.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

14th September 2011, 09:17 PM	#4
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,517	was it a whole foods?
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

14th September 2011, 10:11 PM	#5
Roger Ramjets Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 704	Originally Posted by bigred There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? Don't worry, we have figured it out. Just need to make more of em.. Solar Power Plants in California Solar Power Plants in Arizona and Nevada Solar Power Plants in the USA - New Jersey Solar Power Plants in the USA - Florida Solar Power Plants in the USA - Midwest Solar Power Plants in the USA - Hawaii Solar Power Plants in the USA - other states Top 5 Largest Solar Power Plants of the World
Roger Ramjets Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 704	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

14th September 2011, 10:15 PM	#6
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,094	It has improved significantly in the last 30-40 years. However, fossil fuels are still a cheaper source of energy. That won't always be the case (though it may be true of nuclear for some time into the future). You may find this of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power Quote: Between 1970 and 1983 photovoltaic installations grew rapidly, but falling oil prices in the early 1980s moderated the growth of PV from 1984 to 1996. Since 1997, PV development has accelerated due to supply issues with oil and natural gas, global warming concerns, and the improving economic position of PV relative to other energy technologies.[22] Photovoltaic production growth has averaged 40% per year since 2000 and installed capacity reached 10.6 GW at the end of 2007,[23] and 14.73 GW in 2008.[24] As of November 2010, the largest photovoltaic (PV) power plants in the world are the Finsterwalde Solar Park (Germany, 80.7 MW), Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant (Canada, 80 MW), Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park (Spain, 60 MW), the Strasskirchen Solar Park (Germany, 54 MW), the Lieberose Photovoltaic Park (Germany, 53 MW), and the Puertollano Photovoltaic Park (Spain, 50 MW). Anyway, we can harness sunlight cost-effectively. We just can't do so (for most applications) in a way that's cheaper than getting that same energy from mining and then burning coal. ETA: This wikipedia entry is also interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_energy Particularly: Quote: 1977 - The world production of photovoltaic cells exceeded 500 kW ... 1983 - Worldwide photovoltaic production exceeds 21.3 megawatts, and sales exceed $250 million. ... 1999 - Total worldwide installed photovoltaic power reached 1000 megawatts. Or: Quote: 1959 - Hoffman Electronics creates a 10% efficient commercial solar cell, and introduces the use of a grid contact, reducing the cell's resistance. 1960 - Hoffman Electronics creates a 14% efficient solar cell. ... 2008 - New record achieved in solar cell efficiency. Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have set a world record in solar cell efficiency with a photovoltaic device that converts 40.8 percent of the light that hits it into electricity. The inverted metamorphic triple-junction solar cell was designed, fabricated and independently measured at NREL.[17] Though I'm not sure whether or not the latter is comparing apples and oranges. If anyone has any good references for the increases in efficiency in PV, I'd be interested.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov Last edited by Roboramma; 14th September 2011 at 10:26 PM.

14th September 2011, 09:05 PM	#3
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,978	My local grocery store just installed a bunch of solar panels.

14th September 2011, 10:26 PM	#7
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by bigred I remember them talking about this and it even getting a little "trendy" in the 70s. 30-40+ yrs later and it's still a fringe source of power at most. What the hell? There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? ?? Solar is pretty cost-effective compared to most things. Unfortunately it's not cost-effective compared to digging up coal, burning it with no carbon tax and with environmental and labor laws waived, and getting cash subsidies on top of that. Not quite yet anyway. It's getting close.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,638

15th September 2011, 02:46 AM	#8
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,223	Originally Posted by ben m Solar is pretty cost-effective compared to most things. Unfortunately it's not cost-effective compared to digging up coal, burning it with no carbon tax and with environmental and labor laws waived, and getting cash subsidies on top of that. Not quite yet anyway. It's getting close. And in some parts of the world it's basically unavailable at the peak energy demand times so you'd need an efficient way of storing the energy. It also requires a considerable amount of space. According to one of the links provided by Roger Ramjets, 700 acres will be required for a plant which will generate 600MW (for 12 hours a day of course). To put this in perspective Drax power station in the UK is much smaller in area and has 6x660 MW generation units. That's not to say that solar cannot be a very useful component in the overall energy supply

15th September 2011, 02:55 AM	#9
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Roboramma Anyway, we can harness sunlight cost-effectively. We just can't do so (for most applications) in a way that's cheaper than getting that same energy from mining and then burning coal. But that's exactly what cost-effective doesn't mean. All sorts of economic activity is viable with 0$.10/kwhr coal that isn't viable with $0.30/kwhr solar. If you take away the subsidies small scale installations don't make any sense. I have serious doubts about the environmental impact of PV a well. Concentrated solar is a different matter.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117	Last edited by stevea; 15th September 2011 at 03:01 AM.

15th September 2011, 03:58 AM	#10
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,804	Pretty much because it's hard.

15th September 2011, 05:44 AM	#11
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,094	Originally Posted by stevea But that's exactly what cost-effective doesn't mean. All sorts of economic activity is viable with 0$.10/kwhr coal that isn't viable with $0.30/kwhr solar. For example? Quote: If you take away the subsidies small scale installations don't make any sense. Asserted without evidence. I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but perhaps you could supply the evidence that led you to this conclusion? Quote: I have serious doubts about the environmental impact of PV a well. I can agree with that: it's certainly not obvious anyway, that PV doesn't have major environmental impacts. I'd be interested in an in depth analysis. Quote: Concentrated solar is a different matter. Agreed, and aside from small scale solar power (for instance, to supply power to places that don't have access to the grid) I think that's the major future of solar power. I could be wrong, of course.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

15th September 2011, 05:45 AM	#12
bigred Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,525	Originally Posted by stevea But that's exactly what cost-effective doesn't mean. All sorts of economic activity is viable with 0$.10/kwhr coal that isn't viable with $0.30/kwhr solar. If you take away the subsidies small scale installations don't make any sense. Exactly, thanks, I was at people saying it's cost-effective. IMO it is not really, as if so it would be competing if not overtaking other fuel-gettin methods like oil, coal etc and I mean residential as well as businesses/govt. Regardless, thanks for the responses, good stuff here.

15th September 2011, 01:23 PM	#13
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,409	The efficiency of conversion of sunlight into electricity via photovoltaic cells is also improving. A good graph here: File:PVeff%28rev110901%29.jpg^WP
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

15th September 2011, 01:33 PM	#14
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	At .892 kW/m² (1 hp/yd²) at 100% efficiency, it STILL takes a lot of area...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

17th September 2011, 05:53 AM	#15
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	If big coal had to pay for its CO2 emissions and other environmental damages, solar might look a little better.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

17th September 2011, 08:49 AM	#16
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	I have been on the fence about getting panels on my roof for about 8 months now. We finally signed the papers last week, the sales guy said we were the longest close he has had in 5 or so years of selling the systems. Anyway, the original system we spec'ed out was based on x panels (don't remember the model number). In the ensuing 8 months while we were working on this solution we actually talked about a new y model of panels and we ended up going with the latest and greatest z panel The point is, the technology is changing pretty quickly, in 8 months there were 3 different models available, each more efficient than the last.

17th September 2011, 09:00 AM	#17
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	Originally Posted by quarky If big coal had to pay for its CO2 emissions and other environmental damages, solar might look a little better. Correction, solar would look a LOT better. Not getting into the details (some of which I don't remember completely anyway) but the solar dealer we have been working with for my home install said the coal companies have created a HUGE lobby to block any and all advancements by solar in our region (I suspect this is true in most regions but I am not sure). I don't remember the exact numbers so this could be a little off but the coal / electric utility companies are stopping state legislation (Pennsylvania) which would require solar to go from .02 to .03 of the total electrical usage on the grid. That doesn't represent a huge amount of money for the utilities but it is still significant so they don't want solar to get a toe hold at all. Solar is TINY in the U.S. and it looks like the electrical generation companies are doing everything in their power (pun intended) to make sure it stays that way.

17th September 2011, 10:09 AM	#18
WhatRoughBeast Muse Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 817	Originally Posted by bigred There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to tap it in a cost-effective way yet? ?? Cost. 1 - It's intermittent (in the short term). It goes away just when you need it. Storage costs. 2 - It's unreliable (in the longer term). A big storm means a large area needs to be supplied from far away. Transmission costs. 3 - It's diffuse. A kw-hr per square yard per day takes a big installation. Big installations cost. 4 - It's inconvenient. The good generating sites are a long way from where people live. As mentioned above, transmission costs. The result of all of the above is that you can't do solar-only locally. The size of the needed network requires a really monumental up-front investment. Partial solar is closer, but there is an understandable reluctance to complicate the power net by adding a new source that still requires the old sources to be kept in operation as backup. Computing a carbon tax on coal use is a lot iffier than foks think. To begin with, the principle of national sovreignity says that, for instance, an American company need not concern itself with effects outside the US. And a Chinese company is not liable for acid rain in the US. Just as the power available is diffuse, so are the consequences. Short of wars of conquest, there is no obvious way either to assess or collect damages. And if you think the UN can be trusted to collect and distribute such wealth, I refer you to the Iraqi oil for food program.
WhatRoughBeast Muse Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 817

17th September 2011, 10:43 AM	#19
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by not_so_new I have been on the fence about getting panels on my roof for about 8 months now. We finally signed the papers last week, the sales guy said we were the longest close he has had in 5 or so years of selling the systems. Anyway, the original system we spec'ed out was based on x panels (don't remember the model number). In the ensuing 8 months while we were working on this solution we actually talked about a new y model of panels and we ended up going with the latest and greatest z panel The point is, the technology is changing pretty quickly, in 8 months there were 3 different models available, each more efficient than the last. I built and lived in a solar house in Pa.; 82-86. Heat was passive gain; earth sheltered; electric was pv panels. We didn't have a huge array, but there were few problems for many years. Except, in the winter, if someone accidentally left a 10 watt bulb on all night, we'd be browned out. It did help us tighten the belt, so to speak, on waste. If you're ok without hairdryers and toasters and the like, it can work. Or is the plan to sell it to the grid, and remain on grid for power use, and get a rebate on the bill? Otherwise, its the batteries that are the problem. Not fun things. I started with the pv panels on the roof, but snow eventually talked me into bring them down on a stand. A hail storm trashed one of them. Kind of snuk up on me. Also, the amount of sun available in winter (in Pa.) is depressing. Lots of overcast days; short days, right when you need the most lights and spend the most time indoors. I bought the panels in 1982 from Solarex. They were bought out by a big oil company, through a subsidiary company; I forget the names. For what its worth, the last of the panels crapped out last year. So almost 30 years use.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

17th September 2011, 04:57 PM	#20
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	Originally Posted by quarky Or is the plan to sell it to the grid, and remain on grid for power use, and get a rebate on the bill? Yeah, actually not using it for powering the house. We are selling back to the grid. We are getting SREC's... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_R...y_Certificates ... and between the SREC's, Federal and state rebates we are actually going to be making $10 or $20 a month off the system after we pay for the loan on the system and we take into account the reduction in our electric bill. We don't use a lot of electric so we didn't need a huge system to off set a good chunk of our usage with a reasonable sized system. The rebate programs combined with SREC's make the system sort of a no brainier but the PA state rebate is over now so it's not quite as attractive. Quote: Also, the amount of sun available in winter (in Pa.) is depressing. Lots of overcast days; short days, right when you need the most lights and spend the most time indoors. Funny, that's something that comes up a lot when I talk about this with my friends but if you look at the amount of solar in Germany.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...rgy_in_Germany .... then you look at the solar map and most of PA is as good as or better than Germany. http://www.oksolar.com/abctech/world..._radiation.pdf (sorry, couldn't find the better map that I was looking at a bit ago, this isn't the best but the idea is there) Quote: I bought the panels in 1982 from Solarex. They were bought out by a big oil company, through a subsidiary company; I forget the names. For what its worth, the last of the panels crapped out last year. So almost 30 years use. I believe our panels are warranted for 20 years and they say we should expected to get 30 to 40 years out of them with some general maintenance and upkeep. Overall I am really happy with the decision. After rebates the whole system including install is going to cost $18k or so and it's going to reduce our carbon footprint, increases the value of the house and it makes us a couple of bucks every month. Not much but hey, it's a win /win / win, good for the economy, good for the planet and good for my bank account.

17th September 2011, 05:34 PM	#21
bottsranzee Thinker Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 220	Maybe it's been cloudier than in the past...?
bottsranzee Thinker Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 220	__________________ Bottsrgeddon is coming; be ready. bottsr.com