# Solar power:  why hasn't this improved



## bill5 (Sep 14, 2011)

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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 14, 2011)

bill5 said:


> 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??



oil and coal is still too cheap to make us use more solar.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 14, 2011)

Its called a plant Bill.  The darn things are efficient as all get out in turning the sunlight into useable sugars.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 14, 2011)

bill5 said:


> 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??



It has less to do with efficency than to do with storage issues. power from fossil fuels is easy to store. you keep your coal/oil/gas ready to use, and burn it when you need it. Solar, like wind is more "here now, gone for a while, here again, WHOOPS! gone again!) and our power grid wasn't really designed for it. 

The materials have become cheaper, and the efficienies better, but on a large scale the intermittent and storage issues are still a problem, and on small scale, the equipment needed to safely tie into the grid for when you need to draw extra power is still expsensive.

The needed improvements are in grid regulation, and two way power transmission.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 14, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??
> ...



That's a lie, kitty with groucho glasses, and you know it. Solar panels are subject to the laws of physics and you need the sunshine from an acre of (ugly) panels to make a couple of amps of current. I'd buy the junk and put it on my roof if it worked ....but it don't.


----------



## bill5 (Sep 15, 2011)

martybegan said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??
> ...


Nice recap, thanks!


----------



## jillian (Sep 15, 2011)

martybegan said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??
> ...



thanks for that. we agree.

it has always seemed to me that alternative energy is not only a fuel issue, but a security issue. as things stand, we funnel money into countries that funnel that money into groups that hate us and try to damage us and our interests. so aside from my huggy, feely, left-leaning environmental concerns, it seems to me that this is something we should, left/right and middle, be concerned about.

in the 1970's, jimmy carter said this. i can't stand him for other reasons, but on this issue he happened to be correct. he put solar panels on the white house and had hoped this country would start funding, investing in and finding alternative energy sources. then ronald reagan became president and one of the first things he did was remove the solar panels from the white house. then followed decades of right wing derision of anything that smacked of environmental responsibility.... culminating with sarah's "drill baby drill" crowd.

so yes, there are needed improvements. but they don't have a high profit margin... which is why private companies are lagging behind. that's where government comes in. 

and you know how far that gets in this climate.

so we continue to do business with terrorists and their supporters.


----------



## bill5 (Sep 15, 2011)

Gee someone digressing this into political BS, what a surprise, never saw that before on this site.  You go wingnut.


----------



## signelect (Sep 15, 2011)

This is not about politics, it is about free enterprise.  People don't want to use solar power because it is expensive and inefficient.  Fox those two things and solar power will be the vogue.  Government is not suposed to fix things, it is to provide for the common defense, every thing else it does is mess up.  If the gov took over the beer industry a 6 pack would cost $50 in a month.


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 15, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??
> ...



That is a half truth. Coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear are relatively cheap, but solar and wind just don't produce enough energy for our needs!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2011)

We know how to approach the theoretical max efficiencies for solar PV design. We knew that YEARS ago. A panel built from Gallium Arsenide vs silicon crystal would get us to within 20% or so of the physics. But that would mean TONS of arsenic and a doubling of cost versus growing silicon crystal. Sometimes -- the theoretical limit doesn't yield a product. 

The issue of inefficiency is more difficult to overcome. Even with panel efficiencies climbing (slowly now compared with 10 years ago), the installation math for a daytime peaking only system has to be rated almost twice as neccessary to guarantee a minimum power requirement. That gets you thru weather related difficulties such as clouds, preciptn, and sun angle thru-out the year and efficiencies related to converting DC power from the panels to AC for the home wiring and selling back to the grid. 

So you BUY more panel than you end up using.. And "off-grid" installations are a whole 'nother animal, requiring tons of battery storage and the eco implications of that. A "off-grid" supermarket would require a tractor trailer full of battery storage to make it thru the night and an installation "overdesign" by a factor of almost three. 

The grid load in California at 10PM in the summer is 80% of the load at 1PM. That means that PV solar could provide a MAX of 20% of daytime peaks. That's why you see the mandates for 20% renewables by 2020 and all that nonsense. You cannot turn off nat gas, coal, nuclear plants like a light switch. So there is duplication of spending for the MAIN sources of power. Would we reach 20%? Not likely because of geography, grid design, ect...

So you're right. It's time to put up or STFU.. Government should NEVER be subsidizing run of the mill stuff that's already designed. It actually stifles the perfection of tech, because the subsidy warps price to prefer larger markets at the bottom price. If they want to play market makers, they should only fund R&D for increased performance, or new technology. And the solar market NOW is anything but new technology.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bill5 said:
> ...



The other issue is that for the first time technological advancement is trying to go from easy to harder, and not the other way around. 

Lets look at horses being replaced by cars. Once the fuel, gasoline, became reasonably availible a car beat out a horse for point to point tranport over good terrain in almost every circumstance. It may have been a more expensive capital investment, but a car was cheaper to maintain and operate. It didnt have a biological shelf life, it didnt need veterinary care, the earlier cars could be maintained by someone with basic mechanical skills. The car didnt have "bad days", didnt require fuel if you were not using it, and didnt require cleanup, or a stall. it was also faster, and could carry more cargo per unit power. 

Now lets look at solar power compared to fossil fuels. On the large scale you are going from an on demand form of power generation, to something far more intermittent. While you lose fuel costs, you usually have a larger capital costs per MW. the maintenance is less, but it is different, especially in dusty areas where mirror efficency decreases. On a small scale you are going from basically a simple 220V hookup to a split power system, plus added cell maintenance. 

Now there are good reasons, in some people's opinions, as to why we should be doing this, but they are intangible reasons. Things like AGW, and energy independence. All the person at the end of the line knows is that his power is now intermittent, or he has to climb on the roof to clean his solar cells, where before the power was always on, and all he had to do was flip a switch.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 15, 2011)

Solar Power works well for me.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 15, 2011)

I use 2 banks of solar heating tubes and a homemade solar heating panel to heat all my warm water and to preheat my central heating system in the winter months before boosting with a wood burner. Oil, coal and gas is just far too expensive to use for heating nowadays with oil running at around 950 -1000 gbp per 1200 litres (317 U.S gallons), coal is currently around 20 gbp per 50kg bag with smokeless fuel being 30 % higher again.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> I use 2 banks of solar heating tubes and a homemade solar heating panel to heat all my warm water and to preheat my central heating system in the winter months before boosting with a wood burner. Oil, coal and gas is just far too expensive to use for heating nowadays with oil running at around 950 -1000 gbp per 1200 litres (317 U.S gallons), coal is currently around 20 gbp per 50kg bag with smokeless fuel being 30 % higher again.



Solar THERMAL is a great idea. Especially for folks who have pools and hot tubs. 
Although my total nat gas bill in summer when just the water heater and dryer are involved is less than $10/month.


----------



## TruthSeeker56 (Sep 15, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> I use 2 banks of solar heating tubes and a homemade solar heating panel to heat all my warm water and to preheat my central heating system in the winter months before boosting with a wood burner. Oil, coal and gas is just far too expensive to use for heating nowadays with oil running at around 950 -1000 gbp per 1200 litres (317 U.S gallons), coal is currently around 20 gbp per 50kg bag with smokeless fuel being 30 % higher again.



Ever heard of soapstone wood stoves, or whole-house wood-burning boiler systems?

As with most problems, SIMPLICITY is the answer.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 16, 2011)

TruthSeeker56 said:


> mawlarky said:
> 
> 
> > I use 2 banks of solar heating tubes and a homemade solar heating panel to heat all my warm water and to preheat my central heating system in the winter months before boosting with a wood burner. Oil, coal and gas is just far too expensive to use for heating nowadays with oil running at around 950 -1000 gbp per 1200 litres (317 U.S gallons), coal is currently around 20 gbp per 50kg bag with smokeless fuel being 30 % higher again.
> ...



I use a simple (22kw max) wood burning stove which is of traditional cast iron construction, I obtain my fuel by recovering building site waste and old pallets since wood is not allowed to go into landfill. I take all the wood to a local rock quarry @around 10 tonnes at a time to have it crushed and broken up with a rock crusher so my only outlay is the transport costs and crushing costs which works out at 40 gbp per 10 tonnes.
  My solar tubes deal with preheating the central heating system which is run on a 50/50 mixture of water and machine oil which is better for heat retention and of course no seized valves or rust in the system.
  Most of my electricity comes from a couple of homemade d.c wind turbines which charge 48 recycled car batteries to give me 12/24 volt led lighting throghout my home and 2x 1kw invertors which take care of my mains (240volt ac) appliances, my only mains powered items that run from the grid are a kettle and electric hob which I hope to change in the future by istalling a small wood burning range cooker.
 Simple ideas are indeed the best and due to the massive cost of fuel in Ireland my options for a convenient pushbutton heating /electric system are very limited.


----------



## rdean (Sep 16, 2011)

There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 16, 2011)

rdean said:


> There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.



Solar power is certainly on the increase in the U.K which in theory is not an ideal part of the world for its use but it does work, there are several companies that will install a roof full of panels either free of charge or at a very low cost and who wil negotiate a reduced electrictiy cost from the home owner from the electricity provider. All the excese electricirt is feed into the grid and the panel company receive payment from the electricity supplier, the panel company are in effect hiring the use of your south facing roof to make themselves money but to also save the homeowner around 30-40% on their annual bill.
  Due to the current high cost of the panels wind turbines are much more affordable but do work better as independant stand alone units not connected to the grid imo.


----------



## editec (Sep 16, 2011)

bill5 said:


> 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 make this cost-effective yet? ??


 
Good question.

Perhaps it is not really as cost effective as we'd like to hope?

The most cost effective solar panels known to man are plants.

Sadly turning plant output from solar into energy to run our complex world isn't very efficient either.  Not at least in comparison to the _plant created_ solar energy we get from hydrocarbons.

Perhaps we are going at this problem from the wrong direction?

Perhaps what we ought to be doing is trying to find more efficient ways to use the existing residual solar energy (read hydrocarbons) we have?


Every erg of energy we don't waste is an erg of energy we don't need to create or mine out of the ground.

And every energy saving system we invent continues to save energy for as long as that system is in place, too.

Instead what we're counting on, or at least what the DEMS seem to think makes sense is to create a system of indulgences.

Now I understand the theory behind getting the market to force energy savings, I truly do.

But I have my serious doubts about how effective that will really be since it actually rewards the most inefficient systems we use, now, while punishing those who are ALREADY as energy efficient as today's technology can make them.

CAP AND TRADE is a system just waiting to be gamed, folks.

We need to rethink how we can make market forces work to our advantage.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2011)

Don't worry....the Chinese are working on solving the problems with solar energy while we Drill...baby...drill


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2011)

rdean said:


> There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.



Negatory Captain Science.. The development curve for silicon based PV panels has crested years ago.. It's had over 30 years of intense development to push the margins back. And as with MOST tech curves, they poop out as they approach theoretical maximums.. 

Pushing concentrator photovoltaic efficiency to the limit | SPIE Newsroom: SPIE



> Photovoltaic technology has become commoditized, and the market for crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels is growing while prices have fallen dramatically. *The efficiencies of single-junction silicon solar cells, however, are currently close to their limit, as shown by the very slow upward trend of the record value for monocrystalline silicon cells over the last decade. *
> 
> Physics ultimately limits the efficiency of single-junction silicon cells to no higher than 30&#8211;33% when irradiated by unconcentrated sunlight, and manufacturing a solar cell that achieves 75% of this in practice is challenging.* Multicrystalline solar cells are in a similar position, and their record efficiency of 20.4% has remained unchanged for seven years. Once cells are incorporated into utility-scale systems, their output is reduced further through electrical, optical, and thermal losses.*



SPIE BTW is the Soc. for Photo-optical and Instrumentation Engineers. I've given several papers at their conferences. Not a Repub site for you source Nazis... 

So Captain Science -- why don't you go do what you do best before you hurt yourself? 

I already stated that we COULD get closer to the efficiency limit if we started mining TONS of Arsenic or used GOLD instead instead of tin/lead. But any ole thing that can be engineered is NOT a viable product. It has to be manufacturable and fieldable WITHOUT relying on huge chunks of platinum or several ounces of hummingbird hearts to function.


----------



## jillian (Sep 16, 2011)

bill5 said:


> Gee someone digressing this into political BS, what a surprise, never saw that before on this site.  You go wingnut.



you're a braindead hack.


----------



## jillian (Sep 16, 2011)

signelect said:


> This is not about politics, it is about free enterprise.  People don't want to use solar power because it is expensive and inefficient.  Fox those two things and solar power will be the vogue.  Government is not suposed to fix things, it is to provide for the common defense, every thing else it does is mess up.  If the gov took over the beer industry a 6 pack would cost $50 in a month.



it is your "political" opinion that it is about "free enterprise".

if you think it isn't also about politics, then you don't even understand that your post is pure dogma.

oh...and as for your nonsense about what government isn't supposed to do... 

i'd suggest you actually learn something. it will do you good. so why don't you actually try reading the cases on the general welfare clause. 

who says government isn't "supposed" to fix things. i know randian idiots like saying that, but it's simply a lie. what you mean to say if you want to be honest, is that YOU do not believe, philosophically, that government is supposed to fix things.

it would be an equally wrongminded opinion, but at least you would be honest.


----------



## bill5 (Sep 16, 2011)

jillian said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > Gee someone digressing this into political BS, what a surprise, never saw that before on this site.  You go wingnut.
> ...



As opposed to the rocket scientist you obviously are, evidenced by that witty comeback.  I can't decide which one is more brilliant:  that one or this one that you sent to me with your little negative rep thing:

"looohoooohoooohooooser."

Einstein would be proud.

lol 

Pardon me, I have to go cry in my pillow about getting a negative rep.  *sniffle*  Right after I add you to my ignore list that is.


----------



## zonly1 (Sep 16, 2011)

rdean said:


> There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.



Liberals think if you throw money at a project it all of sudden creates demand.  If the plan doesn't work, they blame republicans for their lack of foresight and market intuition claiming a victim status(wasn't so shovel ready as we thought) when in reality markets determine success or failures.  Liberals don't understand the concept of low cost producer and that is why solyndra failed.  It failed to meet that criteria and lost the race, filing for bankruptcy.


----------



## zonly1 (Sep 16, 2011)

jillian said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > This is not about politics, it is about free enterprise.  People don't want to use solar power because it is expensive and inefficient.  Fox those two things and solar power will be the vogue.  Government is not suposed to fix things, it is to provide for the common defense, every thing else it does is mess up.  If the gov took over the beer industry a 6 pack would cost $50 in a month.
> ...



and gov't can not create demand  nor should it be in the business of creating market winners or market losers hence the solyndra case.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2011)

zonly1 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.
> ...



Meanwhile, other countries with government support, will develop the latest and greatest in solar and other energy technologies

But who cares?  We got drill, baby, drill

Then republicans will complain about technology jobs going overseas


----------



## asterism (Sep 17, 2011)

editec said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet? ??
> ...



I wholeheartedly agree.

I think part of the problem with these new technologies is that an entire system of advocacy thinks they can force the market.  Superior non-subsidized technologies are crowded out while half measures get propped up and then flop.

Why in the world do I use energy to cool the space being heated by a water heater inside my house?  I live in Florida, that thing should be on the roof.  Florida building code prohibits this (generally).  I have natural gas available and should be able to choose whether I run it for electricity or not.  Again, regulations prohibit this.  There's always a workaround, but market forces still apply.  $2500 in permitting and specialist fees removes any incentive to be efficient.

The culprit in my opinion is the micromanaging nature of the regulations.  The solution is to have the authorities provide oversight, not detailed rules.

Another example is swimming pool pumps.  Instead of having proper oversight with regards to safety, they are regulated to the specifics of capacity, placement, and energy consumption without regard to natural efficiencies.  ALL in ground swimming pool pumps have to be capable of drawing water above the level of the pool, even if the pump is installed below the water line (down hill).  I actually had to pay MORE to install a separate set of equipment to artificially reduce the pressure of my system because the pump is too strong.  I can't use a smaller pump, it's against the code.


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Sep 17, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.
> ...



As the above poster has pointed out, solar power is actually cheaper then most other means of electricity.  The problem with solar panels is that most people are not willing to spend the money and wait for a 15 year return on their investment.  The other problem is that solar panels do not increase the sale value of a house significantly, so if you are planning on moving in the next 15 years, you will lose part of your investment.
The way the above poster has stated how these companies work, is not exactly how I have seen companies put it, but it pretty much amounts to the same thing.  They now lease the solar panels to you at no up front cost, they provide all maintenance on them and they guarantee you savings on your electricity bill.  One such company that does this is solarcity.


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Sep 17, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> We know how to approach the theoretical max efficiencies for solar PV design. We knew that YEARS ago. A panel built from Gallium Arsenide vs silicon crystal would get us to within 20% or so of the physics. But that would mean TONS of arsenic and a doubling of cost versus growing silicon crystal. Sometimes -- the theoretical limit doesn't yield a product.
> 
> The issue of inefficiency is more difficult to overcome. Even with panel efficiencies climbing (slowly now compared with 10 years ago), the installation math for a daytime peaking only system has to be rated almost twice as neccessary to guarantee a minimum power requirement. That gets you thru weather related difficulties such as clouds, preciptn, and sun angle thru-out the year and efficiencies related to converting DC power from the panels to AC for the home wiring and selling back to the grid.
> 
> ...



I challenge the bold part above, link?  Second off, 1PM is not peak time, that is usually considered to be between 4-6pm.  And third how do you figure that this even concludes that you could only use 20% during peak?  Comparing using solar during the day vs not being able to use it at night makes no sense.  Theoretically California could use all their day time electricity through solar panels, and switch to other uses at night.  Furthermore a report came out earlier this year that showed how the entire country could switch completely to green energy by using most of the daytime electricity through solar.  Supplementing is with wind power, that can run during the day and through part of the night, and finally, since neither of these store electricity, using hydro electric to provide for power at night, and in case of any shortfalls in solar (clouds) and wind (no wind), since hydro electric stores electricity very very well (all the water behind the dam is potential energy that can be used at any time).
The real reason that they said 20% by 2020 is simply cost.  To switch the entire country, the upfront cost would be in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars.  Sort of like building every power plant in the country all at once.  Then you add in that tens of thousands of power plant workers would be laid off in the period of time, and the idea is just not good.  Basically what that 20% figure represents is, all new sources of energy should be green, that way no one gets laid off.


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 17, 2011)

*Solar power: why hasn't this improved*

Mine's improved greatly, except when I wear a hat.


----------



## zonly1 (Sep 17, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yeah and solar is not a 24/7 on demand power source, drill baby, drill. 

In the meantime, we have hundreds of capped existing wells, shut down by your buddies, the epa.

And liberals will continue to over regulate businesses at home and wonder why jobs are leaving ..ask California.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 17, 2011)

Even the most efficient solar cells available today, are very inefficient.


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Sep 17, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Even the most efficient solar cells available today, are very inefficient.



everything is inefficient.  50% of all power run through power lines is lost before it gets to your house.  I believe (bad memory) that through leaks in your house the average consumer wastes 15% of their heating and cooling cost.  A 15 year old fridge uses roughly twice as much as a new energy star fridge does.   Every single appliance is your house produces net heat (including fridges and freezers), which is the last thing you want during the summer (in most places).
The only thing that could be said to be remotely efficient, is natural gas heating.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 17, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??
> ...



Perhaps my dear, solar is just too damn expensive. I haven't seen any parties going on celebrating how cheap energy is these days.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2011)

zonly1 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There are many new advances in solar energy.  Republicans should do a little research.  Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum.  It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on.  That's why it takes years.  Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better.  Republicans will make sure we won't make any here.  They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.
> ...



Hmmm......   We threw a whole bunch of money at some big dams prior to WW2. Bet there was major opposition to this from the shellbacks of that period. Complaints about the waste of money, ect. At least until that electricity started making the aluminium for the planes of WW2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2011)

First Solar cut cost-per-watt by 9% in 2010

First Solar cut cost-per-watt by 9% in 2010 
25 Feb 2011 
Leading photovoltaic module manufacturer is also making inroads into China and India as it looks to diversify geographically. 

Global PV demand 
First Solar sold CdTe photovoltaic modules capable of producing a peak power of 1.4 GW in 2010, up 27% on the previous year as the wider solar market doubled in size.

The US-headquartered company, which has production facilities around the world, managed to further reduce the cost of solar electricity during the year.

This is thanks partly to an increase in the average efficiency of the modules that it produces &#8211; First's CEO Rob Gillette said that the average module conversion efficiency has increased from 11.1% in late 2009 to 11.6% now, thanks to recent changes made to its fabrication processes. He added that the company aimed to make further efficiency improvements of about 0.5% per year.

Gillette added that the cost per watt (peak) of making those modules now stands at $0.73, down from $0.80 a year ago, equivalent to a 9% reduction.

For the closing quarter of 2010, the company posted total sales of $610 million, down sequentially due to the timing of some large contracts, but for the full fiscal year sales were close to $2.6 billion &#8211; up 24% on 2009 and indicative of the boom experienced by the wider market.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2011)

First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt - IEEE Spectrum

First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt
Within five years, this company's thin-film solar cells could compete with coal
By Richard Stevenson  /  August 2008 

Surprisingly, at the moment no company is *closer to that grail than a little start-up called First Solar, which until very *recently had been known only to specialists. It&#8217;s located in Tempe, Ariz., and analysts agree that it will very likely meet typical grid-parity prices in *developed countries in just two to four years. It&#8217;s got a multibillion-dollar order book, it&#8217;s selling all the cells it can make, it&#8217;s adding production capacity as fast as it can, and its stock price has rocketed from $25 to more than $250 in just 18 months.

*That was in 2008. This is today*

First Solar cut cost-per-watt by 9% in 2010

In its financial guidance for 2011, the company said it expected to deliver module sales of between $2.8 billion and $2.9 billion, as well as $900 million in project development (excluding modules).

The increased demand will be met by First&#8217;s newly expanded production facilities in Malaysia and Frankfurt, Germany, with the company expecting to have a capacity of 2.25 GW in 2011, growing to nearly 2.9 GW the following year thanks to new facilities in Vietnam, France and the US.

*It seems the market is speaking rather loudly in approval of solar. Startup in 2008, multi-billion dollar international corperation in 2011. *


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yeah -- and now there are shellbacks who want all the dams torn down.. MOST of Sierra club for instance. But there is sooo much eco-naut discussion about hydroelectric that it's not even on most lists of "alternative sources".. Except when govt officials pad their "alternative" capacities to show how green they are... 

Make up your minds --- "shellbacks"...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2011)

Middleoftheroad said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > We know how to approach the theoretical max efficiencies for solar PV design. We knew that YEARS ago. A panel built from Gallium Arsenide vs silicon crystal would get us to within 20% or so of the physics. But that would mean TONS of arsenic and a doubling of cost versus growing silicon crystal. Sometimes -- the theoretical limit doesn't yield a product.
> ...



The factoid came from daily charts that I watched in Cal to predict brown-outs at my company. Specifically from the CA Indep Sys Oper (CALISO), the bozos tasked with waking up each morning and trying to find power a state that OUTLAWED long term contracts. Anyway.. You can view the hourly Load management at 

California ISO - Todays Outlook

Be aware that this IS NOT peak summer, it IS a weekend, and NOT that typical summer day that I described. Depending on when you view it will give different results. I HAD to study it for years to protect one of clients from losing experimental data. My observations ARE correct for MOST summer days/nights in Cal. Although I did leave out the WORKDAY qualifier which was what I was most concerned with in the 3rd world of Cal Silicon Valley.

PEAK SUMMER LOADS are the "best case design" for any scenario involving solar when considering the swing from day to night.. And 10PM is the "evening peak" in most all load charts. Look it up.. 



> Furthermore a report came out earlier this year that showed how the entire country could switch completely to green energy by using most of the daytime electricity through solar. .



REALLY? the ENTIRE country? Folks in the NorthEast will be very employed sweeping snow loads off panels won't they? Even tho the installed capacity would have to rated at more than TWICE the average PEAK SUMMER LOADS to guarantee that promise due to weather variations and sun angles? And that you'd be shedding MORE than 1/2 of that produced capacity during the peak summer to waste? 

You need to be careful with naive scenario pronouncements such as this that have little connection to hour by hour, month by month variations in demand. But such is the "religious fervor" of the addicted.. 



> Supplementing is with wind power, that can run during the day and through part of the night, and finally, since neither of these store electricity, using hydro electric to provide for power at night, and in case of any shortfalls in solar (clouds) and wind (no wind), since hydro electric stores electricity very very well (all the water behind the dam is potential energy that can be used at any time).



Left out of this "analysis" is the energy and inefficiencies associated with PUMPING that water that requires a HUGE over capacity of wind/solar to run the "storage". Again causing severe economic issues with land usage to site those generators, provide basins for the storage and all the enviro consequences associated with that. Doesn't work in Kansas or much of the flatlands too well either. Actual engineering considerations for where and how frequent these opportunities would be are staggering sober -- compared to your raw enthusiasm.. 



> The real reason that they said 20% by 2020 is simply cost.  To switch the entire country, the upfront cost would be in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars.  Sort of like building every power plant in the country all at once.  Then you add in that tens of thousands of power plant workers would be laid off in the period of time, and the idea is just not good.  Basically what that 20% figure represents is, all new sources of energy should be green, that way no one gets laid off



Bull -- the percentages are based on actual math science using the RELIABILITY, load cycle demands and opportunities to propose a mix that actually works -- NOT COST. When trying to balance wind/solar with the back-up MAIN power generators that must stand idle waiting to be used (nat gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, ect.)

Speaking of wind -- take a gander at Figure V-F in the CALISO report at:

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/2005SummerAssessmentReport.pdf

Wind only available on 4 of the 10 peak summer 2004 days. *It only exceeded 50% of AVERAGE capacity on only 2 of 10 peak days*.. That's AVERAGE -- not even peak capacity.

That's a LOT of jobs just managing the REAL generators that have to be jerked around to make wind power look useful.. 

You cannot melt the grid down for 2 hours a day for renewables and switch the other generators on/off like light bulbs.. 

So if you have articles pretending to claim this is solved.. By all means please share.


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > zonly1 said:
> ...



Shellback?






Better than being a lowly WOG!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2011)

asterism said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Very Cool.. I wondered where OleRocks picked that phrase from. My two trusty box turtles were offended by his remarks. Gee maybe Shellbacks are a better investment than GreenBacks..


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

Middleoftheroad said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Even the most efficient solar cells available today, are very inefficient.
> ...



From wikipedia:

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997[10] and 6.5% in 2007.[10] In general, losses are estimated from the discrepancy between energy produced (as reported by power plants) and energy sold to end customers; the difference between what is produced and what is consumed constitute transmission and distribution losses.

Where the hell did you get 50%?


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



was going to reply to this but you did it pretty well.

The best plants for quick start are natural gas plants. For Coal and Oil you would have to keep them at hot standby, which uses fuel. Also remember that it is not only a question of night, but of clouds, which would require near instantaneous switchover from solar to standby plants. 

Add the need to maintain these plants to the equation and your costs for power generation soar.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 19, 2011)

I think that the best use of solar power can be made if the collectors are used as stand alone units which charge up batteries which in turn can be inverted to a suitable appliance running voltage and the enrgy from the batteries can also be used to directly power low voltage/low energy lighting such as LED lamps.
  I also think that people need to concentate more on energy saving as well as how the energy is produced, a little bit of research does go a long way. Although I do not have solar panels for electrical generation I do use solar tubes for heating water/central heating and a couple of small wind turbines for almost all my electrical needs, this is only posible through use of low energy lighting and careful insulation etc. I understand that wind turbines as a stand alone setup would not suit everyone  but solar panels do offer a great opportunity to rid yourself from the rat race of energy supply companies when used as stand alone independant units, the idea of feeding into a grid is a bit pointless imo plus there will be no energy loss as a stand alone generating system.
 When we get power failures here in Ireland which is quite often I still have my lights on whereas most others are sitting in darkness waiting for their freezers to thaw out, this is another advantage of a stand alone system.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2011)

I think the best use of solar power is for calculators.  Nobody runs those things in the dark.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 19, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> I think the best use of solar power is for calculators.  Nobody runs those things in the dark.



Most people will be out working when the solar panels are doing their thing which is why I prefer to store the daylight energy for nightime use via batteries, it does work. Same rules apply when connecting to a grid system, no sense generating sparks when you are not at home to use them.


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I think the best use of solar power is for calculators.  Nobody runs those things in the dark.
> ...



Most people are "out" working?  You mean you don't think people consume energy at an office or on a construction site?


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 19, 2011)

asterism said:


> mawlarky said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I doubt if the office or construction site will be connecting up to the solar panels and storage batteries at your home. Let the office and construction site generate their own sparks.


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > mawlarky said:
> ...



Ah.  So your plan isn't to conserve energy, just transfer the cost?  How is that going to work?  What about shift workers?  What about people who work from home?  What about retirees and homemakers?

This is just like the mass transportation nuts who think they are saving gas by riding the bus.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> I think that the best use of solar power can be made if the collectors are used as stand alone units which charge up batteries which in turn can be inverted to a suitable appliance running voltage and the enrgy from the batteries can also be used to directly power low voltage/low energy lighting such as LED lamps.
> I also think that people need to concentate more on energy saving as well as how the energy is produced, a little bit of research does go a long way. Although I do not have solar panels for electrical generation I do use solar tubes for heating water/central heating and a couple of small wind turbines for almost all my electrical needs, this is only posible through use of low energy lighting and careful insulation etc. I understand that wind turbines as a stand alone setup would not suit everyone  but solar panels do offer a great opportunity to rid yourself from the rat race of energy supply companies when used as stand alone independant units, the idea of feeding into a grid is a bit pointless imo plus there will be no energy loss as a stand alone generating system.
> When we get power failures here in Ireland which is quite often I still have my lights on whereas most others are sitting in darkness waiting for their freezers to thaw out, this is another advantage of a stand alone system.



Battery storage is grossly inefficent based on the mateirals required for creation, and the operational life of said batteries. The size of batteries required to run your house overnight would probably fill most of your basement at the current level of technology.


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

martybegan said:


> mawlarky said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the best use of solar power can be made if the collectors are used as stand alone units which charge up batteries which in turn can be inverted to a suitable appliance running voltage and the enrgy from the batteries can also be used to directly power low voltage/low energy lighting such as LED lamps.
> ...



And then there is the energy used to create and transport these batteries.  There's no true savings, just a transfer of cost.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 19, 2011)

martybegan said:


> mawlarky said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the best use of solar power can be made if the collectors are used as stand alone units which charge up batteries which in turn can be inverted to a suitable appliance running voltage and the enrgy from the batteries can also be used to directly power low voltage/low energy lighting such as LED lamps.
> ...



My 48 battery system all of which are recovered from a scrapyard cost very little and will run my home for weeks without any charging from the wind turbines, the batteries range between 60 and 100 AH each and run 12/24 volt led lighting directly with my entire lighting consumption using only 200 watts when everything is switched on. Other items such as fridge, t.v and computer etc are all low consumption items run via 2 x 1kw invertors which run at nowhere near their capacity, the only item I use of the mains supply are a kettle and washing machine. I have never run out of capacity yet since I live in a reliable wind area.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

asterism said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > mawlarky said:
> ...



If they could increase the storage efficency and the cost of production it would become viable, it just isnt so right now.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > mawlarky said:
> ...



This seems a little to perfect of a response to be true, also considering you user name...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2011)

martybegan said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Middleoftheroad said:
> ...



Yep.. Full back-up required to be available nearly all the time. But wait -- there's more. 

There is the market management of all this. Remember when Calif outlawed long term contracts and had to buy all new sources every morning? How did THAT work out for them? Not knowing WHO will be supplying your backup power tomorrow? IMAGINE the market mayhem trying to line up even DAILY contracts and allotments when the wind/solar grid source fluctuates every 20 minutes!!!  How do you even BUY back-up power at 10 minutes notice? And what if your favorite supplier is tapped out? 

These eco-nauts don't know that keeping the lights on is as complicated as it really is..


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



This is where the smart metering comes in. If you can realtime demand, it makes it easier to realtime supply, reducing the need for excess emergency supply. 

That being said, I know there is some resistance to smart metering, mostly due to people thinking that it allows the government to see what you use power for. It can only give total flow, not what type of appliance you are using at any given time.


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

martybegan said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



True.  Operative words there being "if" and "could," and that's why solar and wind aren't capable of being anything but niche production means in the forseeable future.  No government crony capitalism scheme of any size will solve that problem.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2011)

asterism said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



It requires research, i agree. The problem is that government seems to want to skip the development phase and go right into engineering phase, with technology that isn't adequate yet. The research needed is in the materials field, we know the theories, what we don't have is the equipment to do it yet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> I think that the best use of solar power can be made if the collectors are used as stand alone units which charge up batteries which in turn can be inverted to a suitable appliance running voltage and the enrgy from the batteries can also be used to directly power low voltage/low energy lighting such as LED lamps.
> I also think that people need to concentate more on energy saving as well as how the energy is produced, a little bit of research does go a long way. Although I do not have solar panels for electrical generation I do use solar tubes for heating water/central heating and a couple of small wind turbines for almost all my electrical needs, this is only posible through use of low energy lighting and careful insulation etc. I understand that wind turbines as a stand alone setup would not suit everyone  but solar panels do offer a great opportunity to rid yourself from the rat race of energy supply companies when used as stand alone independant units, the idea of feeding into a grid is a bit pointless imo plus there will be no energy loss as a stand alone generating system.
> When we get power failures here in Ireland which is quite often I still have my lights on whereas most others are sitting in darkness waiting for their freezers to thaw out, this is another advantage of a stand alone system.



If EVERYONE (or a large percentage) choose to have a 1/2 ton of batteries in their basement -- that wouldn't be very ecologically sound would it? Depending on charge/discharge rates and numbers of cycles they have a limited lifetime. That's a HUGE toxic recycling wastestream every 6 to 8 yrs (at best). A supermarket would require a trailer load of toxic batteries just to make it thru the night. Not to mention that OVERSIZING the solar PV installation to scavenge excess during the day is MUCH more expensive than overscaling for wind. 

And don't feed me this malarkey about the reliability of wind in Ireland. Maybe in the pub. The Danes also have a favorable wind pattern and here's what their daily production charts look like..


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > mawlarky said:
> ...



What's the average summer temperature there in the summer and winter, how do you heat and cool your house?

48 car batteries?  Are you sure you aren't talking about deep cycle batteries?  Standard car batteries get damaged if you drain the current completely.  How do you manage that?

DIY Battery Bank for Home Solar Power System | Deep Cycle Battery | DIY Solar Homes Blog


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

martybegan said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I agree.  The sad part is that the "experts" don't care or aren't really experts.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 19, 2011)

asterism said:


> mawlarky said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Yes car batteries, they are rarely not getting charged since I have a reliable wind scource and I have never fully discharged the batteries which cost 10 gbp tested each. The summer temp would rarely exceed 25 celcius so no cooling is needed, my water is heated via 2 sets of solar tubes (thermomax) and a homemade solar panel in the summer and also preheats a wood burning stove for central heating in the winter which rarely drops below -3 c for more than a week though last year we had a exceptionally cold December(-10). My heating costs are zero with the exception of fuel used for transporting wood from to and from the crusher.
 I have no real option but to be independant since heating oil is around 950 gbp per 1200 litres, gas and coal are crazy prices with coal being around 20 gbp per 50kg bag and petrol being around 6 gbp(9.50 dollars) per gallon.


----------



## asterism (Sep 19, 2011)

mawlarky said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > mawlarky said:
> ...



I'm glad your solution works for you and I applaud your ingenuity.  However, it won't work for me at all.  I'd need all 48 batteries just to power my air conditioner.


----------



## mawlarky (Sep 19, 2011)

asterism said:


> mawlarky said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


Thank you, I appreciate your situation and geographical location but perhaps you need to find an alternative to your current air conditioning unit, there has to be an alternative and much simplier option as opposed to an of the shelf unit, for example my wind turbines used to be generators of a ww2 Sunderland flying boat, there are always options and might I suggest your high temperatures would idealy suit a stirling cycle engine which could be used for cooling as well as generating sparks.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2011)

Thing is wind and solar have not become viable sources of power for most people.  As the OP implies correctly, little has changed in the last 40 years on that point.


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 23, 2011)

martybegan said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 make this cost-effective yet?  ??
> ...



It would be an improvement if homeowners (and businesses) could install solar collectors on their property sufficient to power just their air conditioning. The demands to power air conditioning can put a peak load requirement on the power grid that is difficult for the power companies to handle. See: Consumer advocates call for review of BGE program

So power companies do have an incentive to encourage electricity users to install solar energy collectors that would help to decrease the peak energy load associated with cooling buildings on hot days. They electricity providers could provide substantial financial incentives to consumers to install such solar devices. But such solar air conditioning need not involve solar cells producing electricity which is then used to power a conventional air conditioning system. See  Solar air conditioning


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Sep 23, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



World can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, experts say


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2011)

> unique Drivel design





One of the funniest Troll Dumps I've ever seen! Everyone's a green hero nowadays I guess.


----------

