Could solar panels ever be feasible?

[tnt666]

The bigger issue- where do we get power at night? Even if every house in America had solar panels, this remains unresolved.

Batteries are efficient and with a proper recycling program, the environmental impact is minimal. And in the very near future, they won't be an issue either as daytime electricity will be used in to create hydrogen http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10002704-54.html.

Because FPL (our power co.) does not yet offer a "buyback" program, I would have to do *something* with this power on a typical afternoon when I'm not using any juice.

FPL has had net metering for some time now (the terminology 'buyback' may not get too far on the net): http://www.fpl.com/residential/savings/net_metering_faq.shtml

 

[Cuddles]

Reply to Cuddles,

Actually, that is not the corrrect way to look at such. I would say that if the cashflow is positive, which it certainly is on the 15k portion, than you cannot afford NOT to act, especially in light of the fact that the proof of concept and risks are well behind us. No one argues, that at the right price, and under the right conditions, solar is very viable. The REAL and CRITICAL questions is whether or not your property, be it your roof or property area are suitable for a ground mount, allowing a sufficient southern exposure unencumbered by shading for 4-6 hours of the day.

Then it is simply a matter of letting the project self fund ITSELF. Which it will by far.

Nonsense. It doesn't matter how much you stand to save if you can't afford the initial outlay. Why do you think so many people are in debt with mortgages, loan, credit cards and the like? It's because even though it's more expensive in the long run, a lot of people don't have any other option. Most people simply don't have $15k lying around to spend on something like this, even if it would save them money in the long run, and the majority of them may well not be able to get a loan for it even assuming it would still be profitable after taking interest into account.

That's the problem with so many of these ideas. They sound great right up until you get the real world involved.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The idea of trying to meet typical American middle class consumption of energy, with pv solar panels and batteries, is where the mistake begins. Forget all that. Even if it was do-able, with an investment of 50k, and everyone started to do it, how could production hope to keep abreast? To produce and distribute such vast quantities of panels would be very energy intensive, at least at first.

Why any more difficult that cars, computers, air conditioners, flat screen TVs, or any number of other industries that ramped up out of nothing? Is the construction of a PV system more energy intensive than the rest of the house?

 

[quarky]

Why any more difficult that cars, computers, air conditioners, flat screen TVs, or any number of other industries that ramped up out of nothing? Is the construction of a PV system more energy intensive than the rest of the house?

You make a fair point, except these industries ramped out of an abundance of cheap fuel. If there was an effort, equivalent to the ww2 war effort, it could be done, maybe. Plus, most people are struggling to afford that which cheap oil has allowed. Out-fitting a modern western house with alternate energy production would be about like having to buy a new house. Its a tough spot we're in.

 

[macdoc]

The "war effort" would be better put to nuclear and solar steam than PV.

It will take a will take a while for solar dispersed to make a dent and there are limits on non-thin film solar production for technical reasons.

Retrofitting for energy efficiency goes further for less.

New building codes tho should be entirely geared to high end efficiency which will then prepare the stage for dispersed solar.

Building geothermal HVAC into ALL developments will increase efficiency enormously and LED lighting will bring lighting costs next to zero.
HVAC is the biggest power hog for many and new designs can reduce that to a very low figure.

Solar water heating makes all sorts of sense right now for many - way above PV.

 

[balrog666]

much of the key to this is

a) suitable application

b) available long term funding...

Ironic that you can finance a depreciating SUV in a heartbeat but not a 30 year solar panel that will provide positive cashflow

I'm in the position of not owning so I choose to buy carbon neutral electricity which costs me a small premium.
People do need choice and if we are to see urban density rise, as it must, it will require more cooperative and municipal solar setups to power the small dwellings.

Whoever said "retrofit" houses and buildings for energy??
- absolutely that should be Job 1 - then it makes the carbon neutral sources go further.

If such solar panels provided a "positive cash flow", they would pay you to install them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You make a fair point, except these industries ramped out of an abundance of cheap fuel.

Two of the industries I cited ramped up when fuel was at all time highs. Fuel is low again now. And is "fuel" any sort of obstacle to growth in PV? I really don't know.

If there was an effort, equivalent to the ww2 war effort, it could be done, maybe.

I'm not sure how the "effort" going in to producing PV compares to WW2 or why such a comparison is relevant but it's growing at a high rate (20% yearly seems a supportable figure) right now.

Plus, most people are struggling to afford that which cheap oil has allowed. Out-fitting a modern western house with alternate energy production would be about like having to buy a new house. Its a tough spot we're in.

Not according to the numbers cited in this thread. It's a bit less than a Lexus right now.

 

[quarky]

The "war effort" would be better put to nuclear and solar steam than PV.

It will take a will take a while for solar dispersed to make a dent and there are limits on non-thin film solar production for technical reasons.

Retrofitting for energy efficiency goes further for less.

New building codes tho should be entirely geared to high end efficiency which will then prepare the stage for dispersed solar.

Building geothermal HVAC into ALL developments will increase efficiency enormously and LED lighting will bring lighting costs next to zero.
HVAC is the biggest power hog for many and new designs can reduce that to a very low figure.

Solar water heating makes all sorts of sense right now for many - way above PV.

Me too, what you said. Retrofitting goes further, and redesigning is the top.

Recovering Yuppy,
When something is providing one %, and it has a growth spurt of 20%, it doesn't really mean much.

Less than a Lexus is a fantasy, perpetrated by well meaning hippies.
You can do the math; its not hard.
And then, divide the math in half. That's what you get, with luck.

Meanwhile, we knew how to build houses that didn't need heat or ac, back in the 70's. We went for Mcmansions instead, and faced their glass towards the hi-way, so the little people could admire it as we drive past.

Housing, in the U.S., went through something immensely dumber than the cars Detroit tried to sell us. Solar panels won't gt us past this blunder.

 

[Pixel42]

Solar water heating makes all sorts of sense right now for many - way above PV.

Absolutely. I invested in a solar water heater a few years ago after calculating that it would save me more on my fuel bill than the interest the capital would have earned me if I'd left it in the bank. Since then interest rates have dropped so low that it's giving me the best return of any of my investments. And it adds to the value of the house, so I'll probably get most of the capital back when I sell the place.

 

[Ziggurat]

LED lighting will bring lighting costs next to zero.

No. LED's are a HUGE improvement over incandescent, but they're not that big an improvement over fluorescent, which is already a major part of the market, especially in commercial applications. Nor are they a cost improvement at all over sodium vapor lamps, which are more efficient than LED's, are very widespread, and represent a significant lighting cost. LED's will (slowly) reduce lighting costs from current levels, but to next to zero? Not a chance.

 

[macdoc]

You can light an entire room now with 16 watts of LED. ( I know because we do it )
The power cost will be next to zero.

Actual costs will plummet next year with a new manufacturing technique.
Lighting will soon be a non-factor everywhere including cities.

CFL is complete non starter at the moment. Sodium light pollutes like crazy but is cheap to run and reasonable life.

Huge advantages with LED - the light only goes where you want it ( hard to get used to ) and they last just about indefinitely and produce relatively little heat so do not offset A/C

 

[Ziggurat]

CFL is complete non starter at the moment.

Nonsense. Almost my whole house runs on CFL, and I'm not alone. But CFL is only a part of fluorescent lighting, which is why I said fluorescent and not CFL. As I mentioned, it's all over the place in commercial applications, usually in the form of those long tubes, not the compacts. Most offices (including the one I work in) and stores run on fluorescent, and will continue to do so for a long time, because a switch to LED's would involve replacing not just the bulbs, but the entire fixtures.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

When something is providing one %, and it has a growth spurt of 20%, it doesn't really mean much.

But you haven't identified any limits to growth. On the contrary, the limits to growth for PV are lessening due to new technology.

Less than a Lexus is a fantasy, perpetrated by well meaning hippies.
You can do the math; its not hard.
And then, divide the math in half. That's what you get, with luck.

Why don't you do the math to support this claim? Near as I can tell the comparison to a Lexus is appropriate and prices are still coming down.

Meanwhile, we knew how to build houses that didn't need heat or ac, back in the 70's. We went for Mcmansions instead, and faced their glass towards the hi-way, so the little people could admire it as we drive past.

Housing, in the U.S., went through something immensely dumber than the cars Detroit tried to sell us. Solar panels won't gt us past this blunder.

Not sure if this part was directed at me but I'm certainly not arguing against building better houses or cars nor claiming that solar panels should be used to avoid building better houses.

 

[Dilb]

You can light an entire room now with 16 watts of LED. ( I know because we do it )
The power cost will be next to zero.

You can light an entire room on a 100W incandescent. A reduction to 16% is not nearly enough to make the power cost 'next to zero'. It's not physically possible to build a light source that would be efficient enough to make the cost of power negligible, anymore than it's possible to build a steam engine with greater than Carnot efficiency. Good lighting requires a lot of power in the light itself.

 

[macdoc]

Not and be a usable office and last time I checked 16 watts is far less than 100 and the LEDs last.

Lighting a personal work area even now with LEDs is almost immaterial in terms of power costs.

each tech workstation is lit well with 2 x 3 watt LED worklights. We rarely ever turn the overhead LEDs on.

LUXEON Rebel ES—World’s First Power LED Specified for Minimum 100 Lumen Per Watt Performance

http://www.ledinside.com/LUXEON_Reb...nimum_100_Lumen_Per_Watt_Performance_20090429

fully directable.

the latter a big advantage over anything else for home lighting.

 

[quarky]

But you haven't identified any limits to growth. On the contrary, the limits to growth for PV are lessening due to new technology.


Why don't you do the math to support this claim? Near as I can tell the comparison to a Lexus is appropriate and prices are still coming down.


Not sure if this part was directed at me but I'm certainly not arguing against building better houses or cars nor claiming that solar panels should be used to avoid building better houses.

The limits to growth are indefinable; mostly economics and actual carrying capacity. What I was getting at is that pv power isn't compatible with the dinosaur-like infrastructure that we live with. I'm all in favor of it, and ran my last house on pv power. That's the math I did. Most people don't calculate all the loses they will suffer between buying the arrays and the actual power available. Obviously, there are zones that are more ideal for solar power than others. There are roofs that are innapropriate. Storing enough power to get through cold dark spells is a problem. None of this is insurmountable, but I get the feeling that most Americans are oblivious to the reality. Pop-science articles are prone to exaggeration.

A bad hail storm took out a bunch of my panels, for instance. I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention such a possibility.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not and be a usable office and last time I checked 16 watts is far less than 100 and the LEDs last.

Except for the most part, offices aren't lit with incandescent lights, they're lit with fluorescent. The costs are not negligible, and you don't get near as much of a cut going from fluorescent to incandescent. The costs would be significantly smaller with LED's, but still not close to "next to nothing".

Lighting a personal work area even now with LEDs is almost immaterial in terms of power costs.

Too bad that far more area gets lit up than just your personal workspace. That YOU don't spend much doesn't mean nobody will spend much.

 

[quarky]

I didn't mean to talk down to anyone, but as a former spokesperson for pv, I'm used to dealing with starry-eyed fantasy from well meaning folk that think some panels on the roof of their car will get them past thermodynamics. Its normal for such people to have no idea what their car weighs, for starters.

 

[Delscottio]

a very good point

Not really, http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/PV-Installers/Products/C21e/C21e-Solar-electric-roof-tiles-slates they've been around for a while but, when it comes down to it the economics don't add up for developers.

Do a search for solar roof tiles and there are plenty out there.

 

[macdoc]

Except for the most part, offices aren't lit with incandescent lights, t

Last time I checked we were discussing homes not commercial offices which are mostly horrors of wasteful design anyways.
Cost of power for lighting a home - very small compared to other aspects..
As far as being a factor in adopting solar for a home....it's not.