Could solar panels ever be feasible?

[Mitchell314]

...For common everyday electricity use (say, at least 30-40% homes) to contribute significantly (at least 40% of energy demand) to society?

I did a little poking around and I found that active solar panel technology either breaks even or is insufficient to compete with utilities and current rates (~$0.10 per kilowatt•hour) over two decades. Naturally, my math is approximate, and I tried to stay more conservative with figures. However, there are some good ones, where you just might have benefited economically in an area of $0.08 per kilowatt•hour if the weather behaves and little maintenance is needed in a few decades. But if electricity rates go up (at $0.15 kW/h, those panels start looking good), demand and market should grow. Of course, if rates go up, so does the attractiveness in other sources of energy (like wind powered generators).

What say you?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's an immature technology. There are still new breakthroughs being made in the subject to this day. Currently, solar panels are very inefficient - they convert only a tiny fraction of the light that hits them into electricity. There is a lot of room for improvement. Right now you'd be better off with a solar steam turbine.

And anyway, there are a lot of other options for renewable energy. Solar panels may form a part of a future renewable energy strategy, but wind, tidal, geothermal and other kinds of renwable sources should also all be a part of an integrated strategy.

 

[Mitchell314]

It's an immature technology. There are still new breakthroughs being made in the subject to this day. Currently, solar panels are very inefficient - they convert only a tiny fraction of the light that hits them into electricity. There is a lot of room for improvement. Right now you'd be better off with a solar steam turbine.

And anyway, there are a lot of other options for renewable energy. Solar panels may form a part of a future renewable energy strategy, but wind, tidal, geothermal and other kinds of renwable sources should also all be a part of an integrated strategy.

True. I'm wondering if the others will push it out. To me, having a balanced system is best, especially wind. There's something ... appealing about the design of wind that I'm guessing others would see in favor, such as the nature of taking care of something not completely dissimilar from a car with home tools.

 

[kittynh]

I'd love to put solar panels of some sort on the house. But it seems perhaps the investment would be better spent on other ways?

 

[Mitchell314]

I'd love to put solar panels of some sort on the house. But it seems perhaps the investment would be better spent on other ways?

I can't give good solid advise, but whether or not something like this will work depends heavily on location and the nature of where you are. I did some research on the solar panels to see if it could reduce energy costs for our school. So I have a good idea of average sunlight hours and where would be the best place to put this gizmo so it'll work with that one and we don't have a resulting rats nest from wires. I don't know about where you live and the specifics of shade, average cloud cover, etc. But, these things are customizable in that you have room to be creative, and possibly squeeze out some more juice (and thus save $$$) if you do research. However, I will say that I have noticed a trend that larger array units tend to be ... more cost effective. Some companies are good, some units are better than others for managing heavier current loads, and some can supply a good voltage difference.

 

[athon]

With current generation technology, no. However, as arthwollipot said, there's plenty of room for growth. The fact that we're already on the edge of third generation, which although is expensive to mass produce shows some promising results, indicates it's potentially a healthy future industry.

The company I work for has made some pretty good headway in exploring the use of concentrated solar power in Australia.

I think the real progress will not be in any one field, but rather in learning how to adapt an array of technologies to suit various purposes. It's even possible that we won't completely move on from hydrocarbon-dependent energy sources, at least not for a while yet, however the sooner we can reduce such dependence on any one resource, the better.

Athon

 

[Furcifer]

...For common everyday electricity use (say, at least 30-40% homes) to contribute significantly (at least 40% of energy demand) to society?

I did a little poking around and I found that active solar panel technology either breaks even or is insufficient to compete with utilities and current rates (~$0.10 per kilowatt•hour) over two decades. Naturally, my math is approximate, and I tried to stay more conservative with figures. However, there are some good ones, where you just might have benefited economically in an area of $0.08 per kilowatt•hour if the weather behaves and little maintenance is needed in a few decades. But if electricity rates go up (at $0.15 kW/h, those panels start looking good), demand and market should grow. Of course, if rates go up, so does the attractiveness in other sources of energy (like wind powered generators).

What say you?

If we maintain current (no pun intended) demands, solar may remain unfeasible. I think closing the gap means reducing demand rather than improving solar efficiency. IMHO.

 

[Confuseling]

Solar power can be divided up into all kinds of things. For one there are passive systems - such as some kinds of solar collectors - which can heat water for domestic use, or electricity generation, and cost almost nothing if planned for at the time of construction. There are even crazy technologies like solar towers (although you'd be hard pressed to call one of them a panel).

But photovoltaics are dividing into two camps; highly efficient and cheap - and they have quite distinct uses. Highly efficient pv panels will always find a use where space or weight is at a premium - like on a car, or a spaceship. But the next few years may see a huge expansion of the cheap variety. Technologies such as organic (or thin film) photovoltaics are heralding a new era in which you can print sheets and sheets of the stuff, and stick it all over buildings. How quickly this will happen is anyone's guess, but absent some major new power source rendering it unnecessary, it's probably a fair assumption that costs will decline massively and it will become commonplace.

 

[Sunstealer]

Solar power can be divided up into all kinds of things. For one there are passive systems - such as some kinds of solar collectors - which can heat water for domestic use, or electricity generation, and cost almost nothing if planned for at the time of construction. There are even crazy technologies like solar towers (although you'd be hard pressed to call one of them a panel).

But photovoltaics are dividing into two camps; highly efficient and cheap - and they have quite distinct uses. Highly efficient pv panels will always find a use where space or weight is at a premium - like on a car, or a spaceship. But the next few years may see a huge expansion of the cheap variety. Technologies such as organic (or thin film) photovoltaics are heralding a new era in which you can print sheets and sheets of the stuff, and stick it all over buildings. How quickly this will happen is anyone's guess, but absent some major new power source rendering it unnecessary, it's probably a fair assumption that costs will decline massively and it will become commonplace.

The text that I've bolded is to me the key. Currently it's uneconomical (talking about the sunny UK here) to add solar panels to many buildings because of capital outlay and subsequent savings over a short period of time ~ 30 years. Who in their right mind is going to spend the cash if they aren't going to benefit from the savings? If there were regulations that enforced new builds to provide a proportion of their energy needs, then solar (even in sunny UK) would become common place simply because the cost of the system over the lifetime of the building would pay for itself and more. It's the upfront costs that hold it back and therefore a critical mass is not achieved whereby mass-manufacturing would become the norm and inturn reduce costs and then drive innovation. However, those upfront costs as a proportion of a new build are more viable. Piddling government grants can't do this.

 

[Hamradioguy]

I'd love to put solar panels of some sort on the house. But it seems perhaps the investment would be better spent on other ways?

Here's the bottom line: The maximum amount of solar energy you can obtain here on the Earth is around one killowatt per square meter. So if solar panels get to 100 per cent effeciency you'd have a thousand watts for every forty inch square panel- 8 amps at 120 volts, 80 amps at 12 volts and so on.

Not insignificant, but the technology isn't even close to 100 percent, and if you happen to live in say, New Hampshire, you have to deal with living in one of the cloudiest places in the country. Plus deal with those pesky times when the sun is below the horizon.

Can they be feasible? Sure, and in some applicaitons they already are. My neighbor has over $20,000 worth of solar panels, batteries and inverters on his roof, and in a good month he can almost get more electricity from solar than he uses. Of course, he cooks with gas and heats with oil and wood. Another neighbor is completely off the grid and relies on wood heat and a solar panel for electricity....and a gasoline generator for cloudy days.....

I'm all for solar, and expect effeciencies will continue to improve. But I really don't see solar panels handling a significant percentage of all our electricity needs.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am awaiting the day when every suburb, neighbourhood, or even home has its own power generation that feeds into the grid. Diversification is the key. Many many small power generation centres rather than very few big ones. A friend of mine had an idea - a small wind turbine on the top of every street light, all feeding into the grid.

We have the technology today to start doing things like this. Why aren't we?

 

[R.Mackey]

The other way in which solar technology could easily achieve parity is if it meets other requirements. Say we never get any better with efficiency or per-unit cost, but we make them robust and flexible enough to serve as roofing material -- waterproof, insulating, fire-resistant, etc. It'd become standard practice overnight.

No good engineer misses an opportunity to satisfy multiple requirements. When this will occur for solar, however, I can't guess, but I believe it will happen.

 

[Kittyclaws]

We have the technology today to start doing things like this. Why aren't we?

You know the answer to this: money.

Who is going to finance the initial installation? Your government? (hollow laugh)
Your local power company? Only if they can meter it and charge you for it.

And then there are the NIMBYs.

 

[arthwollipot]

You know the answer to this: money.

Who is going to finance the initial installation? Your government? (hollow laugh)
Your local power company? Only if they can meter it and charge you for it.

And then there are the NIMBYs.

Exactly. It's all a conspiracy by Big Power to keep everyone in debt.

 

[Kittyclaws]

No one has to conspire to keep me in debt. I enjoy eating and living indoors and having internet access and dvds.

The saddest part is that with the collapse of the markets in the US, no company is going to extend itself in any way to bring a new power paradigm to fruition.

 

[rjh01]

Alternative energy (solar, wind, tidal) mostly suffers from one major issue. That is it is generated at fixed times. Not when you want it. This means you need either expensive storage systems or backup systems (mains power). Solve that problem and alternative power becomes a lot more attractive.

Edit. This is one major stumbling block to arthwollipot's idea (post 11). The power companies still need to have generators for when people want power but the wind generators are not working.

 

[arthwollipot]

But that's entirely why you don't rely on one single power generation method. When the sun isn't shining, the wind might be blowing. And if the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, then perhaps the sea is making waves.

Put eggs into multiple baskets. That way if you drop one basket, you won't break all your eggs.

 

[rjh01]

That leads to another issue. Wind power is only economical in windy places. It is no good putting it up anywhere. Solar power is best in sunny places near the equator.

But you are right. The solution is a combination of everything.

 

[arthwollipot]

Recently I went to Australia's largest wind farm, on the Fleurieu Peninsula in South Australia. It's placed at pretty much exactly the spot that the Roaring Forties ends.

Very impressive. Looking at it, I found it hard to imagine how people could find such things ugly.

I'll see if I can post some photos later on.

 

[Confuseling]

Alternative energy (solar, wind, tidal) mostly suffers from one major issue. That is it is generated at fixed times. Not when you want it. This means you need either expensive storage systems or backup systems (mains power). Solve that problem and alternative power becomes a lot more attractive.

Edit. This is one major stumbling block to arthwollipot's idea (post 11). The power companies still need to have generators for when people want power but the wind generators are not working.

You can electrolyse water. Or even heat it up. If you get a reservoir containing millions of litres of water, and heat it up by a degree or something, that's an incredible amount of energy, and will happily sit there waiting to be extracted again without causing any harm to its surroundings - or indeed whoever ultimately ends up drinking it.