Posted on 06/22/2007 6:06:55 AM PDT by Uncledave
Mainly the cost to the customer is being reduced through gov't subsidy if you can get it. The cost of solar cells does not appear to be moving, hasn't moved in 1/4 century.
Solar will reach cost effectiveness for most people within the next 10 to 20 years or less based on current trends.
If I lived out west in a desert state its a no brainer... here, in the temperate rain forest, its a more dubious proposition.
You heard now - I just copied this off a "solar power cost" query on ask.com:
"Raw silicon crystaline cells are produced near the $3 per watt level now".
Thanks for the ping, bump for later reading
I just want my own nukular reactor and the hell with everybody else.
Like I said, $5 a watt remains. Production costs are not retail costs.
Availability and reliability seem to be the Achilles' Heel of any kind of system that depends on the vagaries of natural phenomena. Just the other night it was bloody hot and humid with not a hint of a whiff of breeze in the air. But I was very happy to get a good night's sleep thanks to the faithful old A/C and the reliable old grid. A windmill would likely have zero output under the same conditions.
Probably the opposite. As the article states, one of the biggest costs was in getting sufficient production capacity. The government subsidies would have helped to create that capacity without generating correspondingly high prices for the buyer.
~ Why aren't using nearly 100% solar power in places like Florida, California, and Hawaii?
~ Why aren't we putting EZ Turf (or another such real-looking grass product) in all public areas? (i.e. islands in intersections, neighborhood parks, parkways along roadsides, etc.) --no water, no maintenance!
We could ALWAYS be/act "smarter" toward conservation.
Bump
I wouldn’t characterize incorporating renewables into the energy mix as making people go back to the choices your grandpa made — water or no water.
These technologies promise to be a good piece of the puzzle and I’m glad we’re pursuing them.
The three largest windows on my house function like a greenhouse. Unfortunately, it's summer and all that does is increase my cooling bill.
Needless to say, I'm currently looking at alternatives to reduce the amount of radiant heat I'm getting in the summer.
I live in CT and drive 20 miles down I-84 to work. I drive passed what's eaily a couple of thousand of acres of frequently mowed grassy median -- the media is 30-40 yards wide for stretches of miles. Why not let trees grow there? For the liberal global warming crew, of which CT is infested, wouldn't this mean less gas used in lawnmowers, millions of dollars of maintenance costs saved, and more trees to absorb CO2, not to mention a prettier drive?
Well, that's the concern. If we rely heavily (and some advocate this, not necessarily you) on energy sources that are inherently chaotic and unreliable, we may be faced with that very choice, although it may not be so much of a choice as a requirement.
The folks in CA got a taste of this a few years ago when they had their electricity shortages. Their choices came down to, blackout now, or blackout later. Thing is, there were people just a few years before agitating for the trashing of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant that used this very argument, that we didn't need nukes to provide the capacity we needed, wind would do as well. Turned out, reality bit them in their a$$e$. During their heat wave, wind-generated electricity in CA averaged about a 5% capacity factor. IOW, when they needed it most, it wasn't there. Contrast that with the nuclear industry, where 90-100% capacity factors are becoming routine.
Do you buy a new car every month? Why not?
For most of us, the reason would be that the expense would not be justified.
The answer to YOUR question is the same. The expense is not justified. Such "solutions" may have become MORE attractive over time, but there are no true savings to be had.
You mustn't base your decisions on highly biased reports of how damaging CO2 is going to be or how limited the world supply of crude oil is.
I worked in a business environment in which a one year payback on investment was considered quite attractive. Two years was also pretty much a no-brainer. But when you calculate a ten year payback, then you are dealing with a situation where circumstances might quickly change and cause the investment to have no payback or possibly even a long term cost that was not anticipated.
When solar energy installations have payback periods close to two years, without the uncertainty of continued government subsidy, then you will see significant activity.
Your points about investments are sound, but to be fair there's no energy generation projects with two year paybacks.
Not gonna happen - we're not going back to your grandpa's off-grid days. California had those brownouts, and continues to have problems meeting demand, due to short-sighted infrastructure investment and power contracting, not because of depending on a chaotic energy resource. Certainly nukes are essential and would have helped them, but it was never the intent that a few hundred megawatts of installed wind energy would displace that base load requirement.
Nevertheless, renewables, given modern technology, can be an attractive piece of the puzzle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.