. you claim it was the miniturizing that caused the breakthrough which is fine but.. the same with solar.. you are not seriously saying that a 4 x 8 panel puts out the same power now as 20 years ago.
Sadly, yes. The commonly used solar panels now put out almost exactly the same power now as they did 30 years ago, by size.
There are different technologies available, cheaper less efficient cells, and more expensive higher efficiency cells. But for power production where size and weight aren't an issue, the solar panels used now have the same efficiency as they did back in the 70s.
focused mirrors are coming on the horizon they will cut cost and size.
They've been in use for years. They don't actually make much difference, though, because maintenance costs tend to be higher.
Solar is not a new technology. As you say, computers have because thousands of times more powerful since the 70s. Solar cells are still pretty much unchanged. The increase in volume has driven prices substantially lower, but they still cost far more than burning coal or gas, or even oil.
As the head of PGE said in a recent interview:
"Traditionally, the problem with solar is the cost of solar has been about 30 to 40 cents per kilowatt hour. So it's been a great technology when one thinks about the environment, but it's like three times as expensive."
most of what you say proves my point tho.. the old article talks of it being impossible to buy the power.. the adjustments were made. it is being bought back at a decent rate. for all.
It didn't say it was impossible, it said that the amount the power company were
required to buy at well above market rates had been reached. The government subsequently required the power company to buy more, still at well above market rate.
I think subsidies will be increased again in 2008, as domestic solar seems to be unattractive at the subsidy levels soon to come in.
why is it that the power companies ask to have devices put on your meter (not where you live maybe but here in the US) that cut your power during peak useage.. they pay for that.
Because it helps manage demand. Because it means they don't have to have excess capacity in the case of an emergency. Building an extra power station to provide for perhaps 1 hour a month when demand exceeds capacity is wasteful. If you can instead persuade some customers to cut back slightly during that hour, you get away with having less capacity, but sell the same amount of power 99.9% of the time.
Paying people to install solar panels is not the same thing at all. That's like building another power station, the capacity is there whether you need it or not. Only in this case it's worse than building another power station, because solar costs so much more.
The systems work. I know people with em. Do you? have you ever seen one?
Yes, of course. I have one on my boat to keep the battery topped up. I have one on my watch, which means I never have to change the battery. They have a very big installation on a supermarket I go to. On a sunny day it sometimes generates 40+ kw, which would be impressive if that didn't mean £4 an hour, and the installation hadn't cost £2 million.
I know they
work, you could even replace all other power generation with them. I am just pointing out that the power they generate costs about 3 times as much as from conventional sources (in California. In less sunny places its even more). The only reason people fit them to their houses is because of subsidies, paid for by other consumers and taxpayers.
as for it being a subsidy... I don't know if this really applies.. the power company is using less coal and gas to run
Here's the problem. It costs the power company about 4.5c to buy a kw/h off a normal power station. They then transmit that power through their grid, and sell it to consumers at 14.5c a kw/h. They make 10c per kw/h, which they use to maintain the grid and make a profit.
With solar, the equation is a bit different. There are two schemes, one where the power company subsidises the install, one where it doesn't.
Scheme A: the power company pays the homeowner $2.5 a watt to install the solar panels, which equals $2500 per KW. But because the panels only generate power for some of the day, they generate about 5 kw/h per day per $2500. A typical medium sized power station generates about 1,000,000 kw, or about 20,000,000 kw/h a day. To generate that much with domestic solar panels therefore costs the power company about $10 billion.
Now the power company can buy power from an external company for about 4.5c per kw/h, and they don't have to build a power station. But they not only have to pay the large up front subsidy to solar owners, they have to buy the power generated at retail price, 14.5c per kw/h.
So to replace 1 conventional power station with solar would cost the power company $10 billion up front, and they'd have to pay 10c more per kw/h generated.
Scheme B is different. The power company don't have to pay to install the panels. However, they have to pay 39c per kw/h generated, when they can buy power from conventional sources for 3.5c. And they have to take that electricity they have paid 39c for, transmit it through their network, and sell it for 14.5c.
Sound like a good business decision to you? Buy at 39c, transport, sell at 14.5c?
If the power companies
wanted to do this, why did they only start doing it after the government had ordered them to? Why do they all pay exactly the subsidy the government has mandated, why not pay a little bit more to get even more people generating their own power? Why did they say:
"There should be a recognition that the net energy metering program is a subsidy that is paid for by other PG&E customers,"
please link me to where the cost of installations of systems has increased. on a per watt basis.
The installation community, reacting to PV module and other real cost
increases, have steadily increased the installed cost per watt. Despite the views of some industry
pundits, there is no evidence of excessive profit taking. The fact is, that despite the vision of
declining costs, consumers have seen ever increasing costs, since the first quarter of 2003.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/assets/documents/2007/CSI_SUNCENTRIC_REPORT.pdfIn any case.. unless you think solar is a dead end.. that the panels and systems currently in use on homes are the best and the cheapest they will ever get.
No, quite the opposite. I think sooner or later the price of solar will drop considerably. But that isn't going to happen with the current technology, which is pretty mature. It's going to happen with new technology, and it might take 5 years, it might take 50.
And when that new technology does come along, you will be much better off if you invested your money, rather than buying a current inefficient solar system. The wise person who invested their money will have paid their electricity bills with part of the interest they earned, and will still have their lump sum to buy the new technology that will generate far greater amounts of power at lower cost.
In other words, spending money now on a very expensive way of generating electricity is stupid when there are already cheaper ways available, and will be much cheaper ways available in the future.
At worst.. the subsidies will cause the same problems that solar hot water had where all kinds of junk got put up and for a decade or two.. made worse by power becoming cheaper.
Exactly. Solar power at the moment is simply a waste of money. It might be someone else's money you are wasting, but it's still a waste. If you are forcing people to pay more for electricity, then why not do something useful with the money raised, rather than buy hardware that does the same job as a coal power station, at greatly increased cost.
Who does that benefit?
one thing is certain, and, I can't believe you are so short sighted on this... oil will get more expensive and the power companies will charge more..
Oil will probably become more expensive, but I expect electricity prices to fall in real terms, excluding taxes and subsidies.
I admit that these systems are not ready to take over but they are a lot further along than you are admitting and they work right now.. it is inevitable that they will get cheaper and better.
Sadly, it's not. The current technology of solar power is fairly mature. There are not going to be major price drops until a new breakthrough is made, and no one can predict when a breakthrough will be made.
I am fortunate that I am handy.. I have built homes and a system like these would not be difficult for me to install myself.. as such.. when I move to the country I will use some of my profit from here to make myself independent of the power company. I will pay the cost myself. I will not be affected buy the rising cost of power. I will have a septic and a well to further get away from public utilities.
If you are some distance from the grid then solar can actually make sense, as in some cases you can install solar for less than the cost of extending power lines to your property.
You will still end up paying more for your electricity, but you have the advantage of seclusion.
I don't think we need subsidies to make it better and I think that they most often hurt real progress..
Which is what I've been saying all along. Subsidising solar power now, when it is uneconomic, is not worthwhile for anyone, apart from those milking the subsidies.
