dereckbc said:
That pretty well sums it up, considering you can put a traditional Coal fired plant generation 4 times that amount on 100 acres, or 10 times for nuclear operating at a fraction of the cost.
Solar has been and always will be a Niche Market. It has its uses like remote telemetry stations where comercial utility power is not feasible.
The US is the Sadia Arabia of coal, and has enough to supply all our energy needs (electrcity and auto fuel) for the next 100 years, and offers complete energy independance keeping all the jobs here at home.
The only other real alternative is nuclear which is starting up again by a new faclility being constructed in NM
The mistake you're making is comparing a PV power plant to a nuclear/coal power plant. There's no way (right now) that a PV plant the size of a nuclear power plant would cost the same. The idea of a PV system is putting on people's homes or commercial buildings so they don't have to purchase the power from the utility companies who purchase it from the plants. I googled for a report and it costs a nuclear power plant an average of 19 mills/kwh. Yet the average homeowner pays anywhere from 6-15c/kwh.
Coal is very cheap as well; but the environmental cost is way too high.
People's consumption keeps increasing, and the grid itself cannot handle it. By having neighborhoods put on PV; not only do they produce clean energy with a guaranteed payback, they don't have to worry about brownouts in the afternoon from a failing grid.
e57 said:
Once again - I'm not looking at an individuals single residential bill that might take 10-20 years to see a return on investment etc.
I'm looking at the broader scope of TOTAL consumption, the 3,717,353MWh's of power vs. the 500MW peak that would be available for roughly 6 hours a day. The Commercial and Industrial markets are the other two thirds of the market, and I don't think I'll ever see Solar making it past the cost/benefit test for them.
Even with the Residential market it only passes the cost/benefit test when the "Feel Good" policy factor is applied. As as mentioned the onus of adding a PV system is on the property owner, something that is out of reach for a majority of people without subsidies. And even then the NIMBY's of the world take offense if they can see them...
So far it seems the answer to "would you put one one your home" seems to be in the 50/50 60/40 range from this and another post on another forum.
But what do you think about the broader scope of the total consumption and production for solar?
It doesn't seem to me that even the Million Solar Roofs Initiative will make a dent. Especially when we have a hard time forcing fluorescent lighting down peoples throats when required.
PV was never meant to supply all the power for the US. It really can't since they don't work at night. But, it is doable. To supply the entire United States with PV, we would need about 7 million acres. There's definitely more than 7 million acres worth of viable roofs out there.
Using PV with wind and nuclear allows us to get rid of coal power plants, which have more radiation than nuclear plants, and are responsible for a significant amount of pollution.
suemarkp said:
One thing that may help is that areas served by electric utilities can use a grid-tied solar system and do away with batteries. The batteries are the shortest lived part of the system, rather costly, very heavy, and have hadardous contents that cost money to dispose of.
As long as the utilities will credit the cost of the power generated on site at the same rate they charge (i.e. spin the meter backwards), this may be viable.
It is still difficult to generate a bunch of power for yourself with solar, as the panels are still about $5 per watt and require a lot of area. But if every house had some, it may significantly reduce the daytime demand from the power plant helping to balance the day/night generating needs.
I don't know of the maintenance issues for solar system, and what they would need over their life (damaged panels, dirty panels, dealing with corrosion, etc). If every house needed to pay an electrician to show up every few years to fix something, that could eliminate any savings right there. Solar may be a better solution for industrial complexes with on site facilities electricians to maintain.
You have the right idea. Use net metering, do away with batteries, and solar PV is economical. PV generation during the day would help save the grid. The utilities in California are starting to recognize this, which is one of the reasons why they're spending millions of dollars in rebate money, instead of spending millions of dollars in the construction of a new power plant.
As for maintenance issues, there aren't any. Modules are guaranteed 80% production for at least 20 years, inverters have a full warranty of 5 years, and a few are coming out with 10 year warranties. I have yet to see a module not perform (it's pretty obvious when one module's not working, since it'll bring down an entire array).
