Replies

"If Silicon cells were *FREE* they would NOT be a viable alternative for our energy needs."

What a load of nonsense. I'd be happy to cover my entire south roof with free solar panels. I'd plop down a couple of grand for an inverter and have my electric company install a net metering meter so I'd still be connected to the grid and my meter would turn backwards when my system produces more power than I'm using. I wouldn't even worry about batteries because I'd use grid power when my system wasn't producing enough for my needs. For just a few grand for the installation, the inverter and a few other things I'd need, I'd have a system that produces more than enough electricity for my needs in the winter (gas heat) and most of what I need in the summer with my air conditioner running most of the time. I'd save enough money in a few years to pay off my entire investment and every penny I saved after that would be gravy.

The problem with solar power is not that the energy density sucks, it's that the panels cost way too much. The energy density isn't great, but provided people live somewhere that gets plenty of sun, most who own homes have enough space to install enough panels to cover all or most of their electricity needs. The problem is that such a system would end up costing them a fortune and it would take decades to pay off their initial investment. The biggest part of the initial investment by far would be the cost of the panels.

Solar panels, films, shingles, etc., are getting cheaper, but they're still several times more expensive than the need to be before the masses start buying into that technology to power their homes. The cheaper this technology gets though, the more people we will see using it if anything to reduce their ongoing electric bills. Think about it. If the prices dropped significantly and you could get a low maintenance grid-tied solar elecrictric system installed for say, seven grand, that saves you an average of $100 a month in electric bills, it would pay for itself in less than six years. After that you'd have an extra $100 a month, or more as electric rates rise, to invest or spend on something you might enjoy. If you could spend a little more and increase the amount of sunshine you convert into electricity, you could save even more after you cover your investment. Take a few other steps to reduce your energy consumption and you could have several hundred dollars a month more in disposable income. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Send some of those free solar panels my way.

I wouldn't even worry about batteries because I'd use grid power when my system wasn't producing enough for my needs.

Which is to say you would have added power (a very small intermittent and expensive amount) but not capacity to the grid. You still require that real power plants capable of on demand generation be built.

The problem with solar power is not that the energy density sucks, it's that the panels cost way too much.

Uh, if the energy density was higher you could get by with a single small panel.

I'd have a system that produces more than enough electricity for my needs in the winter (gas heat)

So again, when it comes to important matters, like not freezing to death, you choose an energy source with a much, much higher energy density.

Take a few other steps to reduce your energy consumption and you could have several hundred dollars a month more in disposable income. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

An advancing civilization requires increased energy consumption, energy supplies should be getting denser and cheaper not more diffuse. The only time US energy consumption declined was during the Great Depression. Solar is a cute feel good trick but is primarily a diversion from the main issue of securing our nation's access to energy.