Replies

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.

Which is to say you would have added power (a very small intermittent and expensive amount) but not capacity to the grid.

So what? You said, ""If Silicon cells were *FREE* they would NOT be a viable alternative for our energy needs." The thing is that most people at least aren't looking at solar energy as an alternative to all our energy needs, only part. If I could get a solar electric system set up at my house on the cheap and significantly reduce my electric bills, I'd be all for that, as would most people.

You still require that real power plants capable of on demand generation be built.

If some breakthrough comes along that makes home solar electric systems affordable it will still take years for that technology to proliferate. A lot of plants are already perfectly capable of demand generation already, and new plants will have to be built and old plants will have to be upgraded in the future anyway, so having to build or modify generating facilities isn't that big of a deal. A lot of the problem could be solved just by energy storage systems and getting creative in how we manage our existing electricity generating facilities. For instance, we have a lake house on a lake with a dam that generates electricity. Because of a boom in population density and hot and dry conditions in recent years, the lake is getting really shallow in the summer time as people try to beat the heat running their air conditioners. Even though our dock is set up such that it can handle a good deal of fluctuation in the water levels we've had to disconnect our dock from the permanent moorings on the creek bank and let it float farther out in the creek in the summers in recent years or it would have ended up laying on the hillside. If people could set up cheap solar electric systems on their homes in the area and reduce the amount of electricity they are drawing from the grid during the hot summer days, we wouldn't have the problem of the lake getting too shallow. Not only that, but as more people move into the area and energy needs grow, if enough were supplementing their grid power with solar power to cover most of their daytime needs in the summer, all we'd have to do is generate from the dam at night when the solar panels aren't getting any sun rather than during the day. We wouldn't have to build some new coal or natural gas fired power plant to keep up with growing demand for electricity.

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

Again, so what? If I could get a 160 watt panel for $800 or two 80 watt panels that together take up twice the space of one 160 watt panel, but I could get those two 80 watt panels for a total of $200, it would be a good deal. I'd be paying $1.25 per rated peak watt as opposed to $5.00 per watt. I could only produce half as much electricity with a roof full of those as I could with a roof full of the expensive 160 watt panels, but my up front costs would be considerably less, and I'd be able to pay off my initial investment a lot faster with the money I'd save on my electric bill and every bit of savings after that would just be an increase of disposable income for my family.

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.

Why is it that we have to pick one single energy source and rely solely on that? I'd use gas for heat because it is a lot more efficient than electricity when it comes to heating your home, and because that's what I already have and it would be stupid to spend the money to replace my gas furnace with less efficient. I'd keep my gas dryer too, and my gas water heater.

An advancing civilization requires increased energy consumption.

There has to be a point when energy consumption does not need to increase for societies to advance. Third world type countries are going to have to use a lot more energy to catch up with the big industrial nations, but our country already uses something like 26% of the energy consumed in the world even though we have less than 5% of the world's population. We waste an awful lot of the energy we consume too. You know, looking into solar power has been a learning experience for me. I had no idea how much energy I waste. You can find sites all over the web where people are chronicling their experiences with powering their homes with solar and/or wind power, and one thing you'll see in common with all of these people is that they realize that before going to solar and/or wind power they were wasting an enormous amount of energy. Those going off the grid really have to cut down on their energy consumption and those with grid-tie systems end up really cutting down on their electricity consumption too because they're trying to pay off the huge costs of their new systems. They insulate their homes better, turn of lights and other appliances when they aren't using them. They analyze their energy consumption and look for where they are wasting electricity. They replace all the incandescent light bulbs they can with compact fluorescent bulbs. They turn off lights they don't need on, disconnect all those appliances and wall warts and other things we have in our homes that draw power even when not being used. They learn to live with a little warmer temperatures in the summer and a little cooler temperatures in the winter, and they don't leave their heaters and air conditioners on all day when they are at work like so many of us do. They become watt misers and often end up cutting their energy consumption by half or more just doing things not so hard or expensive to do.

One thing I think would happen if a lot more people started using solar power or some other means of generating electricity at home is that collectively we would all start thinking a lot more about how much energy we waste and we would reduce our consumption. If you invest a lot of money to generate your own electricity you're probably going to be paying a lot more attention to how that power is getting used. Those who manufacture things that use electricity will see this and pay a lot more attention to making products that are energy efficient. New home builders would build much more energy efficient homes and homes that are not energy efficient would sell for a discount. In time we might actually reduce our per capita energy consumption, and be as productive or more productive than ever.