CA: Solar power shines, despite clouds

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | Oct. 08, 2006 | Rick Jurgens

[GAB-1955]

How in the world can there be a shortage of silicon? That's SAND.

[elmer fudd]

It's all a matter of economics. Solar energy isn't some pie in the sky fairytale, but it's not quite cost competitive yet either. When they manage to bring the cost of the panels down another 50%, (or the price of electricity skyrockets), it will become widely used, but not until then.

[Carry_Okie]

Personal because Grubb used a small inheritance from her mother to purchase the solar panels, which cost $18,000 -- $13,000 after rebates.

Political because seeing "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's movie on global warming, inspired Grubb, a lawyer, and her husband, an economist, to go solar and install equipment that can generate up to 2.8 kilowatts of electricity.

2.8 KW? That's 23 amps at 120V AT PEAK PRODUCTION with a 50% duty cycle (at best), enough for a couple of lighting circuits, and no more. $18K for two lighting cirucuits with a fifteen year life at best is "not quite competitive"???

What a load.

[glorgau]

solar panels, which cost $18,000 -- $13,000 after rebates taxpayer subsidies.

[calcowgirl]

There you go again being logical and looking at economic viability. No problem! Just legislate it!

Signed 09/26/2006
SB 107 Senator Joseph Simitian (D-Palo Alto)
Renewable energy: Public Interest Energy Research, Demonstration, and Development Program

Requires investor owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric, to have
20 percent of its electricity come from renewable sources by 2010. Previously, state law required that this target be achieved by 2017.

[Pontiac]

But the study found that society as a whole paid quadruple what it gained in reduced costs and pollution.

Only in Kalifornia

What a colossal waste of money (ala Jimmy Carter).

These idiots install equipment that can generate up to 2.8 kilowatts of electricity which cost $18,000 -- $13,000 after rebates (after watching Al Gore’s piece of propaganda.

2.8 Kilowatts is about a quarter of what a average house hold needs and for three quarters of the day it will not produce that!

This should generate a taxpayer revolt. They vast majority of the taxpayers of California are paying for these private citizens to indulge their political and social engineering whims while also reducing their electric bills.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Hmmmmmm... follow the money....

I wonder....
Who has meaninful stock positions in these "silicon" panel companies... the solar power thingy's....

'Zat you, Algore?

[calcowgirl]

It's a "bipartisan" fleecing.

[Pontiac]

And even the state's ambitious goal of 3,000 megawatts -- which would multiply solar generating capacity nearly 20 times -- represents less than 5 percent of the 63,534-megawatt peak statewide demand during last summer's heat storm.

If the government wants to reduce electric demand they would be much better off giving rebates to people who replace their electric hat water tank with a demand hat water system.

They could also give rebates to those installing geothermal heat pumps.

These two ideas would go a lot farther in reducing electric demand than building photovoltaic systems for a lot less money.

But the dhimms would not find them sexy enough.

[dano1]

I don't follow this issue closely, but I have read the plastic solar cell technology is very promising . See article here.

[Cicero]

I use energy saving light bulbs throughout the house. It's one practical and very simple thing you can do to save power. They use around a quarter of the power that a regular bulb uses for the same amount of light. The price is now fairly reasonable, especially since they last much longer than incandescent bulbs.

[elmer fudd]

2.8 KW? That's 23 amps at 120V AT PEAK PRODUCTION with a 50% duty cycle (at best), enough for a couple of lighting circuits, and no more. $18K for two lighting cirucuits with a fifteen year life at best is "not quite competitive"??? What a load.

Figuring 10 hours of daylight a day and $0.22/KWh it's over $2000 in electrical savings per year, so it's got a 9 year payoff. If you bring up the efficiency of the panels, bring down their price and raise the cost of utilities, (all of which are virtually certain to happen), it becomes even more attractive.

[Wonder Warthog]

"When they manage to bring the cost of the panels down another 50%, (or the price of electricity skyrockets), it will become widely used, but not until then."

It's coming. I like "Nanosolar"'s approach to technology. And their cells don't "use" silicon.

[EVO X]

I use energy saving light bulbs throughout the house

Ditto here. The only drawback is those bulbs don't work for ceiling sockets. I may buy a led bulb and see how it works for a hallway. I don't think the led ones are bright enough for general purpose room lighting.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Ummmmmm... Hmmmmm

[goldstategop]

Most Mediterranean countries have solar-equipped homes. As the technology gets less exotic and applications reach the mainstream, we can expect a lessening of the load on the state's electricity network. Imagine free electricity or getting a rebate from the utility company for power you don't draw from them. It could be a Solar Nirvana in California if everything goes right.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[WayneLusvardi]

Only one minor "inconvenient truth" about domestic solar panels: who's going to clean the dust off the rool panels in order for them to get the efficiency they tout?

[null and void]

*shrug* My PG&E bill was $11.27 last month, most of that was gas. What was your electric bill?

[stboz]

Anybody.....How does a set of solar photovoltaic panels do after being hit by lightning? Fried solar chips? or ?