Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
Tired of such pointless discussions, last holidays I digged for data and made some numbers:

For southern Spain, 38º latitude (app. Saint Louis), transparent skies due to height (app. 1500 feet) and very dry climate:

Solar energy impacting one square meter of fixed panels: 2,000 kWhr per year.

Solar energy impacting one square meter of panels equipped with tracker: 3,500 kWhr per year.

Energy injected to the net: 450 kWhr per year per square meter

app value of energy sold per square meter of active surface of solar panel: 50 euro (@ peak value of electricity 0.11 cent and no profit for the distribution company)

Cost of an square meter of fixed or two positions (summer-winter) solar panels and associated equipment: >1,100 euro

Expected return time of the investment without government subventions: >20 years

Probability of the panels being stolen before that time is reached: high.

My conclusion: solar energy in most of the world, without a government subvention, is not business at all.
6 posted on 10/27/2007 2:27:44 AM PDT by J Aguilar (Veritas vos liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: J Aguilar
I agree with you about the economics of solar for most consumers today. Solar still has a way to go. However, like wind, solar is starting to get interesting.

First the disclaimer: I am not a solar buff. Wind is much closer to commercialization, but even wind is still subsidy dependent and solar has considerably farther to go. My preferred clean energy strategy for the immediate future would be to build lots of nuclear power plants.

However, the costs of solar continue to decline and there is a great deal of research underway. The Solar Energy Industries Association reports that photovoltaic installations have been increasing by more than 25% annually over the past decade and more than 35% annually over the last five years. That's a global figure.

Yes, a lot of that is driven by government subsidies, but solar is also beginning to expand into legitimate markets for off-grid applications and a wide variety of low-intensity uses. This is only marginally helpful in terms of the aggregate national power supply, but it is interesting from an industrial policy standpoint because it begins to support an expanding industrial base, which will increase economies of scale and innovation.

Meanwhile, the costs of conventional power continue to increase. Will the trend lines cross? I don't know, but I have moved from being a wind/solar skeptic to being bullish on wind and agnostic on solar. Wind and solar combined currently produce less than 1% of our electricity but a number of states -- not the feds -- are beginning to set much more aggressive targets.

Adding it all up, we will be dependent on coal, natural gas, and nuclear for decades to come, but I would not be at all surprised to wind, and possibly solar, build out to a 10-20% share over the next 20 years. It could be higher if subsidies are increased and/or serious carbon taxes are enacted. In the near term I would expect wind to build out much more rapidly, but in my admittedly layman's opinion, the potential for technological breakthroughs and really significant reductions in manufacturing costs is probably higher with solar.

7 posted on 10/27/2007 3:24:06 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson