[goldstategop]

Solar power is feasible when its sunny practically all year around. But if its cloudy most of the time, its viability is extremely limited. Solar power is never going to replace conventional sources of power but it could offer clean energy supplies in certain areas where the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Boot Hill]

goldstategop says:   "Solar power is feasible when its sunny practically all year around."

Nope, losses due to cloud cover are only a minor part of the total losses that make solar uneconomic. Please review the table in the article one more time.

--Boot Hill

[Gorjus]

[I]t could offer clean energy . .

Actually, no. It might be cleaner than other sources, but there are some pretty toxic processes involved in making solar cells. When one considers the environmental cost of making the cells (takes fuel, and mining for materials, etc.) and eventual disposal of the cells they are far from clean. Think of all the lead in car batteries. Yes, the materials could be reclaimed, but that just doubles the processing on already-toxic materials, and takes yet more fuel.

It's analogous to electric cars, which don't burn any gasoline as they hum along but require more total fuel to be used than gasoline cars, since conversion and transmission from the power plants is less efficient than burning the fuel at the point of use. Only by ignoring the upstream cost (in the case of electric cars, the generation of the power at the plant; in the case of solar cells, the environmental impact of producing the cells) do they make sense.

Let the marketplace decide. If it turns out to be cost effective, then people will use it. If not (and subsidies don't count) then they won't. The only 'bad' answer is forcing a false answer. And among the false ones is the claim that solar power is truly clean.