[Boot Hill]

The Red Zone says:   "...I perceive there certainly are ways that solar can help America's energy situation."

I agree that there are some limited ways solar energy can be put to use. However, it is currently being sold (and funded by your tax dollars) as a serious competitor, alternative and compliment to conventional electrical generation. That's what I've got serious problems with and why I posted this thread. Conservatives need the info at their finger tips to discredit the disciples of solar electric power.

--Boot Hill

[The Red Zone]

I'd like to see a dollar for dollar amortized estimate for photovoltaic vs. the most expensive fossil fuel. It looks from your figures like it is probably a rip, but quantified how much of a rip? I would have no clue.

[wita]

Well at least from the power producer standpoint the truth is out on wind energy production, which I am certain has the same government subsidy as other forms of alternative energy. Wind can only be a backup or "alternative" due to its inefficiencies. It doesn't blow all the time. Seems to me it is 35 percent inefficient right out of the box at the point the wind blows, then throw in all the little stuff that the utopians want to overlook, and you have a horribly inefficient system that no one could would or should invest in if it wasn't being paid for by OPM. OPM is a myth, it is never just OPM it's everyones dollars, including the wealth and health of the government the people and the nation itself, and we let congress spend it like there is no tomorrow, and with precious little oversight, all at the whim of folks who think science is making stink bombs in high school.

[bmwcyle]

Good work, you bring the facts to light.

[harpseal]

I agree that there are some limited ways solar energy can be put to use. However, it is currently being sold (and funded by your tax dollars) as a serious competitor, alternative and compliment to conventional electrical generation. That's what I've got serious problems with and why I posted this thread. Conservatives need the info at their finger tips to discredit the disciples of solar electric power.

If solar power were to become economical by a reduction of cost of PV cells and increases in the efficency of any of the steps from cells to useful power they could then their use will naturally expand. At present their primary usage is for power where running power lines is cost prohibitive. That is in certain cases they do provide an economic benefit. As economies of scale and advances in efficency of any of the steps increase then they will become more economically sensible. They will not be a source for centralized power generation rather they would more likely be useful first in rural applications. For example a Farm may use them to provide power for a well pumping application. They are already used for some things like telecom relay towers.

In short I agree with your statement about the current applications of solar power but I further recognize that economies may increase the application of these technologies in the future. They will never become our primary means of power. Now a shed roof that is 10m by 10m provides 100 sq m given the fact that you have at present an output of 11 w/ sqm (I am presuming whrs since you have factored in night) that is 1100whrs per day from a building with a 100 sqm roof a little larger than some homes but within range. Now since an average home needs in the range of 5KWhrs to function solar needs a 500% increase in efficency to become a reasonable alternative for most homes.

Now teh place where this increase is most likely is in the efficency of the PV cells themselves. If the loss were down to say 50% then it might well be practical. No I have no idea how to get there but as i stated for some aplications PV's make sense and I do believe that market forces will tend to make PV's cheaper, more reliable, and more efficent.

[Protagoras]

However, it is currently being sold (and funded by your tax dollars) as a serious competitor, alternative and compliment to conventional electrical generation.

Government should not be funding anything like this. Which, however, does not mean that science will never find a way to convert it to power which does make sense. The whole concept is in it's infancy. No way to know if it will ever pan out.

[ggekko]

Your analysis is cogent. The problem with all "alternative" energy sources at this point in time is that they scale up VERY POORLY. This is true of solar power, biomass and wind power. The growth in power consumption also makes alternative energy even more of an exersize in green fantasy.

The real answer is nuclear power to be used as a bridge to produce hydrogen as a byproduct. Nuclear power actually has the smallest environmental footprint of all energy technologies but the greens have been so successful in demagoging this issue the public seems oblivious to this fact.

The actual result of the greens cripling the nuclear power industry has been a greater use of coal-based power plants. This is a result that no one should be happy with.