Solar Energy Disadvantages & Limitation

Initial cost to set-up the system is around $20.000 U.S. dollars. You can get an aid from the government in some countries and locations, but still have to pay a few thousands from your pockets.

Yahlasit

~

NASA should have begun developing and perfecting space-based solar

decades ago... if they had, by now the earth would be enjoying clean

and unlimited space-based solar.

Bush/NASA suddenly canceled without explanation a funded space-based

solar energy project in 2001 [just before 9-11 - how's that for timing.]

~

If we manufacture sufficient solar electricity panels for all the establishments and houses, so that all will be fed with CLEAN electricity, we will be making environment so UNCLEAN before these are installed, that we will not survive. To make these panels, we need electricity, which is presently not clean electricity, but needs Coal or Petro fuels.

You just described everything in life!

Don't blame NASA. When I was at Langley Research Center in the '60's and '70's we were in the forefront of alternative energy generation and developed all kinds of technology to help wean the country off of oil and coal. We even built a full scale house that was lived in by a typical family for a year to test the various technologies installed.

Then, Jimmy Carter, in all his infinite "wisdom", created the Dept of Energy with the stated goal of eliminating the need for foreign energy sources. And, in the process, transferred the research we were doing at Langley to the DoE, except for space based energy generation.

Well, nearly 40 years later, we can see how "successful" DoE has been. Billions of dollars later we are actually MORE dependent on foreign energy than we were back then. Yet another reason not to let gov't "fix" our technological or social needs.

The biggest problem is that the cost of oil and coal has remained relatively cheap and people generally won't stand for or can't afford the higher startup costs of alternative energy, not to mention the cost of changing the nation's energy infrastructure.

Hooker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

Example calculation:

660e+12 [W-hr/year] (US electric usage 2009)
1400 [W/m^2] (solar flux in orbit)
0.25 (efficiency of solar cell)
0.7 (conversion efficiency to microwave beam)
0.7 (conversion efficiency back to utility power)

660e+12 [W-hr/year] / (0.25 x 0.7 x 0.7) = 5.39e+15 [W-hr/year]

5.39e+15 [W-hr/year] x 1/365 [year/day] x 1/24 [day/hr] x 1/1400 [m^2/W] = 439.5e+6 [m^2] = 21 [km^2]

This is equivalent to a square solar panel array that is 21 [kilometers] x 21 [kilometers] and the infrastructure to create microwave power-transfer beams totalling 615e+9 [W] in geosynchronous(?) orbit. Then there are the huge ground-based rectenna arrays and the conversion infrastructure back to utility power levels.

Even with decades of advanced R&D, does this really seem like a practical solution for our terrestrial energy needs?

"Safety...At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant)"

Considering the large scale and the practical safety limitations, traditional ground based solar power looks a lot more feasible than the orbital concepts proposed.

The math is not correct. Pardon me for pointing that out.

In fact, it is not even close.

I have 2 24x12 photovoltaic panels that supply power to my entire 2800sf home.

The system, while expensive, will be paid for in 5 years. More importantly, I am not pouring oil into the Gulf of Mexico or polluting the atmosphere. Your turn.

Did you read the post you responded to?

If you see a math error, please provide the correction for all to see. I am interested in real numbers and will not be offended if you find and correct a numerical mistake. I'm sure other readers would like to see any corrections as well.

The simple math was intended to show the enormous scale required to supply the total US electric power requirements from a theoretical SPACE based solar power system. Conventional ground based solar electric power generation (basically your system!) is currently a far more practical solution.

I am PRO solar electric and will use it, and any other renewable energy resource, whenever I can break even in a reasonable time frame (< 10 years). Right now, only solar HEAT is a (marginally) practical alternative for my region.

I must now apologize.

I did not see the scale you were talking about. I was thinking along the lines of the average town. I apologize for my mistake.

John

You mean 24 foot by 12 foot?

Yes, 2 of them running to the inverter.

I am not pouring oil into the Gulf of Mexico or polluting the atmosphere.

Yes, you are not polluting the atmosphere. BUT, somebody else has already polluted the atmosphere to make the solar cells for you, to such an extent that probably, you would not have done that much pollution by using the conventional energy over life span of the solar cells you are using.

Care to back that statement up with facts and figures or is it a 'green' statement - meaning one of those that people say just have to be true.

Using the two source links below...

Energy payback for "manufacturing" cost is about 2-3 years for photovoltaics.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_basics.html

Slightly shorter manufacturing payback, about 0.5-1.5 years, for solar heat collectors.

http://www.genersys-solar.com/carbon-savings/carbon_footprint_solar-panel_materials.asp

For those who want to go "green" for real, ALL raw material processing, production, transportation, installation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and recycle costs of the photovoltaic panels, electronics, and batteries must be part of the total pay back and carbon saving calculations.

"Never" paying back the manufacturing cost seems unlikely as most appear to cover this cost within a fraction of the expected lifetime. However, actually reducing the end users overall energy costs will be highly dependent on usage rates and regional insolation.

The payback in less than 20 or 30 years comes only with the incentives, subsidies and RECs and FITs. If your neighbor has a system you are helping to pay for it.

I have read both extremes for manufacturing/material cost payback but I would tend to go with EERE - at least they explain how they arrive at the conclusion. Many other parties just 'know' and expect you to believe.

As someone pointed out - the low tech systems have a fantastically better payback than the state of the art systems. The state of the art is necessary as that is the low tech system of 20 years hence.

Who are these people you cite and where are they?

In Alaska I used primitive solar power for 12 years. The technology today is so much better. Do you guys work for oil companies? Seriously, this isn't a debate, it is simply fact. What possible reason could you have for disliking clean energy?

Is the initial cost prohibitive? Yes, but if we could elect officials not owned by oil companies, it would not be so.

Are you reading or responding to the right post? Do you realize you seem to be arguing with people who generally AGREE with you?

One poster cautioned that there are some (exotic) clean energy concepts that use more energy (release more carbon) during manufacturing than they will ever save during their operational life. Solar photovoltaics and solar heat are not in this category.

To summarize, the manufacturing cost (energy, CO2, etc.) is paid BACK relatively quickly in solar power applications (silicon or copper pipes) and the links that provided this data are neutral or PRO clean energy.

The actual monetary cost payback to the END USER is different and depends on other factors, some of which (like average insolation) cannot be altered.

Political and industrial conspiracy rants are fine for tabloids or other chat rooms, but Engineers prefer to base their evaluation of technologies on verifiable numbers.

Perhaps there is some confusion as you are referencing solar absorption water heating and the thread is about solar electric (photovoltaic) and your both calling them "solar panels".

It's ironic that a thread so full of sloppy math, lazy notation, imprecise descriptors, and bouts of emotive reactions - is so punctuated by lording on the values of engineers.

I think this thread sets some kind of CR4 record for absence of engineering discipline.

(pun intended)

While I do not have any documentation to prove otherwise, I find it difficult to believe that taking silicon and other minerals to make PV sheets is more of a pollutant than harvesting and burning fossil fuels. I asume you have documentation for this claim?

Major limitation is they dont work at night

they cost a fortune, not very high output on cloudy days, not very high output on sunny days.

otherwise its great

~

Space-based solar would work 24/7 :)

~

And overheat the planet 24/7!

As far as spaced based solar is concerned, I will sue anyone who casts a shadow on my back yard!! It is my sun and I intend to use it as I wish and I do not yield my sun light to anyone and no one has the exclusive right to the sun's rays.

Sue all you want - I expect that you will find you don't own 'sun rights'. You seem to be claiming exclusive rights for yourself?

In the UK, the effect of restricting light by erecting a building or part of it can be the factor that determines the failure of completion of the Planning process for that building.

Whether the principle can be applied internationally and globally is another question.

Comment from one in the US ...

Even with large government subsidies ( paid for by all taxpayers ) MOST people would be spending more money for solar electricity than from the local utility. In the current economy, most people just cannot afford to spend more money for their energy needs. There are some cases (favorable solar exposure, very remote homes, excessive utility rates, etc.) where solar based electricity does become the lower cost alternative, but these are just a tiny fraction of the potential users.

Some people have good environmental intentions and DO spend the extra money. They are fortunate to be in a position where they can afford to do so and we should be thankful to them because they are helping to support the research, development, and eventual cost reduction of solar technologies. When solar electric truly becomes the lower cost alternative, it will become commonplace.

In my area, sunny days are marginal, cost of utility electricity is low, and the cost of a solar electric system (installation-maintenance-repair-replacement) is unacceptably high. Something has to change before I can reasonably consider a solar electric system. On the other hand, a solar "heat" collection system IS a viable option for me to save money and I am researching several options at this time.

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post #46

This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about politics and religion.

I agree with you. Most of the people that I know (midwest USA) could never afford the cost of installation, let alone the cost of the panels. Also, solar has lower return as you go farther north, since the sunlight has lower intensity. This moves the pay back period out several years in many of the cases that I have seen.

I have said this at least a dozen times, but okay, I'll say it again.

Ground based solar has a couple of huge limitations. First of all, as has already been mentioned, it is terrifically expensive. The panels themselves are not cheap, and by the time you include all of the control electronics, the installed cost goes to around $12 per watt. The average house here in the US uses about 2Kw/hrs per day, so assuming 12 hours of sunlight average per day, this means that you need 167 watts of installed capacity, plus a significant bank of storage batteries. And, this is not taking into account the fact that the sun does not shine every singe day or for a full 12 hours.

Furthermore, consider that while solar flux at Earth orbit is about 1.4Kw/m², at Earth surface it is attenuated by a factor of 4, and this at the equator. At latitudes further north or south, it becomes considerably less. And then there is the efficiency of the panels themselves, which seldom go beyond 20% except in the most expensive units. Factor in weather and the diurnal cycle and the efficiency just gets worse.

The best way to do solar power is in orbit. With space-based solar power satellites, we can reasonably expect 12.6 kilowatt hours per square meter of installed capacity per day, versus 1.8 here at the surface, and no worries about weather or storage.

All well and good, but how to get that energy to the end-user?

Tom

Actually, power transmission via microwave is pretty well worked out, and the efficiencies work out to around 75%, which I factored into my numbers. Furthermore, microwave rectennae are small enough and unobtrusive enough as to be easily sited near any major city.

"The average house here in the US uses about 2Kw/hrs per day..."

Did you mean 20kW/hrs per day?

My own experience suggests about 2 kilowatt hours per day, though obviously this will vary. Al Gore on the other hand uses about 20.

In 2008, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,040 kWh, an average of 920 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual consumption at 15,624 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.

from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp

http://www.oe.energy.gov/information_center/faq.htm

More like 30 kWh/day

I stand corrected. However, looking at my latest electrical bill, I see that my six hundred square foot apartment averaged seven kilowatt hours per day last month. Of course I don't have a television, microwave oven or air conditioner, so I suppose that explains some of that.

I guess this must mean that Al Gore uses about 300 kilowatt hours per day.

You say, "i'm not a good salesman."

But it sounds as though you are an honest salesman.

And that you have correctly perceived the difference.

And now the challenge--you have to sell the difference!

GA for you but a couple of questions please -

What do you use for:

1) heating

2) cooking

3) hot water

4) well water or city

Battery limits are important

1) wood

2)LPG/ wood

3)Solar/LPG

4)spring fed gravity flow

For an all electric home the kWh/day consumption would be higher then.

Some of us are not allowed to burn wood.

In my location we have no natural gas and LPG is priced at road gas rates - close to 12 USD per gallon equivalent.

The well pump, water treatment system and delivery pump don't require much but in the summer it is about 5 kWh/day.

Al Gore uses a heck of a lot more than 20. To use only 2 you have a very spartan lifestyle with primairly gas energy use? The average in a report I am reading for an all electric home is 0.5 Kw per sq foot per month. For an 1800 sq foot home that would be 900 kWh/month or 30 kWh/day. That figure is for a good quality home.

Ummmm, no, I swear, 12 x 24, 2800 sf home, two 4 ton heat pumps plus the normal stuff. I am wondering what people on the east coast think is "spartan"?

Refridgerator, chest freezer, air and heat, washer/dryer. microwave, stove, dishwasher, hot water heater..........No problems. I can give you the info on the panels if you want, it is a company out of AZ I think, or at least the office that installed mine was. The main company may be out of CA.

I am fascinated that this is so difficult to believe, is there no one else on this site that uses alternative energy? I have been doing this since the 80's and it never occured to me that there were people who actually thought it did not work:)

Here is an interesting sub-story, in January of this year we had an unusal snow load for southern Utah/Northern Arizona, and the power was out for two days. Guess who had power and fed and warmed the neighbors:)

"The average house here in the US uses about 2Kw/hrs per day..."

Did you mean 20kW/hrs per day?

Did you mean 20 kWh?

I think you are right; in most cases 20kwh/day would be closer than 2kwh/day. You are also right in that there is no such reasonable unit as 2kw/h, let alone 2kw/h/day. Alas, most journalism does not know the difference.

I meant 20 kWh/day and corrected it in subsequent posts. Thank you.

It's 10.8kWh/d here (including an ultraviolet lamp on the private water supply that runs continuously) and the trend is downwards.

Are there any downward energy consumption trends in the US yet?

10.8 kWh/day to do what? Without a full description the number doesn't mean anything.

Some have gas for various functions

Some use LPG

Size of home matters greatly

1) 12 hours of sunlight per day? Where? 2)12 USD per watt? Try 6 or 7 today? 3) Solar flux in space you may have correct - the factor of 4 for land level flux is totally off base. The Japanese have a project to do this - we will see what happens.

Absolutely true, however..

This is where the average north american is wrong. You want the cheapest gasoline on the planet. You want the cheapest power, perhaps you need to see how the rest of the world lives and suck it up. You don't want to spend the money, yet you want your life to be pristine.

Not that I would want to interrupt a perfectly good slamming of renewable energy, but have any of you heard of batteries? My house runs fine (all 2800sf) 24 hours a day on solar energy. That includes the airconditioning on the Utah/Arizona border.

In addition to the above, I had solar panels on my boat to keep the batteries topped off. The biggest problem is that they have to face upward and they collect dust and bird poop. Frequent cleaning is essential.

And you have to leave the boat outside for them to work.

I now park the boat in my garage, so I have to leave the lights on all night to charge the batteries.

And therein lies the real problem.

It isn't so much that solar power is not effective as it is that someone may have to actually do something, like clean dust. As stated, I have solar power. It works, so stating that it is not practical is not acceptable. Not convienient, possibly, costly, yes, initially, but we all like math, so here is some.

Depending on the area of the country one lives in and how big and energy efficient their home is, we can use an average monthly electric bill of $250. That is $3000 a year. My system, after rebates and tax credits cost $10,800. Thus, at the end of 4 years, the system is paid for and I have no electric bill. Someone said earlier that the PV panels have a 4-5 year life. I beg to differ, I was using what by today's standards would be considered an archaic system (1985) that was working perfectly after 12 years when I sold my home in Alaska.

Admittedly, there are areas of the country where solar power is not an optimal solution, however, when combined with geothermal, wind and other non-polluting sources, there should never be a reason to burn another gram of fossil fuel in this country. This endeavour should have been started in the 70's, unfortunately too many politicians are owned by big energy.

The only limitations of renewable energy are the mindsets of our citizens.

"... there should never be a reason to burn another gram of fossil fuel in this country."

I rent my home. Should I demand that my landlord install non-fossil fuel energy? Should he be required to re-equip all his rental properties? Please note that they are a small family owned business where the husband works full time and the wife tries her best to keep up with the rental business while raising two kids. And I'm a senior who has no plans to again become a property owner.

I drive a motorcycle and a car (for when the weather doesn't permit me to safely drive my high-mileage bike), both gas fueled, and can not afford a high tech car that doesn't burn gas or a hybrid. Should I just quit driving?

And, are you including industry in your broad sweeping statement above? I admire your tenaciousness but you seem to be a tad short-sighted. It can take generations to make major changes to infrastructure. Not everybody is like you.

Hooker

PS - can you loan me $10,800 for my landlord? I would like that feel good feeling, too.

Agreed - The time for solar will only come when the cost come on down. The short payback (4 year) is only possible with rebates and incentives that themselves are not sustainable.

The rebates, ıncentives, subsidies, FITs and RECs only mean that others are paying part of your electricity bill.

Until there is grid storage to smooth out the peaks and valleys as well as to cover for periods when the sun does not shine (storms for example) solar or wind is not very helpful.

The rant about the oil companies owning congress is totally of base - a green thing with no basis in fact.

Oil will be with us for years to come!

And I'm one of those paying for those rebates, etc, through my income taxes. Which puts a double whammy on me.

Not only do the Feds and Greens make it hard for me to make more energy conscious buying decisions, they have the gall to take money from me to help others feel good about themselves, who can then rant at me because "I don't sacrifice enough and am ruining the ecology".

<Rant for the day off>

Hooker

Far as I'm concerned it was on topic.

It's actually not going to change things for you if the car fuel is bio or the power is from alternate energy (wind, methane) and solar re-pumped hydro.

Except that Sun and garbage fuel is cheaper than fossil, but the processing to meet the expectations of a National Grid performance takes a big parallel reinvestment which factors into price, redeploying the workforce and who then owns what.

"Jobs" is the mantra of fossil lobby the the alternate lobby has not yet countered.

But if America wishes to stay reliant on imported energy - which if supply fails, will plunge it into 3^rd world in quick time - rather than shift jobs to alternate infrastructure - it's a free choice.

It also requires more time than an elected tenure. So who is brave enough to start it, may find the 'short term pain' to afford it, a career killer. So their "best idea" is to 'subsidise it' up to a workable scale by stealth.

Unfortunately the sole effect to date, is the profit motive and red tape, adjusts the price up by the subsidy amount. Then China makes it cheaper, so your back to importing reliance - rather than building US Alternate Energy Industry (Jobs).

'Tis a vicious circle when all comes back to "what about me" - not "what about everyone in the society I am dependant on to live like this at all".

You can ignore "Climate" in this, and still see the logic flaw of being addicted to a finite resource verses an infinite resource.

The only reason to 'reject' the changeover is personal 'now' - and f*ck everyone else.

Otherwise known as "The Free Enterprise Economy"

Now don't take all this as aimed at your post.

A fair bit of it is driven by comments to date; like the extraordinary logic of "shade the Earth" to support the wasting of diminishing resources for profit - rather than properly use the arriving sustainable energy - because it dilutes 'ownership' of the 'fuel'.

Heh heh, I try not to take anything personally but I have to admit it's getting more difficult.

Especially since I read this morning that 4400 buyers of GM's upcoming Volt will also get free home charging stations worth somewhere between $1000US and $2000 US. Guess where that money is coming from; courtesy of a grant from the Department Of Energy.

Yet more of MY money going to help somebody else feel good and look down on me for driving gasoline powered vehicles. IMO, if someone can afford a Volt (I can't), then they can buy their own damn charging station.

Hooker

We cannot force green energy. Not only that, but in some places solar, for instance, is just not practical. Rental properties are different. However, if I may, more math:)

It cost "X" amount of money to build and operate the average coal powered power plant. The bill is going to be divided among the users. If there is one user, that user can pay 426 million a month, or there can be millions of users, all splitting the cost (including the billions payed to executives and lobbiest).

Thus, if 25-50 percent of the users leave the grid and convert to alternative energy, the remaining customers will have to pay exhorbitant energy bills, at which point, your landlord will be more than happy to convert his/her property, after you leave because you cannot afford a $1000 a month electric bill, and he/she cannot rent the property.

None of this is about "will it work", that is a done deal, it is all about money. Right now, the Oil and Coal industry have the contracts and the money, but it is changing, it will take time, but the Oil and Coal industry will inevitably go the way of the Payphone, Mimeograph machine and the widespread use of DDT to keep children safe from pest. They will fight to the death to keep their grip on humankind, but inevitably, like the dinosaur, they fade away.

Too many people know the truth. Even as I sit in my home with solar power, watching tv and operating my computers, people on this very site are proclaiming it just won't work. It is a common tactic in the corporate and political world, say something often enough and loud enough, true or not, and people will believe it.

I find it amusing that alledged "engineeers" cannot accept the "facts". Anyone who wants to stop by my house is more than welcome:)

Your installation is in one of the most favorable insolation regions in the world; no wonder your system works. But to extrapolate this situation to my location, one of the poorer insolation areas, would be a mistake. Solar would be almost a total dud here except for about one month a year. And worse yet, if you're in the forest, you might get only two hours of direct sun per day (unless you cut down lots of trees.)

This is a perfect instance of how anecdotal evidence is questionable.

I started out by stating that in some locations solar power was not practical. I also went on to state that solar (wind, etc) farms could be placed in prime locations and the energy transmitted via traditional transmission lines to less productive locations. You could be living in the back of a cave in the forest of northern Washington and still benefit from solar power

The purpose of my statements is not that every person in the country should invest in personal solar power installation, but rather to contradict the statements made by others that it does not work. It is a fact that it works, all of the rest is just window dressing. What makes it unrealistic is that this country has too much cheap energy and therefore lacks the political and civic will to make it nationally available.

All of that I totally agree with! Centralize generation - cheaper and more efficient even including line losses.

I can't keep getting trapped into do the reasearch for you guys. You have access to the post, read them. Russ in particular does not seem to think of it as a viable energy source. I never once said that it was "good" for everyone. I simply stated that it does indeed work.

On a more positive note, I see you live in KTN. I am from AK and will be in KTN 7/11-7/16. I will be arriving on the ferry. I am going to spend a couple of days out at sportsmans cove lodge (Mac and Peggy) fishing but the rest of the time I will be in town. Hit me up with a contact method and I will buy dinner.

I'm not sure who commented on 4-5 years lifespan of PVs, but they probably meant batteries. The industry standard for PVs are 80% output for 20 years. And there are many older than that still producing.

The real cost is the cost of fuel to overhaul the energy infrastructure. As you say, we should have started this in the 70's. Well, we didn't. Now what? The amount of oil (and other rare resources) required to make the shift from cheap fossil fuels to PVs (under current manufacturing techniques) or other "green" energy would bankrupt the last of the oil reserves. I'm not saying those individuals who can become energy-independent shouldn't, they should. But for me that is more about becoming untethered from the system of dependence created in the People's name than it is buying or selling one's conscience.

"Green" has become a marketing label more than anything representing real change at this point.

İf a solar panel does not have at least a 20 year guarantee for percentage of full output it should not be bought.

2 words: too costly.

On book, or off book DVader? Too costly for whom? Lead and sulphuric acid are right cheap really. Years ago here on this forum it was pointed out that German Companies had got control of the panel tech, and pushed the prices up. US had a lead and abdicated. Next turn around and China will sell the stuff stolen from all at half the price.

They don't care about air anyway. Bottled water took off when above air bomb tests in '84 and '85 put plutonium in NYC water reservoirs.

BP oil disaster, and solar is too costly?

Only limitation of Solar is that its cynically allowed to be crushed by entrenched competitors. All the alternatives to oil and coal are crushed by the entrenched competitors.

Really I used to think there was such a massive need for energy that all production was viable, and enough need to go around for the companies involved in producing energy.

I was swayed by BP commercials in magazines, and on TV to think well of them. Looked at their website. Had a project in Haiti. Gave them a call. They made the UN look good, and that's hard to do.

Dear experts,

Thanks a lot for clearing doubts.

Let us hopes one day will come that entire world will use solar energy with user friendly concept & affordable manners.

Those who are doing R&D on it let us give best wishes from all of us to make a history.

Once again thanks to all.

Here is all I can say. I use it, it works, the end. All of the math and science expoused on this site cannot alter the fact that I air condition and heat my home, while watching tv, drying clothes and microwaving some soup. To my knowledge, my home is not suffering any "power shortage" than the home 5 acres over that is on the grid. So, in summary, people can post all of the alleged "facts" and "figures" they want, I will just keep watching CNN Oil spill coverage and the Discovery Channel. (which I can do because I have solar electricity).

I have never once suffered a "power outage" and I have no utility bill. Admittedly, I live on the Utah/Arizona border, but, the technology exist to provide a solar and wind power grid. All you have to do is stop voting for congressmen and senators who line their pockets with oil and coal money.

Economics.

Treat coal, oil, gas and nuclear as long-term solar energy storage media!

I have seen many Solar Water Heaters installed in houses in Bangalore India. I understand it is compulsory for new houses in Bangalore to install Solar Water Heaters. Hot water is used for cooking and for taking bath in cold season.

if you do a search there is a bill in the us house right now for a few million installs as well as the money of 1.75 per watt. you will need to get some big ass lead batteries to store your power into as well most houses in canada and the USA use about 3.5KWH max but qa 10KW system is needed to have power over night. the limitations are the storage as for every 1 hour of draw it takes 5-6 hours to put it back and not warp or kill the batteries. life on a 5000 dollar battery pack is about 5 years as well most states do not have a feed in terrif as of yet ! this bill will give the base line and require all the local PUC to buy back the power at a min terriff rate.

10 KW of pannels on a roof is not a look i want on my house. as well there are new aditions comming out in solar ! i hear there is a Canadian company that is bring out a box that amplifies the power from a solar or a wind system this will give you more power then what regular panels have or can ever put out.

the other options are to just wait and see where in your backyard all the fuel rods will be placed from all the nukes. as well look at the coal and what it has been doing to the health of people living in the areas in and around the plants !

time to wake up and smell the its time for a change signs before its way to late !!!

Signed

Someone that is in the solar and wind industry

Without storage it is useless - not traditional batteries either but grid storage.

Whatever bill there is (probably by Malarkey & crew) is silly - passing out money to dump in a commode.

The FIT is again a dream - as long as only a few use such a thing it is OK and solar penetration is something like 0.5% at present. At 5% the big problems start - uncontrolled generation that does not fit the needs at any moment.

Making the PUC buy the kW generated is simply stealing from the overall population to give to those that have the solar systems.

Your statement about 5-6 hours to make up 1 hour of use from batteries is not correct. What house uses 3.5 kWh? per hour? per day? per year?

The statement about nuclear power plant fuel rods makes no sense what so ever

If you are in the solar industry it must be as a day laborer with an installer! Your use of English rules out your being an engineer.

http://green.venturebeat.com/2010/04/13/from-the-inevitability-dept-dow-debuts-solar-shingles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+venturebeat-cleantech+%28VentureBeat+%C2%BB+CleanTech%29

from globespec

The shingles themselves are pretty pricey, covering 4 square feet and carrying a price tag of $40 each after government subsidies

Some places do not have so much sunlight like Norway in the winter.

Solar panels are expensive for quality and the storage batteries are even more expensive for quality 2 volt cells then there is the cabling and inverters and not everyone can afford this price.

There is not many disadvantages or limitations I think I am correct in saying the Iberian Peninsula has the largest solar farms in Europe.

Israel I think has some brilliant ideas with parabolic lenses and steam driven solar systems.

You just need the sun to be shining.

Solar panels would not be so good in strong wind areas for large scale generation but you can use a different method for your environment.

I think any limitations are in the humans...disadvantages can possibly the cost of the commercially available systems and the pollution to make and deliver the products.

Hopefully I will invent a brilliant cheap system and get the worldwide patent before anyone else.

Hope that is the answer you look for.

True, it is a promising alternative source of electrical energy. But it has serious limitations which we have not been able to overcome so far. For example, limitations are:

1) Needs huge space for installation of collectors.

2) Solar enrgy under the present technical know-how is basically used in charging the batteries which are then used to operate electrical appliances like solar lanterns etc. There is no direct conversion of solar energy into electrical energy on a larger scale. This basic fact has made it techno-economically unviable for harnessing or for an ordianry consumer to use it.

3) The batteries used have to be replaced after 3-4 years which is a costly affair.

Till there is breakthrough in technology of collection and conversion of solar energy, it will remain a pipe dream.

BB Raina

I am not real sure where this information comes from but here is all I have been saying.....now try not to just ignore this, which is what seems to be happening.

I have 2, 12 x24 foot collectors. They are all in series and go to an inverter, which converts the electrical flow from DC to AC. I do not have "solar lanterns" and would not know one if somebody threw it at me. I have a "normal" home. It is complete with every normal appliance that everyone else has. I do not have electrical problems. I do not "run out of energy". I may be mistaken, but I believe that the average rooftop is larger than 12 x 24, or 288sf.

This is not for everyone, all I am saying is this.....there is no reason to be plugged into a coal burning power plant if you live in a part of the country that gets anywhere near normal sunlight.

Here is the important part, if the solar/wind farms were situated in areas with extreme sunlight/wind, why would that power not be transmitted via the power grid to other areas that do not enjoy the resource?

Most people are not aware of the fact that the majority of their power comes from places literally hundreds of miles away. Right Cleveland, New York, Boston, DC, etc?

Thus, why could we not have huge solar and wind farms in TX, NM, AZ, UT, CA, WY etc, and transmit the power to other locations? 2 reasons.....the oil and coal lobby will not allow it and.......whiners claim it is "unsightly". Know what else is unsightly, my personal playground of Prince William Sound in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez. Want to see something else unsightly, go to CNN.COM and watch the live feed of millions of gallons of oil spewing into the ocean. Very unsightly.

So basically the question is not whether it works, it works at my house. The question is how much do people love the oil and coal industry and thrive on them.

Final thought, talk about split personalities, while the people of Louisiana are screaming about environmental impact and reparations, they are also screaming that Obama is ruining their livlihoods with a deep well moratoriam. Make up your minds, either the oil companies are ruining your life, or they are your friend. I don't care about these people's jobs, they danced with satan and they are paying the price. Either get on board with the new program, or fall by the wayside.

I will try. There are a total of 48 panels which are set up in such a way as to form 2 solid collectors of 12x24 feet. They are not on my roof they are set up in a metal grid frame on my property (I have a few acres). They are set up so that the cumulative yeild from each individual panel is collected at one point and run to the inverter.

This is pretty much the limit of my technical knowledge. I did not design, build or install the system. The system was installed concurently with the building of the house. The builder sub-contracted the system installation to a contractor out of Arizona but the actual hardware came from a company in California.

There is a battery bank and a swiching unit. When the system is providing more energy than I am using, the unit directs the excess to charge the batteries. As required by law, the local utility must purchase the excess power, so if the batteries are fully charged, the excess power is directed to the grid though a seperate meter.

There is a seperate switch (also required by law) that cuts the access to the utility grid for safety purposes when the utility company is doing maintainance on it's equipment.

During emergencies, I have the option of switching to grid power. In three years, that has rarely been needed. The local power co-op gets very excited when I have to do that:) I wish I could provide you with more scientific and mathmatical data but that is the great thing about the system, I did not have to go to school and get a degree in electical engineering to have it. Just as you do not have to have knowledge of the inner working of the generators or other mechanisms of your grid power plant to flick a light swich, neither do I. All I know is that when I flick the swich, the lights come on.

As for juvenile political rants, this entire discussion, when boiled down to the core, is entirely about politics. It all boils down to people who are pro alternative energy and people who are pro fossil fuels. What is truely juvenile is claiming that "it does not work". The fact that you can read this post is a testament to the fact that it does.

Thus, all I am trying to point out in this discussion is that the systems work. It is now up to each individual to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use them. You could come to my house every day for the rest of your life and if you never saw the collector grid out back, you would never know the difference between my electricity and anyone elses.

You bought something and it works - The battery storage on a grid tied system shows that the contractor/supplier ran the bill up as much as possible. It is much cheaper and easier in the long run to have grid tie with a small generator as backup. Those batteries require some small constant maintenance or you will be replacing them early at considerable cost. Everyone here knows that PV works - that is no question. What is in question is the viability of these systems. You obviously have pockets full of gold to go out and buy something that expensive on faith - you got semi lucky (battery back). Your system is being partially paid for by everyone that takes power from your utility. İt is also being paid for by every tax payer - probably state and fereral. Battery storage is inefficient (you are operating at maybe 50% efficiency), expensive and really something that most people would not want. Grid tie with a generator is far more efficient.

I can see that this discussion is moot. You obviously have your mind made up about renewable energy. 2 things. Guess who gets massive government subsidies? Yes, public utilities. Also, everything requires maintainance. I have a generator. The initial cost for one of any size is exhorbitant (they have one on sale at Home Depot that will run the essentials of your home. I forgot what KW rating, I want to say 4KW but I am not sure, I do know that it is $6900) The small one I have will only run 4 110volt appliances and I am not sure that it will run them all at the same time, depending on the amperage. What I do know is that every moment it runs it requires oil and fuel. After a few hours it requires maintainance.

So you see, everything cost. It just depends on what you want to spend your money on. I notice that the general perception is that it is perfectly fine for the Utility company to send you a monthly bill demanding money for energy produced, yet when I produce it and sell it to the utility company, I am ripping off users.

Here is something I bet you did not know.

The regional power co-op buys KWHs from facilities that produce it. One of the major producers in this area is the Glen Canyon Dam at Lake Powell. Now these figures are not exact but can be used for example. The local power co-op may buy 1 KWH for 2 cents, then they resale it to the end user (you) for 12 cents, that is how they make money, but important to me is the fact that they only have to buy my power at the same rate they buy it from the other producers, IE. 2 cent per KWH, then, they sell it to my neighbor for 12 cents. So who is ripping off who here? Why would my neighbor care if his power comes from GCD or my solar collectors? The price is exactly the same.

No kidding, the local utilities buy the power from someone else? They have the infrastructure to deliver it - and they make a profit? Gee! They are regulated in most states with fixed margins for one thing. They also pay high amounts per mW at peak times when they have to buy off the market.

I doubt there is a 10 USD per mW price anywhere. İf so it is in the middle of the night when there is no market. Most of their power will be at least in the 30 USD/mW range and up.

Your battery bank cost you multiples of the cost of an equivalent generator - you can be sure of that. Maintenance on a generator is low and every few hundreds of hours

Someone sold you a system for some nice tidy sum and you are busy justifying it to yourself an everyone else - fine! Just don't expect very many to jump on your band wagon.

IMO, the discussion isn't moot. It's interesting, even if you do accuse the rest of us of being pro big energy just because we try to point out where some of us don't have the same opportunities to convert like you did.

Anyway, could you clear up something you wrote for me, please? You imply that your area is serviced by an electric co-op and that the co-op is gouging its customers. If so, then it would seem to me that your electricity provider is not a "co-op". The co-ops I've belonged to were owned by the consumers and were chartered non-profits. How can your "co-op" make such an exorbitant profit as you describe?

Link to the national co-op website. <-- explains how co-ops operate

Hooker

Again, I am not "accusing" anyone of anything. What I am saying is that I don't understand why anyone would claim solar power either does not work or is impractical. All I am trying to get across is that it does work and it is not as expensive as you think once you look at your electric bill and tax rebates.

I don't know if the local power company is a "co-op" or not, that may be the wrong word, they are called Garkane Energy, you can google them. I also don't know if they are "price gouging" and never said they were, what I was saying is that they mark up the KWHs they buy from the producers of the power, that includes whatever tiny trickle they get from me. So what I said was, that if someone is going to accuse me making others pay more for electricity just because I went solar, then you also have to say the same thing about Glen Canyon Dam and any coal burning power plant.

In summary, I don't care where people buy their power or if they even use electricity, just as long as the facts are correct. The facts are solar, along with wind, geothermal and other renewable clean energy options are a viable alternative to burning fossil fuels. That is my only point. I am pretty sure that when america started building a national power grid people thought it was expensive. They probably said the same thing about the interstate hwy system and I can only imagine the discussions about the audacity of attempting to build a machine that could fly through the air.

Yes, converting this nation to clean alternative energy would be very expensive. Yes some people would be upset looking at wind turbines and solar farms (but they would get used to it, just like they now have to look at oil wells). Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? Absolutely, but not in our lifetimes, there is too much opposition to change.

Glen Canyon Dam and any coal burning power plant supply power as ordered by the utility - home PV setups supply it whenever. There is not that much PV out there to make a difference right now so OK - but it is a 'wild' supply they cannot depend on. It is worth substantially less to the utility.

When I complain about feed in rates - some places have very high feed in tariffs to 'encourage' RE setups. In the UK they just came out with something like 60 US cents. Germany and Spain led the way on this part of the whole mess.

I have no qualms about receiving what one pays really even though it is selling a wholesale product at your leisure for retail price.

Solar and wind are NOT viable alternatives to traditional power plants today and will not be until they can supply 'baseline' power rather than undependable intermittent power. Don't compare this to the Wright Bros. - that is a nice 'green' but invalid comparison.

Opposition to change will go away rapidly when the technology is available and cost effective - pure and simple.

Engineering is not wishing and hoping but working with facts. Greens all to often start with the wishing and hoping forgetting all about facts.

new panels increased efficiency

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617143930.htm

Available in 2050 or thereabouts.

They are making progress but like any lab item it takes years and many millions to get new tech to market. Many (maybe in the 90% plus range) fail along the way due to minor overlooked problems.

Solar power has no limitations...it is just the humans that have this limitation.

Why is everyone talking about solar voltaic panels...you said solar power.

lots of ways to convert this energy.

parabolic reflectors and steam powered generators....easy.