Solar energy is alternate source for electricity. Why still every place, every house is not using all over the world? Is it having disadvantages or having some limitation.
White Cliffs, an opal mining town in the desert, had a solar/thermal station installed many years ago.
It was closed down, I think because of the expense of maintaining it.
The location was perfect for solar thermal.
I believe solar thermal has a good future in the right locations, for community and grid power.
Solar cells are good for the individual household type of installation.
The main disadvantage of both is currently the cost per kw (unless heavily subsidized).
Short term subsidies are fine if they lead to sufficient scale of production to bring the cost down to competitive with coal etc, but subsidies tend to somewhat stifle research by reducing the impetus to develop more economical methods.
Another disadvantage to both solar systems when installed on a large scale supplying their surplus to the grid is that it is difficult to retain grid stability when more than 20% or so is provided by solar.
Similar problems occur with large percentages of wind and tidal power or any mix of alternative energy. As the sources are diversified, a larger percentage of the grid can be fed, but the lack of control over time of availability of power is the limiting factor.
A mix of base load (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydro etc) is needed and it would be desirable for alternative energy (solar, tidal, wind, wave etc) to fill some 20-30% of the eventual mix.
It would be difficult to accommodate much more than that, unless there is a major break through in large scale, efficient, economical energy storage. If that is achieved, then the entire grid could be fed from a mix of alternative energy sources, with the storage providing the stability the grid needs. (I think suitable storage - except for pumped hydro - is a long way off. Pumped hydro always runs into massive green objections and consequently becomes very expensive.)
I don't have any strong opinions on the matter, but I think it's worth noting; the "subsidized" installations you are pointing out serve a great number of people/families/industries, vs the ONE that benefits from a residential solar install. I see quite a bit of difference there.
You are actually right. But, my point is that as with any new type of industry, there should be incentives. Gone are the days when ole Henry coughed up $100 and built a car in his shed, thus beginning an empire. I wish it could still be that way, but alas, it cannot. For example, I give you the eastern river system. They are totally controlled with locks and dams. Now really, can you see yourself, or anyone else for that matter, today, going up to the US congress and trying to pitch a lock system on the entire Ohio River? "Well sir, what we need to do is drop tons of concrete, then build a gate we can raise and lower, then pump out water thus lowering the vessel and or barge. No really, it will be great." Good luck with that today. That is why with today's government and population mentality, nothing new ever happens. The last major feat of americans was the interstate system, and it is falling apart.
Not that I am trying to be negative, but the entire reason that multiple people on this site denounce renewable energy is because of cost. And I have to ask, what did they think it was going to cost when the first pole was placed in the ground for fossil fuel energy? We could do it then, but we are not the same country (populationwise) that we were then. Now, all we do is look for reasons "why it cannot be done". Our grandparents only ask "when and how fast can we do it".
I think the fact that "We could do it then" (ignoring future consequences) is responsible for most of the mess of today.
Had Henry invented the PV panel and Thomas not used coal and steam, but "invented" solar re-pumped hydro ....
Had Rudolph's engine run on peanut oil (as designed) and not been 'swayed over' to "cheap distillate"....
But it's all "spilt milk". (or leaking oil)
Sure, it is nigh impossible to get out of it - when you get parochial stances and vested interests constantly guarding their greed based turf, resentful and suspicious of any 'advantage' to others than themselves.
But "education" is the main failing here. The technology has existed for decades. It's all 'solar', just one set is older and it's release is 'over energizing the biosphere'.
The "choices" and "consequences" are not being made clear to 'commerce' or 'greens' or 'the man in the street'.
Note if you will, the resistance to dams prevents mass power storage and promotes fossil powered desalination.
No camp of lemmings wants change that might advantage another.
Or the difference between 'back then' and now is "Fox News".
__________________
There is no sin except stupidity. (Oscar Wilde, Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900))
Yes, there is a difference. I got an $8000 tax break, vs the billions these installations were given. If you divide the number of end users by the billions in subsidies, I think you will find that I got the short end of the stick:)
Again, we are sort of off topic. The question is not whether I personally recieved a tax break, the question is will it work and allow enough power to be generated? I believe that Russ and a couple of others may have hit on a disadvantage of power loss over distance. I do not know the figures on this but I can see how you would loose a fair amount over long distances.
Well, I got off the ferry this morning and am going to visit Tornado and his wife in Ketchikan. No solar here today:)
Solar Energy Disadvantages & Limitation
Re: Solar Energy Disadvantages & Limitation
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: