Solar PV Panels Increasingly Unreliable

Some things die hard.

This shouldn't surprise many as the current silicon solar panel market is totally unsustainable without government subsidies, etc. Like the internet stock boom and bust, the unsustainable bubble started to burst a while ago.

Silicon solar NEVER was a green alternative to fossil fuels and unfortunately its fall from an over-hyped image and government subsidy schemes hiding the true costs from the consumer will tarnish the image of cheaper and more efficient solar technologies currently under development that may one day become our primary Green alternative.

For anyone interested see the numerous previous threads and discussions on CR4 regarding silicon solar panels, real material and energy costs, etc.

_{Jack - And yes I design and sell solar solutions as well.}

Yep, and Germany may come to regret this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/germany-renewable-energy-electricity

I deal a lot with Germany and have visited a few times on business. I am also a little concerned, although they appear to have the money necessary to sustain the more expensive solar solution (as long as other countries don't all try the same thing and the solar economy collapses in on itself like a house of cards).

In the end it will be the consumer that has to foot the bill.

Perhaps sooner rather than later...

"$110 billion for solar may postpone global warming by 37 hours this century!

According to Danish professor and best-selling environmental author Bjorn Lomborg, the German and Danish experiments that are being so highly touted as successful showpieces are instead unmitigated disasters. Lomborg stated on John Stossel's television show on March 29, 2012 that Germany's colossal expenditure on solar energy, for instance, will have virtually zero impact on global warming, the ostensible reason for which the country is "investing" huge sums. "The Germans are spending about $110 billion on subsidies for these solar panels," Lomborg noted. "The net effect of all those investments will be to postpone global warming by 37 hours by the end of the century."

New Zealand climate blogger Jo Nova has provided extensive analysis of the German energy debacle in this posting: "The Chaos of German 'Renewable' Energy."

Concerns over Germany's radical energy policies have been building for months, as the costs have become more and more evident. In an article last July entitled, "Doubts Rising over German Switch to Renewables," Der Spiegel, one of Germany's largest publications, reported on the growing alarm:"...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/15502-tna-online-german-firms-flee-to-us-to-avoid-merkel-s-staggering-green-energy-costs

What we are overlooking here is that both solar and wind do not consume either a renewable or non renewable fuel- both the air and sun are free- yes the units cost but so does nuclear, coal and gas and all of these have obvious drawbacks such as pollution, undesirable by products or material costs and significant maintainance- both sectors need transmission lines so that is a saw off,. There is a tendency to try to isolate these technologies , usually in the Nimby front but realistically they can and do fill a needed gap and while as the esteemed professor noted they may not contribute to reducing the pollution hugely, any gain is a win- it is like one life saved should justify a cure

I do not think that solar energy is the best of the regenerative energy sources.

Would you care to "share" the manufacturers name? You make a good recommender for them.

A container is 600 panels. Still interested?

Which brand, I believe, was the question….quantity not withstanding…How the Kyoceras still stacking up? I am in need of a 140 watt panel for battery maintenance ….

They'll do just fine. Make sure you have a good regulator too to not overcharge your battery.

What I would like to see, statistically, is the REAL cost of manufacturing, from raw material to end use of an Energy source. That would include drilling, extraction, refining, and combustion of Carbon-based energy sources, and the same figures for the construction of solar panels, of various types (How much to grow, extract and construct Silicon ), etc. I would also include Nuclear, wind, hybrid electrical such as wave and ocean current power. Total power output and Efficiency of these systems would be included, and also the cost of disposal of the byproducts of said systems. The Environmental costs, as mentioned, are hidden down the line, but they should be available for extrapolation. For example, what is the true cost of a , say, Prius car, with Hybrid/battery construction, and toxic chemical disposal, versus a regular car? Versus an all-electric car (Tesla, Insight) etc.? No one wants to gore the horse they are riding (Look at the Computer electronics and related pollution), but since everyone uses them, don't look inward--Point out the OTHER guys' technology as being "dirty", inefficient etc. Any way to bring all of this to a spreadsheet? Or, is it too vague, apples to oranges thinking? I am thinking not, but I don not profess to be able to link it all together. I am sure there are many who are trying, and I would like to see the data.

This "total cost" approach is used, if not rigidly adhered to by most Canadian Regulatory Boards(at least those who actually do math) and sometimes even by the Utilities themselves (smile). Now, if you want to discuss "hidden subsidies" and include these, well first you have to identify those....and do a "total cost" analysis of those subsidized elements too.

Otherwise you get phoney baloney in layers like an onion.

On the occassions when I have run into this approach, I have seen "estimates" for a lot of the elements. Some information is simply private.

That's easy enough to do, it's what is being used to add generating capacity at the time....minus all the ones that are being subsidized and the pilot projects....right now it's natural gas turbine generators running at last check $.05 per kw, and leading the pack....Follow the money that's being spent, and you'll find the cheapest current solution....as far as total cost, that is clearly nuclear energy when the health and safety of the nation is taken into account....it has the least deaths attributed and follows closely at between $.06 and .09 per kw....

This hoax and conspiracy mongering crowd, like jack of all trades, has no data whatsoever to support his position

Ha, that's the direct opposite of what I am.

I am not going to go into it as I disagree with more than half of what you have just said (especially when evaluating the total solar system), so that discussion would likely turn into an unproductive argument with a (dedicated solar supplier representative?) who is likely not interested in the facts. <cringe>

See numerous previous threads on CR4 by myself and others. As this is your opinion against mine it will be up to the readers to decide or perform their own analysis for themselves.

_{Jack - It always comes down to money doesn't it.}

Which parts do you disagree with, and why. I am anxiously awaiting your analysis.

That PV systems are robust? We monitor performance. There are no moving parts. They seamlessly work to reduce base loads, and the more grid tied systems we get, the easier it is to maximize usefulness in a smart grid. The larger the systems, the better the results.

That PV panel testing and manufacturing is now at its zenith, with very few defects, and is having it's third year of product cost reductions in excess of 30%. That's how subsidies are supposed to work. Now, I'll be right next to you in line yelling if we have solar subsidies in three years, like coal and oil do 80 years after they started. Warranty coverage is almost universal at 25 years.

that 40 GW (that's billions of watts of daytime peak production) will be installed in 80 countries in 2014. Can you believe the scope of this global hoax?

That the idea that this represents a realistic opportunity to displace 10-15 % of the total electricity demand in addition to wind, wave, hydro, NatGas ,nuclear and several other technologies that will be required to maintain a plentiful base and peak supply, which is essential to a growth economy, while dramatically reducing both greenhouse and noxious emissions, so that we can have a sustainable human and socioeconomic environment.

That when people, business, governments build systems, they usually simultaneously reduce demand. They do this because they win again. We council many more people on how to reduce demand than the number of projects we build.

While I agree solar has its place and solar technology is developing, existing silicon solar panel production (while reliable and low maintenance) uses more energy and resources to manufacture than it will ever produce over its lifetime when considered as part of an overall system (solar panels, inverter, etc) when compared to existing grid power solutions (gas, coal, nuclear).

Have a look at previous threads on CR4 as myself and others have gone in to it in detail.

Given your comments regarding the unreliability of the existing power grid as an argument for solar panels leads me to believe you are talking about solar panels for individual homes and businesses rather than large utility solar farms.

_{Jack - A solar system solution designer}

Panel of $240.00 in 2008 is now $70.00 for same panel and better quality now.

Down in excess of 30% is a very weak statement.

It was very tough time for solar industry in China.. Now it as started to gain back in strength and hope we will get better panels at cheaper rates..