Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.
As Denny pointed out, the only way it might save people money is because it is being drastically subsidized by the government. Which agrees with my point: Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.
Well fortunately it's saving me money. I am going to take advantage of the liberals that want to save some trees! Go me!!!!
One aspect that really gets overlooked with solar is the iteration cycle. Innovation in coal or hydroelectric or gas takes a while, as the plants are large and expensive to build. Upgrading them after completion is a major undertaking. In addition, they operate within confined geographic areas with limited competition, so often there isn't much incentive to innovate. With solar, on the other hand, there are a number of players in the field, they all have basically the same goal (drive down cost per watt), and an innovation in one market can quickly be applied to another market. It's that ramped-up innovation cycle that has been a huge driver in the decreasing costs (from $76/watt in 1976 to as low as $.74/watt in 2013) over the years.
Not trying to start anything with you but your statement is a little vague. Can you provide some more detail and facts? A couple of things come to mind but I am not an expert in these things. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized and not one nuclear power plant in the US has ever turned a profit. Oil is subsidized via tax credits. Are you talking about where the solar panel industry stands at today for forever? Seems like improvements in technology and manufacturing will make solar panels cheaper and more efficient. No don't get me wrong, living in Portland we have had 3 different solar panel manufacturing businesses get paid tens of millions of dollars by the state to come here and set up shop only to go tits up within a few years. Total bullshit. But I also realize that there were over 1,800 automobile manufacturers in the United States from 1896 to 1930 with the vast majority going out of business but that doesn't mean the automobile industry didn't or doesn't work.
Let's think about this logically from a physics perspective, that so many solar advocates want to ignore. Energy sources found on Earth ultimately come from the sun. There is an approximately constant amount of energy coming from the sun. You have to decide if you want to make a trade-off of time or space when choosing the energy source. In the case of fossil fuels, they are dense and take very little space, but take a LONG time to be produced. In the case of solar, you have to have a LOT of space to meet your energy demands. There isn't some magical creation of energy that solar is providing. When you take into account it's lack of efficiency, it just isn't a great long-term solution for our energy needs.
I disagree. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/int...ip-are-tiny-but-mighty/11347?tag=search-river The technology is getting much more efficient. In my area, they are building parking garages that have the panels on the top. With Solar, there is no sound or pollution. It's actually starting to become fashionable and pleasing to the eye, seeing these systems covering cars. Also, there is developing technology by using windows as a solar cell. High rises can become farms. Commerce areas can produce large amounts of energy without polluting the largely populated areas.
Here is another company that created 30 cent per watt, which is cheaper than burning coal. http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/
You can disagree all you want, but I'm still right. Solar technology isn't magically defying physics. And where do you think all of this energy that is being captured by all these "high rises becoming farms" is going to go?
Pretty simple.... Back to the heavily populated areas. They consume enough to buy that energy. And I just gave you two links that explain that the current systems are only collecting 30% of the actual solar energy. The newest system is collecting 40%. When the demand goes up, manufactures will produce them for a less price, reducing the cost of the cells. So in the end, the panels will be cheaper and easier to install. A coal power plant takes years to build. You can build a gigawatt powerplant in less than a year.
These links seem to dispute your statements about oil subsidies and nuclear plant profits... http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbl...tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/ http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/nuclear-power-profits/2450
Sorry, you're missing the point. If solar is used to absorb enough energy to provide our energy demand, the by product of "using" that energy has to go somewhere. For example, if you use 500 watts to power your computer, almost 500 watts of unusable power (heat) has to be rejected somewhere. It has nothing to do with whether or not "heavily populated areas will consume it".
Wikipedia says, Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 20.1% in new commercial products[3] typically lower than the efficiencies of their cells in isolation. The most efficient mass-produced solar panels[disputed – discuss] have energy density values of up to 16.22 W/ft2 (175 W/m2).[4] [edit]
No, they really don't dispute anything SPD posted. They actually support what he posted, but attempt to justify it by lumping other subsidized industries with them. All big business in America is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
No, they're not. A baseball team is subsidized when the city pays for the ballpark. But if the team pays 99% of its income to taxes, the remaining 1% is no subsidy. Rather the 99% is theft.
