Solar panels based on silicon efficiency won't be greater than 50%

Efficiency doesn't mean a whole lot for solar. When I say efficiency here I mean "percentage of solar flux converted to electrical power". As solar advocates never tire of pointing out, the total amount of power that falls to earth as sunlight in one day could power today's civilization for a thousand years or whatever.

No, what's really important for solar is cost efficiency, not photo-electric efficiency. The answer: printing solar cells like newspapers. They aren't very efficient, but who cares, they're cheap. Konarka and Nanosolar are two examples. I really don't think their technology will displace coal or natural gas power as the backbone of industrial power. But they'll do a nice job of counteracting my a/c bill in the summer when the sun comes out.


This is the real question, how do we get the cost of panels to come down. 50% of light being converted to electricity is plenty if the cost of the panels is low enough.

With legislation requiring all new buildings to produce a percentage of that building's total usage, say 10 %, we would create a large market for solar panels. Competition would drive the price down to the point that people would begin installing PV panels on their homes because the pay back period would only be a couple years and there after they would actually make money.

There would also have to requirments on electrical providers to install two way metering upon request.

This would be a way to bring PV power on line quickly.
 
Efficiency doesn't mean a whole lot for solar. When I say efficiency here I mean "percentage of solar flux converted to electrical power". As solar advocates never tire of pointing out, the total amount of power that falls to earth as sunlight in one day could power today's civilization for a thousand years or whatever.

No, what's really important for solar is cost efficiency, not photo-electric efficiency. The answer: printing solar cells like newspapers. They aren't very efficient, but who cares, they're cheap. Konarka and Nanosolar are two examples. I really don't think their technology will displace coal or natural gas power as the backbone of industrial power. But they'll do a nice job of counteracting my a/c bill in the summer when the sun comes out.


Your exactly right. It is about cost efficiency. Look at the losses associated with centralized coal power. So much is lost over the transmission lines but, so what? It's cheap. Solar has it's place as does wind, hydrogen, etc. Presently, there doesn't look like there is a singel answer but then, has there ever been?
 
This is one of the best aspects of a broad based PV system. If thousands of users also become producers, the production will be very close to the point of use.

The other point on this is that much of the increased production capacity would be privately funded by individuals using their own initiative after the first phase.
 
And in our free country based on liberty.. if someone CHOOSES not to have solar panels... your gestapo of totalitarian socialist enviro-nazi control control will do what?

wow, ive never seen so many "fear" words used at once. congrats
 
Advocating nuclear power is simply irresponible. We have a duty to future generations not to leave behind extremely dangerous waste, which will remain extremely dangerous thousands of years.

"Storing" it in a hole in the ground is no answer. Who can say with certainty that the storage casks will last for more time than the pyramids have been around?

Even if you don't care a wit about you children or their children, why would you want to pay way to much for energy? The true cost of nuclear power is way higher than wind genterated power. The only reason companies invested in nuclear plants is because the government subsidizes the cost of mining and refining the fuel and the cost of storage.

Finally, if people insist on this foolishness let them store the waste in their own backyards.
 

Forum List

Back
Top