Solar power: why hasn't this improved

[rightwinger]

Don't worry....the Chinese are working on solving the problems with solar energy while we Drill...baby...drill

 

[flacaltenn]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Negatory Captain Science.. The development curve for silicon based PV panels has crested years ago.. It's had over 30 years of intense development to push the margins back. And as with MOST tech curves, they poop out as they approach theoretical maximums..

Pushing concentrator photovoltaic efficiency to the limit | SPIE Newsroom: SPIE

Photovoltaic technology has become commoditized, and the market for crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels is growing while prices have fallen dramatically. The efficiencies of single-junction silicon solar cells, however, are currently close to their limit, as shown by the very slow upward trend of the record value for monocrystalline silicon cells over the last decade.

Physics ultimately limits the efficiency of single-junction silicon cells to no higher than 30–33% when irradiated by unconcentrated sunlight, and manufacturing a solar cell that achieves 75% of this in practice is challenging. Multicrystalline solar cells are in a similar position, and their record efficiency of 20.4% has remained unchanged for seven years. Once cells are incorporated into utility-scale systems, their output is reduced further through electrical, optical, and thermal losses.

SPIE BTW is the Soc. for Photo-optical and Instrumentation Engineers. I've given several papers at their conferences. Not a Repub site for you source Nazis...

So Captain Science -- why don't you go do what you do best before you hurt yourself?

I already stated that we COULD get closer to the efficiency limit if we started mining TONS of Arsenic or used GOLD instead instead of tin/lead. But any ole thing that can be engineered is NOT a viable product. It has to be manufacturable and fieldable WITHOUT relying on huge chunks of platinum or several ounces of hummingbird hearts to function.

 

[jillian]

Gee someone digressing this into political BS, what a surprise, never saw that before on this site. You go wingnut.

you're a braindead hack.

 

[jillian]

This is not about politics, it is about free enterprise. People don't want to use solar power because it is expensive and inefficient. Fox those two things and solar power will be the vogue. Government is not suposed to fix things, it is to provide for the common defense, every thing else it does is mess up. If the gov took over the beer industry a 6 pack would cost $50 in a month.

it is your "political" opinion that it is about "free enterprise".

if you think it isn't also about politics, then you don't even understand that your post is pure dogma.

oh...and as for your nonsense about what government isn't supposed to do...

i'd suggest you actually learn something. it will do you good. so why don't you actually try reading the cases on the general welfare clause.

who says government isn't "supposed" to fix things. i know randian idiots like saying that, but it's simply a lie. what you mean to say if you want to be honest, is that YOU do not believe, philosophically, that government is supposed to fix things.

it would be an equally wrongminded opinion, but at least you would be honest.

 

[bill5]

Gee someone digressing this into political BS, what a surprise, never saw that before on this site. You go wingnut.

you're a braindead hack.

As opposed to the rocket scientist you obviously are, evidenced by that witty comeback. I can't decide which one is more brilliant: that one or this one that you sent to me with your little negative rep thing:

"looohoooohoooohooooser."

Einstein would be proud.

lol

Pardon me, I have to go cry in my pillow about getting a negative rep. *sniffle* Right after I add you to my ignore list that is.

 

[zonly1]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Liberals think if you throw money at a project it all of sudden creates demand. If the plan doesn't work, they blame republicans for their lack of foresight and market intuition claiming a victim status(wasn't so shovel ready as we thought) when in reality markets determine success or failures. Liberals don't understand the concept of low cost producer and that is why solyndra failed. It failed to meet that criteria and lost the race, filing for bankruptcy.

 

[zonly1]

This is not about politics, it is about free enterprise. People don't want to use solar power because it is expensive and inefficient. Fox those two things and solar power will be the vogue. Government is not suposed to fix things, it is to provide for the common defense, every thing else it does is mess up. If the gov took over the beer industry a 6 pack would cost $50 in a month.

it is your "political" opinion that it is about "free enterprise".

if you think it isn't also about politics, then you don't even understand that your post is pure dogma.

oh...and as for your nonsense about what government isn't supposed to do...

i'd suggest you actually learn something. it will do you good. so why don't you actually try reading the cases on the general welfare clause.

who says government isn't "supposed" to fix things. i know randian idiots like saying that, but it's simply a lie. what you mean to say if you want to be honest, is that YOU do not believe, philosophically, that government is supposed to fix things.

it would be an equally wrongminded opinion, but at least you would be honest.

and gov't can not create demand nor should it be in the business of creating market winners or market losers hence the solyndra case.

 

[rightwinger]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Liberals think if you throw money at a project it all of sudden creates demand. If the plan doesn't work, they blame republicans for their lack of foresight and market intuition claiming a victim status(wasn't so shovel ready as we thought) when in reality markets determine success or failures. Liberals don't understand the concept of low cost producer and that is why solyndra failed. It failed to meet that criteria and lost the race, filing for bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, other countries with government support, will develop the latest and greatest in solar and other energy technologies

But who cares? We got drill, baby, drill

Then republicans will complain about technology jobs going overseas

 

[asterism]

I remember them talking about this and it even getting a little "trendy" in the 70s. 30-40+ yrs later and it's still a fringe source of power at most. What the hell? There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to make this cost-effective yet? ??

Good question.

Perhaps it is not really as cost effective as we'd like to hope?

The most cost effective solar panels known to man are plants.

Sadly turning plant output from solar into energy to run our complex world isn't very efficient either. Not at least in comparison to the plant created solar energy we get from hydrocarbons.

Perhaps we are going at this problem from the wrong direction?

Perhaps what we ought to be doing is trying to find more efficient ways to use the existing residual solar energy (read hydrocarbons) we have?


Every erg of energy we don't waste is an erg of energy we don't need to create or mine out of the ground.

And every energy saving system we invent continues to save energy for as long as that system is in place, too.

Instead what we're counting on, or at least what the DEMS seem to think makes sense is to create a system of indulgences.

Now I understand the theory behind getting the market to force energy savings, I truly do.

But I have my serious doubts about how effective that will really be since it actually rewards the most inefficient systems we use, now, while punishing those who are ALREADY as energy efficient as today's technology can make them.

CAP AND TRADE is a system just waiting to be gamed, folks.

We need to rethink how we can make market forces work to our advantage.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I think part of the problem with these new technologies is that an entire system of advocacy thinks they can force the market. Superior non-subsidized technologies are crowded out while half measures get propped up and then flop.

Why in the world do I use energy to cool the space being heated by a water heater inside my house? I live in Florida, that thing should be on the roof. Florida building code prohibits this (generally). I have natural gas available and should be able to choose whether I run it for electricity or not. Again, regulations prohibit this. There's always a workaround, but market forces still apply. $2500 in permitting and specialist fees removes any incentive to be efficient.

The culprit in my opinion is the micromanaging nature of the regulations. The solution is to have the authorities provide oversight, not detailed rules.

Another example is swimming pool pumps. Instead of having proper oversight with regards to safety, they are regulated to the specifics of capacity, placement, and energy consumption without regard to natural efficiencies. ALL in ground swimming pool pumps have to be capable of drawing water above the level of the pool, even if the pump is installed below the water line (down hill). I actually had to pay MORE to install a separate set of equipment to artificially reduce the pressure of my system because the pump is too strong. I can't use a smaller pump, it's against the code.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Solar power is certainly on the increase in the U.K which in theory is not an ideal part of the world for its use but it does work, there are several companies that will install a roof full of panels either free of charge or at a very low cost and who wil negotiate a reduced electrictiy cost from the home owner from the electricity provider. All the excese electricirt is feed into the grid and the panel company receive payment from the electricity supplier, the panel company are in effect hiring the use of your south facing roof to make themselves money but to also save the homeowner around 30-40% on their annual bill.
Due to the current high cost of the panels wind turbines are much more affordable but do work better as independant stand alone units not connected to the grid imo.

As the above poster has pointed out, solar power is actually cheaper then most other means of electricity. The problem with solar panels is that most people are not willing to spend the money and wait for a 15 year return on their investment. The other problem is that solar panels do not increase the sale value of a house significantly, so if you are planning on moving in the next 15 years, you will lose part of your investment.
The way the above poster has stated how these companies work, is not exactly how I have seen companies put it, but it pretty much amounts to the same thing. They now lease the solar panels to you at no up front cost, they provide all maintenance on them and they guarantee you savings on your electricity bill. One such company that does this is solarcity.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

We know how to approach the theoretical max efficiencies for solar PV design. We knew that YEARS ago. A panel built from Gallium Arsenide vs silicon crystal would get us to within 20% or so of the physics. But that would mean TONS of arsenic and a doubling of cost versus growing silicon crystal. Sometimes -- the theoretical limit doesn't yield a product.

The issue of inefficiency is more difficult to overcome. Even with panel efficiencies climbing (slowly now compared with 10 years ago), the installation math for a daytime peaking only system has to be rated almost twice as neccessary to guarantee a minimum power requirement. That gets you thru weather related difficulties such as clouds, preciptn, and sun angle thru-out the year and efficiencies related to converting DC power from the panels to AC for the home wiring and selling back to the grid.

So you BUY more panel than you end up using.. And "off-grid" installations are a whole 'nother animal, requiring tons of battery storage and the eco implications of that. A "off-grid" supermarket would require a tractor trailer full of battery storage to make it thru the night and an installation "overdesign" by a factor of almost three.

The grid load in California at 10PM in the summer is 80% of the load at 1PM. That means that PV solar could provide a MAX of 20% of daytime peaks. That's why you see the mandates for 20% renewables by 2020 and all that nonsense. You cannot turn off nat gas, coal, nuclear plants like a light switch. So there is duplication of spending for the MAIN sources of power. Would we reach 20%? Not likely because of geography, grid design, ect...

So you're right. It's time to put up or STFU.. Government should NEVER be subsidizing run of the mill stuff that's already designed. It actually stifles the perfection of tech, because the subsidy warps price to prefer larger markets at the bottom price. If they want to play market makers, they should only fund R&D for increased performance, or new technology. And the solar market NOW is anything but new technology.

I challenge the bold part above, link? Second off, 1PM is not peak time, that is usually considered to be between 4-6pm. And third how do you figure that this even concludes that you could only use 20% during peak? Comparing using solar during the day vs not being able to use it at night makes no sense. Theoretically California could use all their day time electricity through solar panels, and switch to other uses at night. Furthermore a report came out earlier this year that showed how the entire country could switch completely to green energy by using most of the daytime electricity through solar. Supplementing is with wind power, that can run during the day and through part of the night, and finally, since neither of these store electricity, using hydro electric to provide for power at night, and in case of any shortfalls in solar (clouds) and wind (no wind), since hydro electric stores electricity very very well (all the water behind the dam is potential energy that can be used at any time).
The real reason that they said 20% by 2020 is simply cost. To switch the entire country, the upfront cost would be in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. Sort of like building every power plant in the country all at once. Then you add in that tens of thousands of power plant workers would be laid off in the period of time, and the idea is just not good. Basically what that 20% figure represents is, all new sources of energy should be green, that way no one gets laid off.

 

[Ringel05]

Solar power: why hasn't this improved

Mine's improved greatly, except when I wear a hat.

 

[zonly1]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Liberals think if you throw money at a project it all of sudden creates demand. If the plan doesn't work, they blame republicans for their lack of foresight and market intuition claiming a victim status(wasn't so shovel ready as we thought) when in reality markets determine success or failures. Liberals don't understand the concept of low cost producer and that is why solyndra failed. It failed to meet that criteria and lost the race, filing for bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, other countries with government support, will develop the latest and greatest in solar and other energy technologies

But who cares? We got drill, baby, drill

Then republicans will complain about technology jobs going overseas

Yeah and solar is not a 24/7 on demand power source, drill baby, drill.

In the meantime, we have hundreds of capped existing wells, shut down by your buddies, the epa.

And liberals will continue to over regulate businesses at home and wonder why jobs are leaving ..ask California.

 

[saveliberty]

Even the most efficient solar cells available today, are very inefficient.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Even the most efficient solar cells available today, are very inefficient.

everything is inefficient. 50% of all power run through power lines is lost before it gets to your house. I believe (bad memory) that through leaks in your house the average consumer wastes 15% of their heating and cooling cost. A 15 year old fridge uses roughly twice as much as a new energy star fridge does. Every single appliance is your house produces net heat (including fridges and freezers), which is the last thing you want during the summer (in most places).
The only thing that could be said to be remotely efficient, is natural gas heating.

 

[FactFinder]

I remember them talking about this and it even getting a little "trendy" in the 70s. 30-40+ yrs later and it's still a fringe source of power at most. What the hell? There's this ENORMOUS source of power for billions of years to come and we haven't figured out how to make this cost-effective yet? ??

oil and coal is still too cheap to make us use more solar.

Perhaps my dear, solar is just too damn expensive. I haven't seen any parties going on celebrating how cheap energy is these days.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Liberals think if you throw money at a project it all of sudden creates demand. If the plan doesn't work, they blame republicans for their lack of foresight and market intuition claiming a victim status(wasn't so shovel ready as we thought) when in reality markets determine success or failures. Liberals don't understand the concept of low cost producer and that is why solyndra failed. It failed to meet that criteria and lost the race, filing for bankruptcy.

Hmmm...... We threw a whole bunch of money at some big dams prior to WW2. Bet there was major opposition to this from the shellbacks of that period. Complaints about the waste of money, ect. At least until that electricity started making the aluminium for the planes of WW2.

 

[Old Rocks]

First Solar cut cost-per-watt by 9% in 2010

First Solar cut cost-per-watt by 9% in 2010
25 Feb 2011
Leading photovoltaic module manufacturer is also making inroads into China and India as it looks to diversify geographically.

Global PV demand
First Solar sold CdTe photovoltaic modules capable of producing a peak power of 1.4 GW in 2010, up 27% on the previous year as the wider solar market doubled in size.

The US-headquartered company, which has production facilities around the world, managed to further reduce the cost of solar electricity during the year.

This is thanks partly to an increase in the average efficiency of the modules that it produces – First's CEO Rob Gillette said that the average module conversion efficiency has increased from 11.1% in late 2009 to 11.6% now, thanks to recent changes made to its fabrication processes. He added that the company aimed to make further efficiency improvements of about 0.5% per year.

Gillette added that the cost per watt (peak) of making those modules now stands at $0.73, down from $0.80 a year ago, equivalent to a 9% reduction.

For the closing quarter of 2010, the company posted total sales of $610 million, down sequentially due to the timing of some large contracts, but for the full fiscal year sales were close to $2.6 billion – up 24% on 2009 and indicative of the boom experienced by the wider market.

 

[Old Rocks]

First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt - IEEE Spectrum

First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt
Within five years, this company's thin-film solar cells could compete with coal
By Richard Stevenson / August 2008

Surprisingly, at the moment no company is *closer to that grail than a little start-up called First Solar, which until very *recently had been known only to specialists. It’s located in Tempe, Ariz., and analysts agree that it will very likely meet typical grid-parity prices in *developed countries in just two to four years. It’s got a multibillion-dollar order book, it’s selling all the cells it can make, it’s adding production capacity as fast as it can, and its stock price has rocketed from $25 to more than $250 in just 18 months.

That was in 2008. This is today

First Solar cut cost-per-watt by 9% in 2010

In its financial guidance for 2011, the company said it expected to deliver module sales of between $2.8 billion and $2.9 billion, as well as $900 million in project development (excluding modules).

The increased demand will be met by First’s newly expanded production facilities in Malaysia and Frankfurt, Germany, with the company expecting to have a capacity of 2.25 GW in 2011, growing to nearly 2.9 GW the following year thanks to new facilities in Vietnam, France and the US.

It seems the market is speaking rather loudly in approval of solar. Startup in 2008, multi-billion dollar international corperation in 2011.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are many new advances in solar energy. Republicans should do a little research. Current panels only use a small percentage of the suns rays and only a small portion of the spectrum. It takes time for these panels to be fully realized, then you have to figure out where to get the materials, what materials to use, how to manufacture it cheaply and so on. That's why it takes years. Today's panels are much better than those from a couple of years ago and a couple of years from now, solar panels we buy from other countries will be much better. Republicans will make sure we won't make any here. They will block research and as a manufacturer, we will be out of the running all together.

Liberals think if you throw money at a project it all of sudden creates demand. If the plan doesn't work, they blame republicans for their lack of foresight and market intuition claiming a victim status(wasn't so shovel ready as we thought) when in reality markets determine success or failures. Liberals don't understand the concept of low cost producer and that is why solyndra failed. It failed to meet that criteria and lost the race, filing for bankruptcy.

Hmmm...... We threw a whole bunch of money at some big dams prior to WW2. Bet there was major opposition to this from the shellbacks of that period. Complaints about the waste of money, ect. At least until that electricity started making the aluminium for the planes of WW2.

Yeah -- and now there are shellbacks who want all the dams torn down.. MOST of Sierra club for instance. But there is sooo much eco-naut discussion about hydroelectric that it's not even on most lists of "alternative sources".. Except when govt officials pad their "alternative" capacities to show how green they are...

Make up your minds --- "shellbacks"...