Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Time will bring costs down as efficiencies are found and built into the systems.
Innovation too will bring costs down. That takes R&D investment money.
All our technologies worked like that..expensive and used by the rich when first introduced and as cost got lower the audience got wider which drove costs down even further as mass production could now be introduced.
Solar-wind-geothermal. The homeowner can make use of some of them for some energy generation or all of them in combination.
You are wrong again... I suppose if you think about current benefits, it will benefit very few but again, I am not short-sighted to not see its potential gains in the future... You simply cannot make efficiencies go from 5% to 99% by doing nothing... and 99% efficiencies is all but guaranteed if money is put in to build it... it may not be in my lifetime, but it WILL happen... that is unless you think we also will never leave the solar system so why bother trying with your logic.... the costs are DIRT CHEAP if we start now instead of starting later... but it WILL happen... supplement? That's only ignorant to think that Pennsylvania cannot benefit for solar energy... You must realize solar panels is not the "end all" of solar technology, one could in essence build upon additional mechanisms to enhance solar collection even in cloudy days... and mind you, solar energy is not entirely of the "visible spectrum" either..
I don't think I'm wrong at all. It's like if we were standing in 1985 and you were telling me how great computers would be in 2009. That's all well and good but I couldn't buy a 2009 computer in 1985. My Dad can't buy 2030 technology here in 2009. For the technology available now it would take Dad nearly 40 years to start getting "free" energy, assuming there are no issues with the panels and I seriously doubt those panels would last 40 years up here in this weather.
I've done a lot of reading on solar and it requires maintenance and often replacement of components. It still has a long way to go and will never be sole power source. And I'm not convinced it is going to be super cheap taking all that into account.
Ultimately we need newer, better nuke plants and that will solve all the mess of all of producing billions of solar panels.
Solar is like electric cars. It's a dead end street for practical use on a large scale.
Time will bring costs down as efficiencies are found and built into the systems.
Innovation too will bring costs down. That takes R&D investment money.
All our technologies worked like that..expensive and used by the rich when first introduced and as cost got lower the audience got wider which drove costs down even further as mass production could now be introduced.
Solar-wind-geothermal. The homeowner can make use of some of them for some energy generation or all of them in combination.
Someday perhaps but it is still a risk.
There is no way you can say if we spend X we will get Y return for certain.
Solar, while interesting, for all it's short comings I can't see it being entirely practical anytime soon.
Solar is definitely coming but that is happening at different levels ......
Right now, solar is available for hot water generation. I looked at for my house and it pays for itself in about 6 years with - roughly - a 12 year life on the installation. I estimate hot water is costing me around $60/month or $720/year. So, the saving over the 12 year period would be around $4320. This is using vacuum tube technology and, after 12 years, new components can be installed without having to replace the entire installation, so subsequent payback calculations will be more advantageous to the home owner. However, this only works due to federal, state and utility subsidies!!!!!
As our house is quite new, we have chosen to wait for the time being, partly because I don't want to rip out perfectly good equipment and partly because I think the pay back will get better as the technology matures.
For electricity generation, solar still has a lot farther to go ... but it is coming. From a utility perspective, it will always be part of a variety of generation elements along with nuclear, coal, etc. At a personal level, the technology is maturing. Here, the smart meter technology should give the consumer the opportunity to sell solar generated electricity back to the utility. But that is still quite a way off.
I have no doubt that, in a few years, solar will become widely used. But that is probably 10 years and not 5.
I don't think I'm wrong at all. It's like if we were standing in 1985 and you were telling me how great computers would be in 2009. That's all well and good but I couldn't buy a 2009 computer in 1985. My Dad can't buy 2030 technology here in 2009. For the technology available now it would take Dad nearly 40 years to start getting "free" energy, assuming there are no issues with the panels and I seriously doubt those panels would last 40 years up here in this weather.
Because you can't afford a 2009 computer in 1985 doesn't mean you should stop making computers better... why? Because computers in 2009 are affordable in 2009... solar technology is not very affordable now but will be in the future and will be much better... look at it this way... if we put tons of money into it now... maybe in 2020 (hopefully you are still around) then you can get all the benefits and power your home without a utility company... that's only if we start now... right now, there is a push to not do just that... that's why solar is going to be BIG... its just a matter of time...
Quote:
I've done a lot of reading on solar and it requires maintenance and often replacement of components. It still has a long way to go and will never be sole power source. And I'm not convinced it is going to be super cheap taking all that into account.
It has a long way to go but I would never say "never"... people might say a 2009 computer is never going to be affordable in 1985... what they fail to realize is that it is affordable in 2009... I think it will be cheap... look at cars... every piece of technology is more affordable now then it was 30-40 years ago... its not by accident... that's just how economies work...
Quote:
Ultimately we need newer, better nuke plants and that will solve all the mess of all of producing billions of solar panels.
Nuclear doesn't provide "that" much energy compared to the collective power of households... if every household had its own solar panel with 99% efficiency... why have radioactive waste, thermal wastewater, and not to mention ugly looking power plants? A billion solar panel running at 99% efficiency would better than a billion nuclear power plants...
Quote:
Solar is like electric cars. It's a dead end street for practical use on a large scale.
That's what they said of the EV-1 electric car that drove short distances, cost 100,000 dollars, and runs on lead acid batteries... We have the Chevy Volt which runs 40 miles on electric, costs $40k, and runs on lithium ion batteries... I wonder what the electric cars 10 years from now would do... 100 miles on electric? Cost 30k? Runs on who knows what... Sorry bub, no dead end there and thats only 10 years...
Because you can't afford a 2009 computer in 1985 doesn't mean you should stop making computers better... why? Because computers in 2009 are affordable in 2009... solar technology is not very affordable now but will be in the future and will be much better... look at it this way... if we put tons of money into it now... maybe in 2020 (hopefully you are still around) then you can get all the benefits and power your home without a utility company... that's only if we start now... right now, there is a push to not do just that... that's why solar is going to be BIG... its just a matter of time...
It has a long way to go but I would never say "never"... people might say a 2009 computer is never going to be affordable in 1985... what they fail to realize is that it is affordable in 2009... I think it will be cheap... look at cars... every piece of technology is more affordable now then it was 30-40 years ago... its not by accident... that's just how economies work...
Nuclear doesn't provide "that" much energy compared to the collective power of households... if every household had its own solar panel with 99% efficiency... why have radioactive waste, thermal wastewater, and not to mention ugly looking power plants? A billion solar panel running at 99% efficiency would better than a billion nuclear power plants...
That's what they said of the EV-1 electric car that drove short distances, cost 100,000 dollars, and runs on lead acid batteries... We have the Chevy Volt which runs 40 miles on electric, costs $40k, and runs on lithium ion batteries... I wonder what the electric cars 10 years from now would do... 100 miles on electric? Cost 30k? Runs on who knows what... Sorry bub, no dead end there and thats only 10 years...
You are basically promising a 100% guarantee on an investment of a certain amount. People said in the 1970's that solar would be big and so far it is just a small supplement. Also it will always have the limitation of the availability of sun light, much like wind power requires wind, and therefore will only always be a supplement.
People said 30 years ago we'd have moonbases and be on Mars by now but we aren't. There are a lot of things that don't necessarily happen just because people say so.
Yes feel free to invest but right now the returns aren't there to outfit your house with such a power source.
Nuclear makes a lot more sense to me than a billion solar panels that need constant replacement, maintenance and repair. I'd rather go that route.
The Volt? Chevy made some big claims with that car and yeah in So Cal on a sunny day it will do fine. Put it in cold weather or under load and uh not so much. Based on what I have seen with the cars themselves and also the fact that the electric grid can't handle the load of everyone plugging in their cars, it's a dead end.
Yes feel free to invest but right now the returns aren't there to outfit your house with such a power source.
It isn't an "either/or". You can have a cost effective solar installation for hot water and have regular electric power for the rest.
Oh ... and you can have stand alone solar lighting in your garden and driveway which power rechargeable batteries and does away with the need to run wiring. I bought a few at just $20 each from Home Depot.
Solar is definitely coming but that is happening at different levels ......
...
Right now, solar is available for hot water generation.
...
Solar is available for water heating and used broadly in some locations of other countries but the technology employed varies depending upon climate and sun exposure. Recent studies show that thus far it is most cost effective when designed into new construction and is not practical or cost effective in many locations/applications.
I would rather have a micro-nuclear reactor for home use. Forget unreliable solar power, just start fission for energy right where you live! Eliminating power transmission losses and recovering heat currently wasted at nuclear plants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the technology available now it would take Dad nearly 40 years to start getting "free" energy, assuming there are no issues with the panels and I seriously doubt those panels would last 40 years up here in this weather.
