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.
Yay, they're printing solar cells... let me know when they are efficient.
That's the BIG PROBLEM with solar.
Current module power output from printed solar panels is 10-50W per square metre. On smaller, lab-scale devices, power outputs equivalent to over 80W per square metre have been achieved.
No and for many solar as a home energy solution will never be....
1.First you need the right location.
2. The storage issue has to be resolved and it isn't reliable for a 24/7/365 delivery.
3. The break even point is way beyond the time people stay in one residence.
4. It's main employment is not for any normal use as electricity is consumed by average households.
5. It's use is mainly for a feel good moment and for that one must pay.
6. The practical side is for use when grid electricity isn't available,,but even then isn't anywhere near as dependable.
7. When the price comes down and a system can save someone money it will take off,,,that isn't in the foreseeable future.
8.Without the tax breaks,and they will not last anyway,,,solar wouldn't be employed in most of the places they are in place today....
9. They decay from day one,,solar systems are in constant deterioration,loss of ability to collect and store power from day one.....Grid power is constant,needs no attention,no washing,no sweeping snow off the collectors and battery maintenance..
So I ask,just what is the attraction for a mass audience? For some it's better than nothing, beyond that it offers to little for to much.....
Cold fusion has long been a goal, and to ignore or deny that is foolish.
Moon colony? Depends what the standard of living is. LOL
Chevy spark? Seriously? Range 70 miles. Now how long would a trip from PA to FLA take if you have to stop every 70 miles to recharge? The fact is is dog are ugly and the size of a shoe box makes it really appealing.
Honda fit is better I guess.
The Fiat? No comment needed.
The Nissan is there with Honda.
Smart for 2? Jesus.
The Tesla's are the only serious contenders and they are priced well above the average persons range.
All suffer the same issue. Unless you never plan to travel by car on vacation you are screwed. Imagine those cars in a state like Wyoming where it is often 90 miles or more to a grocery store.
In short, not really practical. The point is if it isn't cost effective or practical it isn't worthy of mention, other than to say we made progress. None of those cars are good for much more than a city commute.
The final link is from an obviously biased source.
Solar for my home would cost a little more than 17 g. Based upon my power consumption it will take about 7 years to recover my out of pocket after tax rebates. My brother sells them as a side gig. The batteries and power converters last less than 10 years on average. half the expense of solar is that battery pack/ converter. Not cost effective. USA Today Finds Home Solar Panels Not Cost-Effective
Solar is not a viable source yet. Maybe in AZ or places with little rain fall or winter storms but the northern states are not so lucky.
No and for many solar as a home energy solution will never be....
1.First you need the right location.
2. The storage issue has to be resolved and it isn't reliable for a 24/7/365 delivery.
3. The break even point is way beyond the time people stay in one residence.
4. It's main employment is not for any normal use as electricity is consumed by average households.
5. It's use is mainly for a feel good moment and for that one must pay.
6. The practical side is for use when grid electricity isn't available,,but even then isn't anywhere near as dependable.
7. When the price comes down and a system can save someone money it will take off,,,that isn't in the foreseeable future.
8.Without the tax breaks,and they will not last anyway,,,solar wouldn't be employed in most of the places they are in place today....
9. They decay from day one,,solar systems are in constant deterioration,loss of ability to collect and store power from day one.....Grid power is constant,needs no attention,no washing,no sweeping snow off the collectors and battery maintenance..
So I ask,just what is the attraction for a mass audience? For some it's better than nothing, beyond that it offers to little for to much.....
Solar has already reached grid parity in multiple markets.
You posted that as if it were some kind of new breakthrough. It is not. Printing cells has been done for a number of years, yet the solar market is all but unaffected by this. So, what is this about a "breakthrough"? It may be"new" ( compared to wafer type cells), but despite having been done for years by multiple companies, it hasn't affected prices OR the viability of solar power.
The only State in the US that uses oil to produce electricity is Hawaii, but thanks for misleading everyone.
Quote:
$1 per watt? Coupled with the lowered installation costs of this lighter system, that is utterly revolutionary. With these costs, a family would be able to cleanly power their home for only a few thousand dollars.
Did you do the math?
Have you read the agreements?
Why are you so hell-bent on deceiving and misleading people?
In the US and in even those foreign States where utilities are State-owned Enterprises, energy providers have exclusive rights.
That means energy providers control every kilowatt of energy produced, whether they produced it or not.
That means if you live in Clermont County, Ohio and you install a wind-turbine to kill wild-life thinking you are going to save money on electricity, you are both stupid and wrong.
Duke Energy will come to your home, attach a meter to your wind-turbine, make you pay for the cost of the meter, make you pay for the cost to install it, and then send you a bill every month for the electricity you thought you were going to get for free.
And why would cities, counties and States do that, you know grant exclusive rights?
Oh, that's right....you didn't do the math.
State and local governments are reliant on the tax revenues from the sale of electricity.
In some cases, State and local governments also get a percentage of gross/net revenues or gross/net profits.
If States and local governments lose the tax revenues and/or lose other revenues from electrical power generation, then that lost money has to come from somewhere else, meaning taxes are increases, or benefits and services provided by the State or local government are reduced/eliminated.
Amazing that people don't know how to think....
You posted that as if it were some kind of new breakthrough. It is not. Printing cells has been done for a number of years, yet the solar market is all but unaffected by this. So, what is this about a "breakthrough"? It may be"new" ( compared to wafer type cells), but despite having been done for years by multiple companies, it hasn't affected prices OR the viability of solar power.
The breakthrough is not the printing of solar cells, but the size of the cells this company is printing.
The only State in the US that uses oil to produce electricity is Hawaii, but thanks for misleading everyone.
Did you do the math?
Have you read the agreements?
Why are you so hell-bent on deceiving and misleading people?
In the US and in even those foreign States where utilities are State-owned Enterprises, energy providers have exclusive rights.
That means energy providers control every kilowatt of energy produced, whether they produced it or not.
That means if you live in Clermont County, Ohio and you install a wind-turbine to kill wild-life thinking you are going to save money on electricity, you are both stupid and wrong.
Duke Energy will come to your home, attach a meter to your wind-turbine, make you pay for the cost of the meter, make you pay for the cost to install it, and then send you a bill every month for the electricity you thought you were going to get for free.
And why would cities, counties and States do that, you know grant exclusive rights?
Oh, that's right....you didn't do the math.
State and local governments are reliant on the tax revenues from the sale of electricity.
In some cases, State and local governments also get a percentage of gross/net revenues or gross/net profits.
If States and local governments lose the tax revenues and/or lose other revenues from electrical power generation, then that lost money has to come from somewhere else, meaning taxes are increases, or benefits and services provided by the State or local government are reduced/eliminated.
Amazing that people don't know how to think....
Thats the rules for Clermont county, Ohio.
Let me direct you to this part specifically:
Quote:
No residential wind energy system shall be installed until evidence has been given that the utility company has been informed of the customer’s intent to install an interconnected, net metered customer-owned generator. Off-grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement.
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.
