Shining a Light on Solar Opportunities

A reader commented recently that solar energy requirements and/or subsidies for homes in the USA is a no-go because not enough sunshine falls on the country. I looked into it and the following map should enlighten us (pun intended, click to enlarge):

Map: NREL

Average Daily Solar Radiation

The data are for a flat panel that rotates automatically along two axes in order to track the sun and capture as much energy as possible.

So... even in Fargo, ND (lat. 46'52"N, no palm trees in sight) such a system would get on average 6-7 kWh of solar radiation per day, for every square meter of panel. Even with the least efficient panel available currently, at around 10% energy conversion, this means that for a mere 10 square meter system a home would generate about 6.5 kWh per day. And I should point out that panels are now being tested with conversion efficiencies upwards of 20%.

The rub? Price, as always. And that's where your government feathers come in. How about this idea: we reduce defense spending by $30 billion a year, increase "black" fuel taxes by $30 billion a year and spend the $60 billion in installing state of the art solar panels in people's homes for free through a lottery system. That should come to about two million installations every year. Not bad for such a small bunch of feathers, eh?

For your information, the federal government already spends $600 billion on defense every year. As for the other $30 billion, we could raise this entire sum by an extra 10 cent tax at the gas pump.

Comments

[MarkitWacha:]

it makes sense, so it won't happen.

wind and solar are getting beaten up by natural gas prices below the cost to produce.

In the long run, generalfusion.com has the right idea, and a working prototype. Solar companies could get even more pummeled.

Oct 02 03:30 PM

[Peter Bermel:]

Certainly I agree with the general idea that the solar industry could use additional investment pretty bad. Right now there's a capacity glut, primarily because of a lack of financing for solar projects.

Just a few points:

1. Commercial solar modules have efficiencies ranging from 5-22%, with efficiencies ranging from 10.5% (First Solar) to 17% (Suntech) being some of the most common numbers.

2. Pouring $60 billion more into the solar market right now would be kind of a disaster since there wouldn't be nearly enough market capacity to satisfy demand at current prices -- you'd end up with too many dollars chasing too few goods for at least a few years. I'd recommend the proven model of a feed-in tariff which rebates people a certain amount for every kWh they produce with their solar system -- it works in Germany. In addition, until the banks get their house in order, it may be necessary for the government (federal, state, and local) to serve as the lender of last resort to provide the financing for new solar installations.

3. Fusion ain't gonna happen in time to solve global warming. This goes back to the definition of "working prototype": sure, you can produce some energy from fusion now, but it's not enough to make up for all the energy inputs. This is a fundamental unsolved problem at the moment. Even fusion's biggest proponents in Europe don't expect a convincing demo to happen before 2030. And that doesn't even account for time to industrialize and mass-produce it across the world.

Oct 02 05:04 PM

[EVNow:]

A large section of the population has been indoctrinated in this country to think 1. All spending apart from defence by the government is bad 2. Tax is bad.

So nothing like this can ever happen.

ps : I calculated my break even for a 5 KW system in the northwest - it is 35 years.

Oct 02 10:41 PM

[je:]

The cost argument is just not accurate unless you try to adjust for price increases by the utilities.

I have read that AEP is raising the rates 15% a year for the next three years for a 52% increase. And without a doubt the carbon tax and fuel surcharges will come in to play.

All things considered, including the cost of solar trending down and efficiencies going up, solar is a today thing. The largest obstacle is initial cost and the problem of mobility of the home owner not staying in the home long enough to benefit.

Oct 03 10:35 AM

[cyndikus:]

Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Whistleblower magazine has compiled all of the best data and has presented it in common terminology,

shop.wnd.com/store/ite....

Everyone should read it, all of the science is referenced and verifiable.
If you can believe the UN Scientist at the IPCC (there are only 52 who published the Al Gore Nobel Peace Prize) would push the data to get the US to slow their economic growth and that our government would support it because they would gain billion in taxes, then you will grateful you took the time to become informed. Over 30,000 US scientist have signed a petition and sent it to Congress to tell them don't believe that man made climate change is real.
German scientist that were part of the IPCC are asking their government to debate the "consensus on man made global warming" Get informed before it is too late.

Oct 03 10:50 AM

[31October:]

Suddenly cutting half the American defense budget is a terrific idea. My family in Afghanistan may not agree, since they would be overrun and killed...

But as long as we use those dollars to support Al Gore's carbon-trading company, it's all good, right?

I'm sure it's come down since then, but the movable panels described were quoted at $36,000 for my house. Ain't gonna happen.

Oct 03 11:41 AM

[Observationist:]

On the surface petroleum based fuels are cheap partly because the cost of pollution is not being paid by the consumer, at least not in dollars. If the true cost were to be added, solar and wind and other alternatives wouldn't be at such a major disadvantage. The market will fix this as we run out of petroleum based fuels, but not before major and irreversible damage is wrought on our planet. That's why a gas tax, carbon tax and other similar ideas should be implemented. We'd pay a little more now to save the planet for our children.

Oct 03 11:48 AM

[Observationist:]

On the surface petroleum based fuels are cheap partly because the cost of pollution is not being paid by the consumer, at least not in dollars. If the true cost were to be added, solar and wind and other alternatives wouldn't be at such a major disadvantage. The market will fix this as we run out of petroleum based fuels, but not before major and irreversible damage is wrought on our planet. That's why a gas tax, carbon tax and other similar ideas should be implemented. We'd pay a little more now to save the planet for our children.

Oct 03 11:48 AM

[captainccs:]

>>>So... even in Fargo, ND (lat. 46'52"N, no palm trees in sight) such a system would get on average 6-7 kWh of solar radiation per day, for every square meter of panel. <<<

Provided they are not covered by dust, leaves, bird droppings, snow or other crud.

Leave the military place.
Kill the DEA. Stop the war on drugs.
Fire the Obama Czars.

Oct 03 12:13 PM

[Obamitall:]

Thanks for pointing out that which the enviro-radicals refuse to debate. So many of them have found a new god to worship that they have no tolerance to opposing views.


On Oct 03 10:50 AM cyndikus wrote:

> Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Whistleblower magazine
> has compiled all of the best data and has presented it in common
> terminology,
>
> shop.wnd.com/store/ite....
>
> Everyone should read it, all of the science is referenced and verifiable.
>
> If you can believe the UN Scientist at the IPCC (there are only 52
> who published the Al Gore Nobel Peace Prize) would push the data
> to get the US to slow their economic growth and that our government
> would support it because they would gain billion in taxes, then you
> will grateful you took the time to become informed. Over 30,000 US
> scientist have signed a petition and sent it to Congress to tell
> them don't believe that man made climate change is real.
> German scientist that were part of the IPCC are asking their government
> to debate the "consensus on man made global warming" Get informed
> before it is too late.

Oct 03 12:23 PM

[mbkelly75:]

Mother Earth News discovered over 30 years ago by actually doing it that a combination of wind and solar worked MUCH better than either one used separately for providing steady power. In a nutshell, when the sun was not shining (storms, whatever) the wind was blowing and calm days were usually sunny. The equipment for both has improved hugely over the last 3 decades but the principle remains the same.

Oct 03 01:34 PM

[bpickard:]

Sorry, I'm in a hurry, and I'm irritated by your flip approach to a serious subject. I am not normally this blunt, however WHAT A MONUMENTALLY DUMB IDEA! Reduce defense spending and tax efficient power generation to fund inefficient, expensive power generation that can't stand on its own in a free market. The BEST way to get to the BEST power is let the market play it out. If things make sense they will be funded - if they don't, they won't.

Oct 03 04:21 PM

[Econ 101:]

captainccs - You are now officially on the Obama Enimies list, for questioning the Messiah!

mbkelly75 - my mind is made up, dont try to confuse me with the facts!

SUdden Debt, this only gets funded if either
1) the Chicago mob and the SDS weathermen get their cut or
2) Wall street is paid off first in the process

In other words NOT GONA HAPPEN

Oct 04 04:04 AM

[bmccurdy:]

I hate to bring it up, but your logic in this article is seriously flawed. You used data related to tracker systems, and then equated it to stationary home installations. You should go to NREL's fixed panel data, and then make the calculation. It will seriously affect your financials.

Also, those 20% conversion rates are lab tested. Most of the silicon based panels reflect energy off the panel surface - as much as 5%! The calculations you ran should be done on a case-by-case basis depending on the panel manufacturer.

I do, however, agree with your funding mechanisms. We should seriously be listening when the US military is the biggest proponent of low-carbon and carbon-neutral energy sources! They understand the implications of peak oil production in the US (happened in the late 70s), and what it means if we reach global peak oil production.

B

Oct 04 12:12 PM