@Grumpy: There are companies that can do 16-18% consistently. But the way I see it, if I was going to put in a large solar power installation, I would probably wait until efficiency stops moving up. Like you said, there are "better" technologies on the horizon for PV panels, so why would someone go with a 20% installation today when in a couple of years, they can get a 40%?
@ econoar,"It really is crazy that the U.S. (or the World) hasn't adopted technology like this. It isn't too hard to install and it can save so much if everyone adopted it."Econoar, please indulge me for a moment. There is an aspect of economics that is often overlooked, and that is that _price_ is a two-way information path.A producer, by selling something for a given price, learns what people will buy _for_ that given price. That is why there are sales and "specials" and other spot decreases in price, as well as competition. The producers increase their knowledge by seeing how much product sells at different prices. This is why price controls are destructive.If consumers will not pay enough for a product to cover the costs of manufacture and the other expenses of production and sales, then the product will not be made. This is why the "labor theory of value" is false.The price of a product is an indication of efficiency. The reason that a given quantity of electricity is cheaper by one method compared to another, is that it is more efficient to produce by one method than by another. Solar Cells are _not_ efficient compared to other methods of producing electricity, which is why they cost more.That said, your motivations as a consumer guide what it is you spend your money on. Producers see product selling at a premium, in this case solar cells, and move to make a profit on this change in consumer preference. The forces of competition are always present, "cheaper, faster, better", and the relentless drive to decrease the cost of manufacture leads to a decrease in price.Right now, it is usually more efficient to use oil than to make solar panels. That will not always be true, and it depends greatly upon circumstances. Solar adds another complexity, it only works part of the day and efficiency drops with the weather. Not so with oil.Personally, I like nuclear.
Nuclear is still generating waste that cannot be disposed of... and think of all the military waste that is dumped into the ocean... that they never admit to. The Nimitz is not a good example. Overall though we need to consider weighing nuclear waste vs carbon and plastics waste. Waste disposal and conservation are all subcategories that need to be considered. Solar is still inefficient, but if the money wasted on the military was focused on solar research, we could develop much more efficient panels... such as the ones on the Mars rovers that used multiple layers to generate more electricity. Unfortunately panels of that kind are too cost prohibitive for the average consumer. I applaud Googles effort, more corporations need to step up and realize this is about green... money. They'll save money, bottom line. OPEC freedom and the environment would be gravy.
Agreed bincoder... congress keeps downgrading tax rebates on solar power. Ideally if we have someone in office who is actually pro-environment that might be reversed. But "eyesore" laws I find insane, and unfortunately some people live in stick-up-the-butt communities where appearances are all that matters... meaning driving a Hummer or Escalade somehow projects "importance" (you know shiney sparkly things) and yet these same muttonheads find offense at sparkly shiny reflective solar panels. Actually check out solar slates... they are roof slates that look similar to normal slate rooves... they are fairly aesthetic.
morriscatJun 20, 2007
xoon, pay no attention to, cdnyny, he's obviously somebodies plastic pet troll.(too subtle?)
vfrexJun 20, 2007
@Grumpy: There are companies that can do 16-18% consistently. But the way I see it, if I was going to put in a large solar power installation, I would probably wait until efficiency stops moving up. Like you said, there are "better" technologies on the horizon for PV panels, so why would someone go with a 20% installation today when in a couple of years, they can get a 40%?
curthowlandJun 20, 2007
@ econoar,"It really is crazy that the U.S. (or the World) hasn't adopted technology like this. It isn't too hard to install and it can save so much if everyone adopted it."Econoar, please indulge me for a moment. There is an aspect of economics that is often overlooked, and that is that _price_ is a two-way information path.A producer, by selling something for a given price, learns what people will buy _for_ that given price. That is why there are sales and "specials" and other spot decreases in price, as well as competition. The producers increase their knowledge by seeing how much product sells at different prices. This is why price controls are destructive.If consumers will not pay enough for a product to cover the costs of manufacture and the other expenses of production and sales, then the product will not be made. This is why the "labor theory of value" is false.The price of a product is an indication of efficiency. The reason that a given quantity of electricity is cheaper by one method compared to another, is that it is more efficient to produce by one method than by another. Solar Cells are _not_ efficient compared to other methods of producing electricity, which is why they cost more.That said, your motivations as a consumer guide what it is you spend your money on. Producers see product selling at a premium, in this case solar cells, and move to make a profit on this change in consumer preference. The forces of competition are always present, "cheaper, faster, better", and the relentless drive to decrease the cost of manufacture leads to a decrease in price.Right now, it is usually more efficient to use oil than to make solar panels. That will not always be true, and it depends greatly upon circumstances. Solar adds another complexity, it only works part of the day and efficiency drops with the weather. Not so with oil.Personally, I like nuclear.
supaklawJun 20, 2007
Nuclear is still generating waste that cannot be disposed of... and think of all the military waste that is dumped into the ocean... that they never admit to. The Nimitz is not a good example. Overall though we need to consider weighing nuclear waste vs carbon and plastics waste. Waste disposal and conservation are all subcategories that need to be considered. Solar is still inefficient, but if the money wasted on the military was focused on solar research, we could develop much more efficient panels... such as the ones on the Mars rovers that used multiple layers to generate more electricity. Unfortunately panels of that kind are too cost prohibitive for the average consumer. I applaud Googles effort, more corporations need to step up and realize this is about green... money. They'll save money, bottom line. OPEC freedom and the environment would be gravy.
supaklawJun 21, 2007
Agreed bincoder... congress keeps downgrading tax rebates on solar power. Ideally if we have someone in office who is actually pro-environment that might be reversed. But "eyesore" laws I find insane, and unfortunately some people live in stick-up-the-butt communities where appearances are all that matters... meaning driving a Hummer or Escalade somehow projects "importance" (you know shiney sparkly things) and yet these same muttonheads find offense at sparkly shiny reflective solar panels. Actually check out solar slates... they are roof slates that look similar to normal slate rooves... they are fairly aesthetic.