So, tell me again, why hasn't solar power "taken off"?

[Thoran]

The conspiracy theorists will tend to blame big business (or almost as good... the government) - but the bottom line for big business is that if money can be made doing it... SOMEONE will do it (Capitalism and all that). The bottom line for the government is that they'll try damn hard to do nothing and look like they're doing something... and do both poorly and then they'll knee-jerk into a media catching "initiative"... and they'll do that poorly too.

The reality is that there are lots of practical issues with solar that need to be overcome, and all the other stuff is far less definitive... once solar can be manufactured practically and in volume, solar will be everywhere.

First of all the panels are still quite expensive and do not have unlimited lifespans... they are also fairly inefficient and that means that electricity generated from solar is still significantly more expensive than the commodity cost on the grid.

Even more important... raw materials for creating solar cells are limited, and compete with the semiconductor electronics industry (which has far deeper pockets) and by industry reports they are currently at capacity. Even if all the technical issues with solar were resolved, we couldn't make them any faster than we currently are.

What the solar industry needs is a couple key technical advances that will make the technology more efficient and cost effective. There have been some interesting research results lately - but it's still going to be a while before we all have solar arrays on our roofs.

[Olorin]

I agree that solar power is in need of technical advances. Here in CA, it is getting easier to install a home array (laws require the power company to upgrade your meter to be able to spin backward when you are producing more power than using--during the day--so that your net use at the end of the month is much less). A large enough solar array means that you can actually generate more power than you use during some months...and the electric company has to pay YOU--but only at wholesale rates. They'll get you back at retail during the months you draw power.

Practically, one of the big disadvantages of solar is energy storage. The power grid has to be fed continuously to work, so replacing power plants with solar is impractical, you need something that produces power reliably 24/7, and not dependent on weather (wind). For limited applications, like the emergency highway phones, low power lights, etc, solar can work because you don't need to store large amounts of power to run the device overnight, and swapping in new batteries every few years is cheaper than running power lines to remote areas.

Home installations of solar will become more popular if the economics change--either because manufacturing costs go down, or efficiency is improved. Currently, it takes too long for a solar array to recoup the installation cost in electricity savings. Many don't know for sure that they will be in their home long enough to come out ahead, and they are worried that some accident (tree branch damaging array) could set back the break even date by a few more years.

[Thoran]

I can see a day in the future... once the power companies have been BLUDGEONED into compliance... when home solar generates a large percentage of energy needs. "Power Companies" will still own generating capacity - but they'll also have "Storage Stations" where energy pumped onto the grid during the day is buffered for later use.

Technology needs to be developed here too... ways of efficiently storing and releasing large amounts of energy, and the grid needs updating to be more flexible (very expensive propostion)... but I don't see how we're going to be able to do anything else once fossil fuels start seriously declining.

[SpiritWarrior]

Well that's basically what I was thinking, Thoran (although you put it alot more efficiently). As I was driving by I could envision giant panels in the fields around me, soaking up rays and storing up power to the grids.

"Bludgeoned" is an apt. term for what needs to happen, because I still have this sneaking feeling that the technology should be well advanced by now - and not still stuck in it's infancy. I mean, look at the PC revolution and how fast that took off once it hit mainstream. It just doesn't seem right that so little developments have taken place all these years and so I keep returning to the Oil/Electricity companies argument and it's suppression.

[Dron_Cah]

Well, I think it's extremely easy to point at Big Oil companies and say they're the reason alternative energies aren't developing more quickly. I really don't think this is the case, though.
In fact, a friend of mine (working on his PhD in Physics) has been doing his research on photovoltaic cells (the key to solar panels), and has a totally opposite view. According to him, (and no, I'm not looking up actual statistics, because I'm too lazy! :p) Oil companies are the leading investors in alternate energy research, particularly wind, nuclear, and solar.
If you think about that, it really makes sense. Oil companies didn't get to be some of the richest corporations in the world because they're lead with stupidity. They realize they deal in a commodity that will not last forever. When that runs out, they need another cash cow. So, they invest in the research for these energy alternatives, not necessarily out some kind of altruism, but because it makes good business sense.
To answer the original question: At this time it is far too inefficient to use solar power, and the current panels are unable to provide the kind of energy most areas need.

[SpiritWarrior]

But doesn't such a drastic change cost money? Money they would rather not spend if they can get away with? I amn't being paranoid here I mean, it's been happening for years with the health industry. Cured people don't need medication and healthy people don't need health services. Would self-reliant power make as much cash as regular power does now?

[Olorin]

You've hit the nail on the head. It's all about money. Solar requires a large up-front investment, and then modest maintenance costs.

With the current solar tech, when you look at the price of land, property taxes, installing a large solar array is a very large investment for a company to make. And it would take a long time to see the return on that investment (during which time, major advances in solar tech might happen, requiring you to spend more money upgrading your installation to stay competitive).

On the other hand, investing in more oil drilling is a proven method to get a return on your investment in a much shorter time frame. So if you're the CEO of Chevron, where are you going to put your infrastructure investments?

However, solar has two things going for it. 1) Solar costs are decreasing. Research is leading to more efficient cells and lower manufacturing costs, making solar a better investment. 2) Fossil fuels are getting more expensive as global demand continues to rise for a finite resource. At some point, the combination of cheaper solar and more expensive fossils will cross the threshold for major companies to invest heavily in solar.




I used to think that if someone ever discovered cold fusion, they better worry about being taken out by the existing energy companies. Then I realized that more likely they would find those companies competing to be the ones to develop the technology, and become the world's biggest energy company.

Large companies aren't around because they shoot themselves in the foot. Sure, they have a vested interest in holding back advances in fuel economy for autos, because they don't benefit from auto sales. But for alternate energy, they realize that fossils are finite, and are going to position themselves to become major players in the new energy fields that grow up to replace them.

[Thoran]

For some folks it's easier to believe in the big conspiracy because reality is a lot more complicated.

Basically, as energy production costs increase due to increasing cost of raw materials (oil), we'll see alternatives getting more and more attractive (since their production costs will be reducing as they achieve economies of scale). As more people invest in these alternatives (plug in hybrids are the next really cool step), they get cheaper and more attractive (and they also get more R&D investment).

I guess I'm an optimist at heart... I think we CAN come up with viable alternatives to the hydrocarbon economy, but they will require a LOT of time and effort to develop, and gas/oil is still too cheap for us to have reached a tipping point. Maybe in an other 10-20 years we'll be there.