The problem with solar energy
Professor Orzel of Uncertain Principles writes on the difficulties faced by solar energy production:
As best I can reconstruct it, the argument went like this: In order to meet the energy needs of the US entirely with solar power, we would need to cover 0.2% of the land area of the United States with photovoltaic cells, roughly equal to the area of paved roads in the US. And that's using solar cells with an efficiency of 50%, not too far below the theoretical maximum for a single-layer device.
To give even more context, researchers at the moment are aiming for producing a solar panel with 20% efficiency. Even worse are the production problems faced with providing that many solar panels to feed the energy needs of the US. Solar energy just isn't economically feasible by any stretch of the imagination as an overall solution.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The problem with solar energy.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://theinput.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/71.
Still, it can greatly reduce the draw on the grid during peak energy consumption, which is much better than nothing, especially for areas with not enough wind for turbines.
The problem is that this is not feasible on any large scale. Sure, it can cut your electricity bill on your personal home with a rather large initial investment, but it just won't work for cutting a city's power consumption by any great length. It's too expensive and too inefficient at this point in time.
Things don't work city-wide here in the U.S., anyways. It's a capitalistic society, so it has to be done through the market. If more people were interested in it instead of poo-pooing it in favor of doing things like burning coal, the market would definitely come together to at least reduce the cost. Also, there are ways to privately get credit or discounts on photovoltaic installations in several states, so it's not as if the cost is shouldered entirely by the consumer, either. Then again, with so much capital tied up fighting frivolous wars, progress has less opportunity than it would otherwise.
I'm not saying that solar is the answer, though; I'm for diversified systems, a combination of PV, wind, steam, geothermal, and nuclear, as well as a push to get rid of coal stations for good (perhaps eventually petroleum, unless they start negative emissions strictions), as well as a mandatory restriction on emissions, whether that be from improving technology or using the different methods available now to reduce emissions (which would mean a less worse climate, which would mean less necessity for energy for air conditioning).
One concern I have about PV systems, though, that I've never seen addressed is the durability when under stress of things like hurricanes.
I agree that our energy crisis will not be solved by a single technology alone. We'll need to develop a multi faceted approach to attack the problem and rid ourselves of harmful means of energy production if we're to survive a significant length of time on Earth.
No single technology will do that.