"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:07:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:59:29 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Solar doesn't work? Wind energy doesn't work? Nuclear doesn't work?
Yep,
you are insane all right.

They "work" they just don't make economic sense.

===

I'm thinking of doing a small scale solar electric project just for
grins since I've got a nice south facing roof and plenty of that
famous Florida sunshine.

The price of panels is now down to about $1/watt if you buy on EBAY.
System costs for batteries/inverters/wiring/installation no doubt more
than double or triple the panel cost but I don't know how much.

At what price point can we get a decent ROI assuming 10 cents a KWH
from LCEC and a 12 to 15 year system life?

--------------------------------------------------------

Back in 1996 or thereabouts, $1/watt was the target goal thought to
make solar economically viable. It was then about $3/watt. The cost
reduction since has been made in production methods and capacity
however, not so much in the efficiency of the cells. Efficiency has
risen, but not enough to make them a serious, major source of power.
Much of the attention has turned from the chemistry of the panels
themselves (there are only so many ways to make them) to increasing
the output by special coatings on the glass covers, huge solar energy
farms and unique methods of focusing sunlight with mirrors onto small
arrays in towers.

One problem that remains is the effective life expectancy of the
panels. Their output capacity drops dramatically as they age ... some
to less than 50 percent of original capacity after only a few years.
This is an increasingly important trade-off as more sunlight is
focused onto the panels to increase efficiency and is not always
factored into the ROI by solar energy proponents and contractors.

In the early 1980's, I had the unique opportunity to meet Stanford
Ovshinsky of Energy Conversion Devices. This was during the first of
three major "pushes" for solar energy technology that I witnessed in
over 35 years of involvement in thin film deposition technology.
Ovshinsky's solar panels were made of amorphous silicon and were the
"state-of-the-art" at that time. If memory serves, efficiency was
about 15 percent and cost per watt was around $5.00 ... maybe a little
more. Our meetings were centered on production vacuum deposition
equipment needed to produce the panels. Interest faded quickly in
solar energy however and nothing ever developed. Ovshinshy is
credited with many other successful inventions in the technical
discipline of material science and amorphous silicon solar panels are
still in production.

Then, in 1996, I met a kook by the name of Lawrence Curtin. The
term "kook" is not used in a despairingly way ... he admits he's a
kook.
He's the brother or first cousin (can't remember which) of Jane
Curtin, the actress, best known for her role as one of the original
cast members of "Saturday Night Live" and later on "Third Rock from
the Sun".

Anyway, Lawrence Curtin is a self taught chemist, scientist, author,
and general jack-of-all-trades who excelled at anything he puts his
mind to. He is one of those people who are so creative and brilliant
that it sometimes borders on being a certified nut.

He had developed, on his own, a new type of photovoltaic cell that
could be made in thin, flexible strips. He showed me some and showed
me the test data on them which was very impressive. In high volume
production, the cost looked to be about 77 cents/watt. Long story
short, he and I entered into an agreement whereby my company would
build the production equipment and provide the necessary space for it,
subject to him securing additional adequate funding. As a good faith
gesture, I invested $10,000 into the "joint venture". It never
materialized and to his credit he returned the $10K a couple of years
later. Last I knew, he was alive and well down in Florida, still
inventing new kinds of photovoltaic devices, but none have yet solved
the world's energy dependence on fossil fuels.

That experience was during the second solar "hype" that I witnessed.
It lasted about 2-3 years.

Now we are in another period of interest and focus on solar as a
"green" alternative. The company I once owned was purchased by a
major German technology company in 2006, solely to pursue solar energy
markets and formed an alliance with the world's largest manufacturer
of commercial solar panels. It hasn't worked out this time either
and they are scrambling for more of the traditional systems work that
the company was built on.

I am not totally down on solar. It has it's promises and
applications, but I seriously doubt it will ever mature to be a major
source of energy relative to the demand. There's also another aspect
of it that I think about sometimes. I mentioned this once before,
but history shows that very often a new technological advancement that
solves one environmental problem ends up causing another. If we
convert thousands (or millions) of square miles to solar energy farms,
what effect will that have on the climate and the environment?
Sunlight causes photosynthesis in plants, generating oxygen.
What happens if we deplete that process too much by robbing the energy
to charge our battery powered cars instead?

Maybe I am a kook too.