Don't Be Fooled By the Solyndra Bankruptcy Circus — Solar Is Booming

Solyndra's version did have certain advantages, particularly ease of installation. And according to the Energy Department, the company sold more than 1,000 installations in 20 countries, increasing its sales revenue 2,000%

So, of those "20 countries", why was the US not mentioned? Perhaps because NONE were sold in the US?

Now, I'm not one to point out an obvious flaw here, but if selling 1,000 units brings in a 2,000% increase in sales revenue...not hard to figure out, now, is it?

Oh, indeed I have.

Solar has increased 100%. No argument. However, NOT since "last year" - since 2003.

That means a gain of 12% per year. Impressive? I'd say not.

In the long run, the U.S. PV Industry Roadmap does expect PV to provide a "significant fraction of U.S. electricity needs." This adds up to at least 15% of new added electricity capacity in 2020, and then 10 years later, at least 10% of the nation's total electricity.

LINK

So, by 2030, it will be ESTIMATED "at least" 10% of the Nation's electricity.

If it took 8 years to increase 100%, and it will take another 19 years (estimated) to produce 10% of the electricity....Can you see the writing on the wall??

You haven't addressed two of the BASIC problems - the Size and the Expense.

One rule of thumb is that a collector area equal to about 10% of the floor area of a house is required to provide most of the heating needs for that house. So for a 2,000 sq. ft. house, 200 sq. ft. of collector area would be needed

Electricity costs in the United States average 7 cents per kilowatt-hour. A currently advertised inexpensive 3 kilowatt (peak) solar system bought in California, after a hefty state rebate and tax incentive, will cost $6,552.

Running at an average of 30% of peak capacity (no sun at night, cloudiness, etc.), this system will take ten years before it costs less than buying all electricity from utilities.

LINK

There's also the fact that the monthly "maintenance" cost for each "application" comes out to 1% of the total cost (the $6,552 unit referenced will cost $65.52 EACH month to keep it "operating").

So, for me to install a system on my house, I have to fork out $6,552 for the initial investment, along with a $65.52 monthly "maintenance" cost ($786.24 a year) to "take advantage" of this source of energy.

Now, being that it will take TEN YEARS for this system to "break even" with the cost of standard electricity, this will have emptied $6,552 initially, a maintenance cost of $7,862.40 over those ten years, for a grand total of $14,414.40., which is a net cost of $1,441.44 a year.

Now, my annual power bill totals less than $1K a year.

Explain to me how "going solar" saves me money?

I highly encourage you to read Howard Hayden's book "The Solar Fraud" to get a REAL background versus an opinion on Solar Energy.

LINK

Here's some questions for you, Par -

Where will you store the Batteries? You know, the BANKS of batteries needed to store the electricity?

How will you run your water heater, dryer and Stovetop? They run on 220V - PV's only put out 110V.

Where will you dispose the damaged cells? They contain Chromium and Mercury - surely not at the local landfill?

California - a mix of both with Solar rising further

SEGS -

As advertised, the facility sounds great. It is rated at 354,000 kW of electrical output, roughly one-third the output of a major nuclear power plant. But its real average power is 77,000 kW – which means that the plant, which takes up a 1 ,600-acre site – generates 48 kW per acre and requires a natural gas boiler that contributes about 25 percent to its output.

48kW PER acre. Not exactly what anyone would call anything CLOSE to efficient, and it is the LARGEST Solar Energy plant in the world - that requires a Natural Gas boiler to assist with 25% of it's output...

Read for yourself - LINK

You are a denier

No, I'm a realist. The first Solar home was back in 1973. 38 years later, barely 1% of the US is solar powered.

Look at the real FACTS and not your "dreams" to see the flaws.

Hagman is a longtime advocate of renewable energy and owns one of the largest U.S. residential solar panel systems, which cost him $750,000 when he bought it in 2003.

Oh let's go out and buy one RIGHT now! HELLO? Reality??

Where will you store the Batteries? You know, the BANKS of batteries needed to store the electricity?

• Tie in to the grid.
• replace the batteries with the new electrolysis technology; e.g. cobalt phosphate systems that are less than 1 tenth the cost of old technology.

The lag in this technology is a direct contributor to the relatively slow pace of solar installation. That obstacle is about to be eliminated in the next couple of years.

How will you run your water heater, dryer and Stovetop? They run on 220V - PV's only put out 110V.

Same way you do now, with a double breaker.

Where will you dispose the damaged cells? They contain Chromium and Mercury - surely not at the local landfill?

Correct, the local landfill is not the appropriate means of disposal of these panels. They should be recycled for the materials and incorporated into the next generation of product. This reduces the need to mine additional materials and process raw ores, too.

Oh let's go out and buy one RIGHT now! HELLO? Reality??

Do you have a $37,000 electric bill? Then you wouldn't need $750,000 investment.

No, I'm a realist.

Sorry, have to disagree with you on this. The reason is that you seem to be ignoring the subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives in outright government assistance and external costs that are borne by the population at large. An example of these subsidies can be seen in "The Real Price of Gasoline". You may want to alter your "realist" outlook when you consider some of these realities.

Okay, let's look at the facts -

LINK

Renewable Energy acounts for 8% total.

Solar accounts for 1% of that 8%.

It is NOT cost effective.

Critics argue that renewable energy technologies cannot compete on price with fossil fuels without public subsidies. It's true to date that renewables' return per dollar of federal assistance remains higher than for fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), federal subsidies for conventional coal generated electricity production in 2007 equaled $0.44/MWh (megawatt-hour). The equivalent figure for wind was $23.37 and for solar, $24.34 per MWh.

Oh yeah, great plan there.

California is in the middle of a 10-year $3-billion-plus program to subsidize solar energy. The state spends hundreds of millions more through other programs that provide subsidies for research, start-ups and for alternative energy efforts. It all comes out of your pockets through taxes and charges added to your utility bills

Yet another great plan.

Do tell, what happened in Spain with Solar power? What did they call it? A "spectacular failure"?

Do you remember Evergreen Solar back at the beginning of this year?

Evergreen a maker of solar panels, cells and wafers plans to shutter its $430 million plant in Devens and cut 800 of its 925 Massachusetts jobs by the end of March.

Evergreen has also failed to compete on cost with Chinese manufacturers on cells and panels, analysts say

What was the headline back then?

"Nobody was expecting it."

Coincidence that Solyndra tanks the SAME year?

It is NOT cost effective.

Right, it is not cost effective compared to the subsidized fossil fuel industry. A 1998 study entitled "The Real Cost of Gasoline" attempts to quantify these subsidies. According to that study gasoline should have cost in 1998 between $10/gallon to over $15/gallon. We were paying $1/gallon. Nice subsidy.

The other aspect of this economic model is the fallacy that the most cost effective utilization of renewable energy is through large farms. This is erroneous. the most cost effective utilization is in a distributed system a energy for 1 (times 6 billion) approach instead of the current energy for 1 million (times 6000) approach that makes sense for coal, petroleum, and nuclear.

Do tell, what happened in Spain with Solar power? What did they call it? A "spectacular failure"?

Yes, this is correct. Large scale farms are a spectacular failure as I pointed out above.

Do you remember Evergreen Solar back at the beginning of this year?

Yes I do. Do you remember the $30 billion a year subsidies to the PV industry in China? How about the monopoly on raw materials China enjoys? Only now is the rest of the world looking to open up mines to compete with the monopoly it let China create in these minerals. So you are blaming unfair trade practices with the rough times solar is experiencing? Not very logical or honest. And "nobody" is an idiot. As support of this assessment, "nobody" thought the housing bubble would continue for ever and housing prices would never stop going up, let alone decline. And "nobody" didn't sell Evergreen when I did, looking at the investments China was putting into the industry to destroy competition. So "nobody" is an idiot ans every one that listens to "nobody" should have their heads examined.

What we need is a national investment in building the infrastructure for renewables on a massive scale to complete it in a short period of time. Then require the private sector to maintain it in exchange for usage. Once the infrastructure is comparable to the existing energy infrastructure we can let the market decide which is the best and what percentage and uses each energy sector is optimum for. This is comparable to the military investment into the pre-web backbone of the internet and microprocess/semiconductors. Without that investment, the rapid growth of this sector would not have occurred for several more decades as well as the personal computer sector.

a national investment in building the infrastructure for renewables on a massive scale to complete it in a short period of time

THAT we can agree on, Tim!

Okay, common ground.