Solar power is already overpriced. You're adding another layer of cost, and two layers of energy exchange that will both bleed energy.




Negative. Solar power requires coal plants to sit partially idle in reserve to compensate for when insufficient solar power is being produced. The price people are told for various power types always charge those reserve coal plants to coal power production rather than to solar power production. This is incorrect. Those coal plants would be operating much more efficiently if their capacity wasn't being held in reserve in order to compensate for the shortcomings of solar. Because of this cost shifting the price of solar power is actually much higher than we are told and the price of coal is actually much lower.

 

-----signature-----

1) Ontario has shut down all but two coal plants, both of which are due to be closed by 2014 - because of our renewable power sources this has been possible. Incidentally, Toronto has seen dramatically reduced smog days over the same time period.

2) We pay $0.06 to $0.11 per kWh, still some of the lowest prices in the world.

3) I am not suggesting that pumping water is the best way, merely that there ARE ways to store solar power. Again, battery technology is improving quickly, now that there is a worldwide marketplace for solar. It is not there yet, but probably within five years it will be. By throwing up your arms and saying it's not possible at this point in time is merely showing your ignorance of the subject.

 

-----signature-----

It's not cost effective at this point.

We should wait until it is.

 

-----signature-----

Waiting is kind of why people are complaining about $4/gal gas today...


Viable cost effective alternatives aren't going to just magically appear while we wait.

 

-----signature-----

Wait as long as you like. Dozens of countries around the world have already started to make the switch. It'll just be another thing you fall behind in.

 

-----signature-----

I prefer to fall behind in overpaying for technology that isn't economically viable.

 

-----signature-----

That's why many countries have introduced a Feed In Tariff to make it economically viable. Given the initial subsidy boost, Ontario was able to reduce the subsidy by over 20% after just two years. That will continue to fall as the cost to produce the panels falls.

Feeding into the grid earns us a profit, at least before the tariff reduction, of about 15% annually, on a guarenteed contract of 20 years. Producing the power earns money - it doesn't cost money. Paybacks fall in the 6-8 year range, depending the size of your array. The other 12-14 years is pure profit.

Again, dozens of countries have introduced variations on a feed in tariff. That's why it's expensive to you, because you don't see how it could be possible to give people the power to produce energy and earn money, decentralizing the grid at the same time and giving ordinary people control over their energy needs.

It's ok, paul. I understand that you are working off of old information, that solar isn't viable. Continue to believe it if you want, but it's simply not true any more.

 

-----signature-----

Nothing is economically viable if it requires a subsidy. You can't pay a subsidy and make something switch from not being economically viable to being economically viable. It's still not economically viable. You're just overpaying for it.

 

-----signature-----

No high tech industry gets off the ground without subsidies. Oil and gas companies still get billions in subsidies. Does that mean they aren't economically viable? I'm pretty sure coal gets billions in subsidies too.

Subsidies are used to build the industry, give it legs, then you ease off the subsidy so the market can stand on it's own.

Solar isn't 'viable' by your terms because it's being forced to compete with other power producers that do get subsidies. The field is slanted against solar, and it's still succeeding. But again, cover your ears and go "LALALALALA" all you want, it won't alter the realities.

 

-----signature-----

We don't already subsidize gas?

 

-----signature-----