5 ms·

Can someone explain to my the biggest arguments against the viability of solar energy vs fossil fuel?

seren 11y ago
I don't necessarily have an enlightened opinion, but when you compare solar vs fossil fuel, most of the time you should compare (solar + battery) vs fuel. And fossil fuels have a really great energy density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
jerven 11y ago
In the developing world fuel logistics are a major cost. Local solar+battery is quickly cheaper in the long run in areas where infrastructure is lacking. However, access to capital is a major challenge. i.e. the upfront costs means the cheaper system does not get deployed. It is quite common that a family could afford 1$ of fuel a month for kerosene lamps, but not the 20$ for a solar charged battery led lamp. As the 20$ even if a great investment after 2 years is out of reach. Solar starts to make a whole lot of sense if there is no or only a primitive grid to hook into. i.e. compare the boom of mobile phone use in Africa. A KM of high quality copper wire is not cheap, either. To a central powerplant, distribution of fossil fuel to decentralized power plants is very expensive and very wasteful. The economically developing world has a great problem in accessing capital, not in investing it usefully.
- __Joker 11y ago
  Upfront cost is a major factor, which I have noticed firsthand while involved in the solar powered backup. It is almost you have to pay 20x for the solar powered back up. It is pretty difficult to convince the people in the developing world to go for solar, where environment factor most of the time is not a cause of concern for the consumer.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    There has been some work on leased panels with built-in microbilling, so the user doesn't have to pay the upfront cost. From a western point of view it's nasty to have a locked down piece of technology that requires you to insert coin to keep it working, but when people have no access to the alternatives it seems more reasonable.
tim333 11y ago
It's complicated but solar keeps getting cheaper, fossil doesn't. On the other hand solar stops working an night unlike fossil so you need more complicated infrastructure. I just googled the latest price for solar and was slightly amazed it's dropped to 3.87 c/kWh for a bulk deal in Nevada. To put that in perspective I pay about 20 c/kWh as a consumer in London. Solar was much more a couple of years back. I've found an eia.gov estimate that the cost of coal generation including building the plant for 2020 will be about 9.5c/kWh in the US. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/buffett-strikes-cheapest-electricity-price-in-us-with-nevada-solar-farm_100020120/ http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/buffett-stri... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  And orbital solar collectors solve the night/day problem. The 50% improvement in duty cycle would offset transmission losses.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Orbital may be a bit pricy compared to a battery though.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Not so much any more (and getting cheaper), and orbital has huge advantages. You can have square kilometers of collectors in orbit, with no ecological impact statements to file, or eminent domain issues to solve, or annoyed neighbors. You can grow an orbital farm essentially without bound, without buying any expensive real estate. You can beam the energy where its needed instead of having to consume it locally.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Rooftop solar + marginal land for utility scale is simply cheaper and more feasible than orbital solar.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thebmax 11y ago
Solar is not reliable without batteries and even with batteries in many parts of US, will not generate sufficient electricity to maintain our current standard of living. Nevada and parts of the south have lots of sun but most northern states will not generate enough power in the winter months. Furthermore this lack of reliability means you also have to build natural gas plants to power up when its cloudy out or at nighttime. This means twice the capital for the same end. When you see those listed prices for solar its for panels installed without batteries and usually in places with lots of sun. There is also the mess it creates with the grid. The business model of electrical companies is that in your monthly bill you pay for both power and for the grid that delivers it to you. If everyone puts solar on their roof it destroys the business model of the electrical companies and in the occasions where you still want to use grid power (at night, cloudy days etc) your rates will inevitably be higher or someone else has to pay for maintaining the grid and your socializing grid usage. I think most of the hype around solar is way overdone. Too much solar can really can do lasting damage to an electrical grid and cause massive economic harm. This has happened in Germany where they subsidized renewables so much that they pushed out reliable power from the grid and now they are having the subsidize gas/coal generation so the grid will remain reliable. Furthermore, electricity prices have gone up enormously causing large industrial companies to move abroad or scale back operations. Electricity is the lifeblood of an economy and arbitrarily raising prices and messing with how electricity is delivered and managed can have large unintended consequences especially when decided by politicians who know nothing about the science or business.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  I'm continually amazed by what Americans can be convinced is the free market at work by vested interests. Wanting to stop politicians messing with the electricity grid is "Keep your government hands off my medicare"-level disconnect from reality.
  - thebmax 11y ago
    I'm continually amazed by people who think government bureaucrats make better decisions than consumers. Or people who think they know whats best for everyone else. You don't think renewable energy companies also hire lobbyists? Are you so sure of yourself that you know what everyone else in the country should use for power? You're right electricity is heavily regulated and has been for quite some time. Despite the regulation however most companies generally operate as a lowest cost to consumers basis. Consumers ask for the lowest prices and electricity companies tend to oblige. When politicians decide they very often have some vested interest as a priority and try to raise rates by handing special favors to certain industries. What makes you think when politicians make decisions based on whats best for consumers vs. whats best for whoever donated to their campaign? If you think renewable energy companies don't hire lobbyists you suffer from a disconnect from reality. Also, you didn't argue my main point which is solar isn't competitive to other sources. Should everyone pay more for electricity?

seren 11y ago

I don't necessarily have an enlightened opinion, but when you compare solar vs fossil fuel, most of the time you should compare (solar + battery) vs fuel. And fossil fuels have a really great energy density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

jerven 11y ago

In the developing world fuel logistics are a major cost. Local solar+battery is quickly cheaper in the long run in areas where infrastructure is lacking. However, access to capital is a major challenge. i.e. the upfront costs means the cheaper system does not get deployed. It is quite common that a family could afford 1$ of fuel a month for kerosene lamps, but not the 20$ for a solar charged battery led lamp. As the 20$ even if a great investment after 2 years is out of reach. Solar starts to make a whole lot of sense if there is no or only a primitive grid to hook into. i.e. compare the boom of mobile phone use in Africa. A KM of high quality copper wire is not cheap, either. To a central powerplant, distribution of fossil fuel to decentralized power plants is very expensive and very wasteful. The economically developing world has a great problem in accessing capital, not in investing it usefully.

__Joker 11y ago
Upfront cost is a major factor, which I have noticed firsthand while involved in the solar powered backup. It is almost you have to pay 20x for the solar powered back up. It is pretty difficult to convince the people in the developing world to go for solar, where environment factor most of the time is not a cause of concern for the consumer.
- pjc50 11y ago
  There has been some work on leased panels with built-in microbilling, so the user doesn't have to pay the upfront cost. From a western point of view it's nasty to have a locked down piece of technology that requires you to insert coin to keep it working, but when people have no access to the alternatives it seems more reasonable.

tim333 11y ago

It's complicated but solar keeps getting cheaper, fossil doesn't. On the other hand solar stops working an night unlike fossil so you need more complicated infrastructure. I just googled the latest price for solar and was slightly amazed it's dropped to 3.87 c/kWh for a bulk deal in Nevada. To put that in perspective I pay about 20 c/kWh as a consumer in London. Solar was much more a couple of years back. I've found an eia.gov estimate that the cost of coal generation including building the plant for 2020 will be about 9.5c/kWh in the US. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/buffett-strikes-cheapest-electricity-price-in-us-with-nevada-solar-farm_100020120/ http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/buffett-stri... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
And orbital solar collectors solve the night/day problem. The 50% improvement in duty cycle would offset transmission losses.
- tim333 11y ago
  Orbital may be a bit pricy compared to a battery though.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Not so much any more (and getting cheaper), and orbital has huge advantages. You can have square kilometers of collectors in orbit, with no ecological impact statements to file, or eminent domain issues to solve, or annoyed neighbors. You can grow an orbital farm essentially without bound, without buying any expensive real estate. You can beam the energy where its needed instead of having to consume it locally.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Rooftop solar + marginal land for utility scale is simply cheaper and more feasible than orbital solar.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

thebmax 11y ago

Solar is not reliable without batteries and even with batteries in many parts of US, will not generate sufficient electricity to maintain our current standard of living. Nevada and parts of the south have lots of sun but most northern states will not generate enough power in the winter months. Furthermore this lack of reliability means you also have to build natural gas plants to power up when its cloudy out or at nighttime. This means twice the capital for the same end. When you see those listed prices for solar its for panels installed without batteries and usually in places with lots of sun. There is also the mess it creates with the grid. The business model of electrical companies is that in your monthly bill you pay for both power and for the grid that delivers it to you. If everyone puts solar on their roof it destroys the business model of the electrical companies and in the occasions where you still want to use grid power (at night, cloudy days etc) your rates will inevitably be higher or someone else has to pay for maintaining the grid and your socializing grid usage. I think most of the hype around solar is way overdone. Too much solar can really can do lasting damage to an electrical grid and cause massive economic harm. This has happened in Germany where they subsidized renewables so much that they pushed out reliable power from the grid and now they are having the subsidize gas/coal generation so the grid will remain reliable. Furthermore, electricity prices have gone up enormously causing large industrial companies to move abroad or scale back operations. Electricity is the lifeblood of an economy and arbitrarily raising prices and messing with how electricity is delivered and managed can have large unintended consequences especially when decided by politicians who know nothing about the science or business.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I'm continually amazed by what Americans can be convinced is the free market at work by vested interests. Wanting to stop politicians messing with the electricity grid is "Keep your government hands off my medicare"-level disconnect from reality.
- thebmax 11y ago
  I'm continually amazed by people who think government bureaucrats make better decisions than consumers. Or people who think they know whats best for everyone else. You don't think renewable energy companies also hire lobbyists? Are you so sure of yourself that you know what everyone else in the country should use for power? You're right electricity is heavily regulated and has been for quite some time. Despite the regulation however most companies generally operate as a lowest cost to consumers basis. Consumers ask for the lowest prices and electricity companies tend to oblige. When politicians decide they very often have some vested interest as a priority and try to raise rates by handing special favors to certain industries. What makes you think when politicians make decisions based on whats best for consumers vs. whats best for whoever donated to their campaign? If you think renewable energy companies don't hire lobbyists you suffer from a disconnect from reality. Also, you didn't argue my main point which is solar isn't competitive to other sources. Should everyone pay more for electricity?