2

If so why isn't solar power being implemented more so? I don't mean to as a govt conspiracy post. But what's holding us back from achieving this, if it is indeed possible.

Foo Fighter
  • 507
  • 2
  • 4
  • 10

1 Answers1

7

On average, there is plenty of sunlight power hitting the ground on this planet to power all of our fixed installations. This isn't currently being done because:

  1. It's too expensive. The cost per Joule of capturing sunlight and turning it into readily usable form, like electric power, is still significantly more than burning fossil fuels or fissioning uranium.

  2. Even if it were economical, it would take a while since the total investment would be huge.

  3. Sunlight only hits the ground intermittantly, so significant energy storage would be required for the times when the sun isn't shining. This is still inefficient in energy out/in terms, and quite costly. We also don't know how to store any meaningful amounts of AC electrical power, so the storage has to be in other forms. That adds inefficiency and cost in coverting to and from the stored power.

  4. Even if all the above were solved, sunlight doesn't work well for highly concentrated but mobile uses of power, like is required in transportation. A airplane, for example, doesn't intercept anywhere near enough sunlight for the power it uses.

Added:

From the downvotes and some of the comments, I can see this hit a few nerves, which isn't all that surprising. However, those people fail to recognize this answers the question as asked. The OP simply wanted to know why more solar energy isn't the source of most of our power today. This says nothing about what we should do, how things could work, what if different economic insentive were in place, if we had run out of fossil fuels, etc.

You can argue for a long time about true costs of fossil fuels, nuclear, etc. However, none of that matters in why we are doing what we are doing today. The current situation is based almost exclusively on the immediate economic cost, which is what I answered.

There are legitimate discussions on what our energy future should look like and how we should get there, but not here, and that's not what this question was about.

Olin Lathrop
  • 313,258
  • 36
  • 434
  • 925
  • 1
    Actually, sun is usually hitting the ground somewhere, so we may just need to strengthen the transmission infrastructure as well as diversifying generation locations. (Neither of which is cheap, of course) –  Dec 26 '14 at 17:34
  • 1
    That was my thoughts as well Brian. If humanity could work together for the better good it seems entirely possible. If climate change isn't enough to change peoples minds we should at least understand that fossil fuels will not be here forever and that we must find alternative source that do not threaten our survival/environment. – Foo Fighter Dec 26 '14 at 18:59
  • True to some extent Olin, but the "too high outlay" argument ignores the minimal ongoing cost of ownership of solar, and the "cost per joule is too high" argument ignores the present externalisation of pollution costs for fossil fuels. – markt Dec 26 '14 at 23:35
  • (1) I'd query the cost of fissioning Uranium (as many do) as true market cost of insurance is unknown as nobody will sell such and all fission sources have been government underwritten. As for waste storage ... BUT I know you know all that and the arguments are ongoing and inconclusive. (2) I'd tend to agree with 'too high outlay' even given markt's comments. Net energy gain over lifetime has occurred only in recent past (I'm told) and so far bow-wave of old systems keeps industry net energy neutral (I'm told). So far solar PV never competes on a 'level playing field' bt it's now very close. – Russell McMahon Dec 27 '14 at 07:31
  • ... The size of the playing fields required are large and land in high insolation areas with good proximity to users is in competition (as ever) with other uses. Battery storage is almost at market ready stage with plunging prices for new technologies and niche pricing driving early innovators. | I think the overall answer is ~~~= "Not quite yet". – Russell McMahon Dec 27 '14 at 07:33
  • @Russell: See addition to my answer. – Olin Lathrop Dec 27 '14 at 14:19
  • @OlinLathrop 'Just in case': I didn't downvote your answer and I thought it was a reasonable one. My comments were comments. It didn't occur to me to upvote the answer :-) - I tend to be somewhat oblivious to such until things get rowdy :-) - +1 to offset the oddly given -1. – Russell McMahon Dec 27 '14 at 19:59