Solar panels are a 'waste of money'

[bruce]

Installing “green” energy saving measures in the home is so expensive it can take more than 200 years to cover the cost.



Solar panels are one of the least cost effective upgrades, according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics), which today published The Greener Homes Price Guide.

[ashy]

The price per installed watt will come down eventually. I'd say it's worth doing if you have to replace a roof anyway, but probably not just "for fun".

Also, can you source your 200 year claim?

[LMagic007]

Depends on rebates and costs, suitability of location and other factors etc... but yes UK is not the world's best place for solar PV energy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html

[BestTimesNow]

From Sydney paper last week:

"POPULAR government rebates of up to $8000 for households installing solar panels are one of the most inefficient ways of tackling climate change, according to a report commissioned by the Federal Government.

The report by the former head of the NSW Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, concludes that many climate-change programs cost taxpayers significantly more than the environmental benefits they delivered.

It found the solar panel rebates were among the worst offenders, costing more than $400 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emissions abated, much higher than any feasible market price on carbon emissions."

The Sydney Morning Herald: national, world, business, entertainment, sport and technology news from Australia's leading newspaper.

[include]

Makes sense in countries with not much sun doesn't it?

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by bruce

Installing “green” energy saving measures in the home is so expensive it can take more than 200 years to cover the cost.

Solar panels are one of the least cost effective upgrades, according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics), which today published The Greener Homes Price Guide.

Maybe its effeciency isn't too high right now but its improving on one hand and on other hand many guys are trying cheaper materials other than silicone to produce energy from sun. So the title isn't right according to me.

But I would love know more about your concerns. Please post any link to back up your claim, if any.

BTW maybe it doesn't make sense everywhere but then does wind power work everywhere? does tidal energy work everywhere? .....

How can we forget that about half of world's population lives in asian countries and most of them have abundant sun exposure throughout the year.

[LMagic007]

I don't entirely agree with all aspects of that report.

- Full Life Cycle Clean Coal does not yet exist in Australia or anywhere in the world so far as I am aware. I note that Germany recently announced a pilot power plant that removes CO2, however it still has to be stored somewhere and somehow. Achieving all that will cost money of an unknown quantity at this stage. Thus effectively clean coal does not exist and it's expected to take at least another 10 years before Australia can make carbon capture practical and even then its not certain that can be done. I've seen no evidence that storing CO2 will ever be done affordably or reliably. Whilst I agree more money should be directed toward clean coal research, the fact is it's a technological gamble that we don't know will be viable.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/viable-carbon-capture-unlikely-by-2020-20080822-40ff.html

- Solar PV although still costly is falling in cost and it is a much better known quantity. Solar PV is real. The projections for the cost of solar by 2020 are such that it's expected to be cheaper than coal, whether or not coal technology is clean or dirty. For a technology to mature it requires early support. Solar PV has come a long way and wont need to come too much further, before it can more seriously compete with coal fired power generation, in light of 2010 cap and trade regulations. It's not just a matter of the market though, but rather a matter of what technology is known and works. Australia is well suited to solar energy.

- Better tax incentives I agree with. More aggressive depreciation, lower or full tax exemptions etc...

- The 2020 / 20% target could be at odds with emissions trading if the emissions trading levels are not appropriately set and periodically adjusted in accordance with the 2020 goal in mind. Getting to 2020 / 20% means constant review and fine tuning of regulatory mechanisms to help ensure the path is viable. Ideally though, an up front plan to get there would be the best approach, rather than solely relying on market mechanisms to work. Markets can act in strange ways sometimes and have no awareness of the complexity of environmental issues.

I do think there is room for improvement in the Australian rebate structure for renewable energy and energy conservation measures. I think solar hot water gets less attention than it deserves. However at this stage I just see no indication of certainty with clean coal, as much as I agree more money should be invested into research in storage of CO2. With that said, I'm not convinced that CO2 storage will become viable with existing technology. I also think dealing with the CO2 problem this way is simply delaying the inevitability of a bigger problem. It's a bit like the reverse of fossil fuels dilemma. i.e. the more you store the fewer remaining places you can store at affordable cost. Also reliability of storage is another uncertainty.

Degree of certainty will be critical to the level of success attainable toward tackling Climate Change. Solar PV along with other existing renewable energy technologies offer more certainty and at this stage ( all be it only a small part of the mix of solutions ) is part of the future, so I believe we need to support it along the way, to where it can stand on its own. I don't doubt we will reap the benefits of solar PV in the years to come, that will more than repay the upfront investment in assistance. I'm not confident that can be said for the unknown quantity CO2 storage and hence clean coal.

Overriding these issues though, we really need a plan to get to 2020 / 20% renewable energy with existing technology and if new technology comes along that can improve upon that plan, all the better. That is the best certainty we can hope for and as indicated, to tackle Climate Change effectively, we need as much certainty as we can reasonably attain.

[Windguy]

If we want to save the planet, then we have to support all technological methods available to us that have the potential to help. That is including expensive PV, which has shown to follow Moore's Law. We also need to support geosequestration of CO2 because it may be the only solution to help China who is heavily reliant upon coal.

So far around July this year saw a commissioning of a 5mil post combustion capture and release plant at Munmorah powerstation. It is suppose to capture 3000 tonnes of CO2 and release it per year. If all goes well then a 150mil pilot plant that sequesters the CO2 underground will be built in 2013. That will sequester 100,000 tonnes per year.

[LMagic007]

Yes it will be interesting to see if the CO2 sequestration technology can work reliably on a commercial scale at affordable cost. The notion of buried compressed CO2 liquid on a large scale, does not sit comfortably with me. I can't help but wonder what other environmental implications that might have over the course of time. I cant fathom CO2 sequestration as a long term solution, though it may buy us some time until other renewable energy technologies fall in cost sufficiently to make significantly greater inroads into the energy mix. However we do need to explore the viability of options that show promise and improve current environmental management practices where possible.

[include]

I think to be honest though, if we're going to do anything then there are lots of energy efficiency measures that would do more for less than solar panels will at the moment. Not to say solar won't have its day, but not yet.