The cost of solar power

[railgal]

I personally find that here in the US midwest, that people are always put off by the intial expense.
IE It costs approximately $20,000 to put in a 2400 watt grid-tied system.
Then you have to fight the utility company (which is required by law to buy your excess power) to give you a contract or agreement for the excess power.
Also a lot of the counties have no idea what your trying to do. When you see them about permits for the construction.
So the biggest drawback for renewable clean energy is ignorance.

[Simon]

Over here the ignorance extends not just to purchase cost but also to operability in our non-sunny climate.

I know that a few solar companies have been contacted to contribute to this place but they are very, very poor at promoting their wares. Even the ones that have come on have been poor, so yes ignorance is a problem but the industry does themselves no favours at all.

[mgopilot]

The Solar Living Sourcebook (from realgoods.com) in its last publication has been the bible for alternative power and appliances. Each area of the world has its own advantages and drawbacks. There is a group of facts about your location which are used to determine the best solutions for minimal impact. If you don't have a good solar location, perhaps wind or personal hydro, or combinations will work. Maybe all you can do is use efficient appliances and CF lights, smaller TVs, and flat screen monitors. There are great washing machine and refridgerators, composting toilets, and other higher end improvements.
If you can't get passive solar, perhaps you can super-insulate, preferably with waste straw bales. Rammed earth tire walls are strong and R30, too.
Sometimes going underground is better.
Photovoltaic panels and the solar electric system were fairly easy, and good for my area. You must shop around, learn from books, and do-it-yourself to make alternative power and housing really pay for itself. There is no easy way out. Greedy contractors and flim flam artists wait for their profits to come from the lazy--or government sponsored.

[Haddock]

Originally Posted by Bilby

It has been suggested that it takes more energy to manufacture a PV solar panel than the amount of energy it will put out in its life time.Others dispute this notion.

Take a look at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf This shows that PV solar panels do not take more energy to make than what they produce over their lifetime.

Try reading The Engineer Poet at http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/ he does a lot of tech stuff on Eco matters. He is very good.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Haddock

Take a look at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf This shows that PV solar panels do not take more energy to make than what they produce over their lifetime.

Try reading The Engineer Poet at http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/ he does a lot of tech stuff on Eco matters. He is very good.

Haddock, a million thank yous, I have been looking for this sort of data for ages and you've given me a start.

The data is for "slightly lower than average US sunlight" figures though - anyone have any clues what the UK figures would be?

[MarkuisMellvile]

Originally Posted by Claire

Haddock, a million thank yous, I have been looking for this sort of data for ages and you've given me a start.

The data is for "slightly lower than average US sunlight" figures though - anyone have any clues what the UK figures would be?

Systems in the UK tent to yield around 750kWh per kiloWatt of peak output, per year.

MM

[Claire]

Cheers MM - the units in the paper Haddock referenced are different though and I'm not sure how to equate -

To calculate payback, Dutch researcher Erik
Alsema reviewed previous energy analyses and
did not “charge” for the energy that originally
went into crystalizing microelectronics scrap. His
“best estimates” of energy used to make near-future,
frameless PV were 600 kWh/m2 for single-crystalsilicon
modules and 420 kWh/m2 for multicrystalline
silicon. Assuming 12% conversion efficiency (standard
conditions) and 1700 kWh/m2 per year of available
sunlight energy (the U.S. average is 1800), Alsema
calculated a payback of about 4 years for current
multicrystalline-silicon PV systems.

So I guess what we need is the UK figure for the bit in bold, to be able to see the UK payback time in terms of energy. I'd still like to see an analysis of other impacts though. At some point I'll get hold of the Alsema paper too...

[MarkuisMellvile]

It's worth noting also that the US paper refers to thin-film technologies, not the monocrystalline or polycrystalline cells generally used in the UK.

We work on around 1000W (1kW) per square meter of solar input, compared to the US value of 1700.

MM