Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc
I honestly don't believe that such "money maker" skilled people (despite suspicious character) would invest in solar energy if they saw the energy produced per month as less economic than the energy payed from the power grid. They would not get fooled easily...
I have some faith in Braga & Goodenough battery. Even if it get just 2x or 3x the power density of actual best lithium batteries...
|
Solar can make financial sense at the micro level because individuals don't have to contend with the enormously difficult problem of balancing power supply with demand in real time.
When you factor in the
hugely difficult problem of exactly matching power production with power demand by the second at both macro and micro levels, the unpredictability and utter lack of control of solar creates a huge problem; one that cannot currently be solved without extreme engineering and expense.
Hawaii is already having problems with neighborhoods that produce too much solar from individual homeowners. If infrastructure isn't built to handle it, then it creates problems.
It might make economic sense to do macro solar up to some relatively low total percent of power production (perhaps 20% or so), but it's not a solution. It's not even half of a solution. So far the evidence seems to suggest solar isn't even economical in regions with excellent sunshine, because those places that have implemented it have among the highest utility rates. Wind seems to be more economical than solar.
As I've said before
if solar or wind is cheaper than conventional power generation, then my utility would invite me to pay less for "green energy". As it is, the utility asks just the opposite; for me to pay more for solar or wind power. Anyone saying solar or wind is cheaper (at the macro level) is misinformed at best, or peddling a lie for nefarious purposes at worst.