Solar Query - Why don't the government...

As usual you don't read the articles you link to, which usually show the opposite of what you claim, and completely undermine your argument, as here. How stupid can you get!

I quote from that wiki article you linked to:

"The effect of subsidies is difficult to gauge, as some are indirect (such as research and development). A May 12, 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated, "For electricity generation, the EIA(Energy Information Administration, an office of the Department of Energy) concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and 'clean coal' $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."

So on average, solar and wind get subsidised to the extent of about $24 per MWh, some fifteen times the subsidy given to nuclear, fifty-four times that given to ordinary coal, and ninety-five times that given to natural gas.

So Harry, it's you who are full of s*it. Brimming over with it, even.

So it seems if you have the facts and the ability to understand them, 'You can manage what you can measure' wins out again. ;-)

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good for them. I still don't want to be forced into subsidising anyone's personal projects, especially ones that are questionable (FIT / function at this latitude / suitability to our needs etc).

Now, if you lived in California and used solar during the day to run your aircon, *and* did so off your own back then good for you. ;-)

We are all doing our bit by spending *our* money on more energy efficient devices (lamps etc) that will in turn reduce the real-world load on the system so they can make better use of the generation plant they already have. No one is subsidising my LED lamps. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage. It's solar PV that can't.

NT

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit useful that it can do that etc)?

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

the subject is wider than that of course

NT

Ok.

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Ok.

It might be now but it wasn't at the point you replied to me. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

they would :) What else have they got going for them? Salesmen always want to distract you from the reality.

It was, I widened it when I replied. But you know that.

NT

Makes sense indeed.

Yes, I saw that or something similar a good while back, certainly with tracking reflectors focused on a crucible in the top of a tower. They opened the shutters at the top of the tower and the reporter poked a stick or roll-up-newspaper in the light beam and it spontaneously combusted. ;-)

I think the idea was that the reflectors were more ecological and economical than PV panels of the same area. Aren't there many PV projects that have now been abandoned due to issues keeping the panels clean or summat?

Cheers, T i m

;-)

Generally, not a lot. That said, there are some companies who call now and again with a more 'is there anything we can do for you and have you seen our new ' and *are* happy to take 'no' (thank you) for an answer.

One, (cold calling), trying to sell me a solar PV system called me a mug (or similar) for NOT wanting to join in the whole FIT thing but then I don't think 'morals' are high on the list of attributes for many such telephone salespeople. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Marketing bullshit is marketing bullshit.

QED

Drivel from some one who doesn' town one. As usual the big mouths are out who know nowt. Efficiency matters because a n more efficient collector can be smaller in area and sometimes cheaper. The area available for the collector (eg a roof) is often restricted.

That'll be why every industrialised country in the world is massively installing them.

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there must be different qualities amongst these devices and some salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their offerings.

Cheers, T i m

Efficiency simply isn't the issue. The issue is how much energy for how much cost, not for how much sunlight.

NT

The only reason for that is to appease the green movement and win votes. In any other respect they make no sense at all.

NT

quite

there are, but who cares? If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

It's like quoting pmpo watts, it's just meaningless in the real world

NT

The problem there is that as the solar panels increase in temerature their efficiency drops adn their lifespan. of course in sahara they really need it because they really need the power for what ????? Keeping the desert hot and bright at night ?

Are you sure you don't mean nuclear reactors.

So you don;t care how efficient they are converting photon to volts? seems a little odd, as 1% can be significant.

no it'll tell you how much suin will be needed to get the power yuo want.