Is Solar Now More Affordable Than Coal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ai52487963
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coal Solar
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the affordability of solar energy compared to coal, particularly in light of recent technological claims regarding solar cell advancements. Participants explore the implications of these claims, the feasibility of solar technology, and the challenges associated with energy storage and grid integration.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about claims that solar energy is now cheaper than coal, citing a lack of expertise in electrical engineering and concerns about the credibility of the sources.
  • One participant references a recent article discussing advancements in thin-film photovoltaics, noting a smaller power boost compared to what is being claimed by the company, raising questions about the validity of those claims.
  • Concerns are raised about the historical pattern of companies claiming breakthroughs in solar technology, particularly regarding plastic solar cells, and the necessity of expensive inverters even if the solar cells are cheap.
  • There is a suggestion that solar panels could be used to directly power air conditioning units, which would eliminate the need for energy storage and transmission, aligning energy production with demand.
  • Some participants highlight that the primary issue with solar energy may be energy storage rather than energy generation, particularly for off-grid applications where batteries add significant costs and complexity.
  • One participant advocates for grid interconnection as a more practical solution, allowing for excess energy production during the day and using grid energy at night without the need for batteries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the claims of solar being cheaper than coal, with multiple competing views on the feasibility and practicality of solar technology, particularly regarding storage and grid integration. The discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the assumptions underlying the claims about solar technology, including the dependence on technological advancements and the economic implications of energy storage solutions.

Ai52487963
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

So says this company. I'm skeptical though, I don't have a decent background in electrical engineering or...well...anything outside of astrophysics really to tell if its worth it. Seems very promising though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Computer science news on Phys.org
When it sounds too good to be true...

Applying nanoglobules to thin-film photovoltaics was the subject of a recent article in Physics Today. It was apparently a decent breakthrough in increasing absorptivity of photons and boosting power. As I recall, it boosted the power by 19%. These folks are claiming a lot bigger boost than that. I want it to be true, but is it?
 
About once every 6 months, a company claims to have invented plastic solar cells. There is an Israeli company that is also not manufacturing them quite yet. :rolleyes:

Heck, even if they make the cells cheap, they still need gigantic, expensive inverters to make the power usable.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the most efficent use is to have solar panels directly drive AC units on the same roof?
The demand for AC increases with the amount of sun (at least for office/residential)
You don't have to store / transmit the power.
AC compressors can be made to run just as easily on low voltage DC as 110v AC.
 
It seems a little to good to be true. I'd be skeptical...
 
I figured as much. Besides, isn't the main problem with solar just the storage part and not actually getting the energy in the first place?
 
Ai52487963 said:
I figured as much. Besides, isn't the main problem with solar just the storage part and not actually getting the energy in the first place?

That would be for "off the grid" houses who want to have night-time lights and television, etc. The batteries add a lot of cost and hassle. Intertying with the grid is a better way to go, since one would produce excess energy during the day (when the grid needs more), and your meter runs backward. Then you use grid energy at night, and your meter runs forward. No batteries required.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
13K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
5K