Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[gleem]

So, if I am using solar, and I don't use the full amount of power generated, is there any negative affect on my system? Can something overheat?, or maybe the Cells degrade?... In other words, if I only need power during generating hours, and I produce more than I need, should I be concerned?... or can I simply use it "on demand", with no consequences?

If that were the case, and PV farms providing power "in excess of demand" could be set up around the world in strategic locations, it just might be, that we could do without batteries. I'm not saying that it's very practical, but is it possible

No negative effects and degradation as far as I know is just what would occur if that sat in the sun unused, No overheating. no moving parts. Use it on demand, nothing to attend to. Just like any power source excess capacity can be transferred to any place on the grid.

 

[gleem]

For large storage projects, Tesla sells Powerpack, a fridge-sized outdoor cabinet with batteries capable of storing 210 kWh (same as 14 Powerwalls). Price for large installations appears to be ~$47k per one Powerpack.

The 210kw POWERPACK cost about 1/2 of that of the POWERWALL of equivalent storage capacity and would be perfect for a three day backup supply.

Not sure that pb batts are practical for electricity storage either, besides the issue you mention they self discharge a material amount. I'd argue that a portable 6v pb is probably the worst available battery for such a use. "Cost effective" for energy storage should be a measure of more than the selling price, AND costed against alternatives

Lead acid batteries are what is commonly used by those who live on boats. Right now a 6V AGM Pb-acid battery bank is the best for storing charge and a properly maintained 6V regular vented Pb-acid wet cell (golf cart) is the best value.

Solar cells are often warranted for 20Yrs although the output does drop with age.

It's funny you mention maintenance on the panel such as ensuring they're clean. I find them to be the most maintenance free way to generate electricity...

Yes they are maintenance free as such but where they will be most likely use in dry desert areas dust will be a problem. in addition dust storms may pit the glass and reducing the transmission of the solar energy

Perhaps the availability of electricity makes allot of appliances rather impractical for solar cell / battery cell
power sources, not to mention the habits associated with a constant supply of electricity...the losses going from solar cell, to charger, to battery, to power inverter to some device that may in turn convert the electricity again to some other value must be a material amount

Every conversion and transfer results in a loss of power. Batteries typically loss 10% in the charge/discharge cycle, I think inverter are only 90% efficient in the transfer. Transmission line losses are kept low about 1.5%.

 

[nitsuj]

Lead acid batteries are what is commonly used by those who live on boats. Right now a 6V AGM Pb-acid battery bank is the best for storing charge and a properly maintained 6V regular vented Pb-acid wet cell (golf cart) is the best value.

I completely disagree, and what's more peeps on boats, RV ect are tending towards LI based batts, as is the entire industry because it's better. Good value? Do you mean most popular?

I don't know what to say regarding the issue with dust in a desert, or pitting of glass? What's the alternative you are considering? I think a solar panel has the lowest maintenance for most work...

Where are you hearing that AGM pb is best for storage? everything I read says Li is best. From my experience it is and make pb seem archaic, particularly when weight is considered. And I think on all but one or two points Li is superior to pb for batts.

My point was to do with "compatibility" of appliances and solar and using "current US household energy usage" as the target generation and storage values.

I imagine those who are completely reliant on solar power would laugh at the idea of generating heat using electricity, what if we take that out of the "average daily usage".

Is thousand of miles of cabling and unusable land an efficient way to deliver power? right, 1.5% loss and pb is best value, and agm pb is best for storage.

 

[nikkkom]

I completely disagree, and what's more peeps on boats, RV ect are tending towards LI based batts, as is the entire industry because it's better. Good value? Do you mean most popular?

I don't know what to say regarding the issue with dust in a desert, or pitting of glass? What's the alternative you are considering? I think a solar panel has the lowest maintenance for most work...

Where are you hearing that AGM pb is best for storage? everything I read says Li is best. From my experience it is and make pb seem archaic, particularly when weight is considered.

Li is best when weight is a consideration; also, most advances happen in Li because of laptops/phones and electric cars.

Utility-scale storage has different requirements: not sensitive to weight, but sensitive to cost per stored Joule and to longevity. I think when batteries will be optimized to _those_ parameters, they may end up being not Lithium batteries, but something else. As an example, iron-nickel batteries have _extremely_ long service lives (~50 years).

 

[Ken Fabos]

I think solar will continue to improve and grow rapidly. Which technology will come to dominate is still unknown; new methods and materials keep being discovered and developed. Because solar pv can be achieved with thin films the potential for mass production at low cost is enormous. Whether it's solar paints or printed film like this example - http://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroo...r-electronic-inks-rewriting-our-energy-future - it's going to become ubiquitous and low cost. Ultimately it will become incorporated into roofing and cladding and installed at little extra cost. There is good reason to think the advances will continue.

Intermittency is a real issue, but not insurmountable. Solar won't exist in isolation, but as a major part of a broad mix of technologies and be deployed in conjunction with ongoing improvements in energy efficiency, time shifting of loads, geographically widened networks and storage.

Intermittency is an issue yet it can become an important and positive driver of change, potentially providing a de-facto carbon price that will encourage investment in solutions -
Rooftop solar for example, has already shaved the highs off wholesale power pricing during the daytime demand peak here in Australia and that, like it or not, is forcing fixed fossil fuel plant into periods of slowdown and intermittency. ie the right direction. Storage under such conditions does not have to do more than carry PV owning users through one afternoon and evening following each sunny day to have profound impacts on the economics of fossil fuel plant. Without foresight and planning - and with denial of climate consequences - that will be seen as disruptive, yet with it, the economic incentive to invest in low emissions solutions can be strengthened.The true value of storage is much greater than any average daily electricity costs can properly reflect, even a small amount going a long way. Wherever there is hydro it will have opportunities - it doesn't need to be pumped hydro, as just seeking to preferentially service the periods when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing will be economically attractive in an intermittent renewables rich network.

Right now, solar PV with batteries is edging towards being lower cost than grid power for households around here; some further cost reductions and that choice begins looking very attractive purely on grounds of costs. Whatever the market for PV with batteries may have been prior to crossing that price threshold, it will balloon once it has. And I think it is safe to assume that larger scale grid scale storage will ultimately have cost advantages even if that kind of investment will not occur until it has proven itself at smaller scales - but likely only where a mature electricity network already exists; all those poles and wires will increasingly look like a poor investment for much of the developing world.

 

[nikkkom]

I think solar will continue to improve and grow rapidly. Which technology will come to dominate is still unknown; new methods and materials keep being discovered and developed. Because solar pv can be achieved with thin films the potential for mass production at low cost is enormous.

Low cost of PV cells is a yesterdays' problem. Now, cost of the cell per se is only about half of the module cost. Therefore, now the focus is not on the lowest cost of cell, but on reasonable cost of cell combined with reasonable efficiency.

At the moment, 20% efficiency is considered sweet spot, slowly creeping to 23%.
Theoretical maximum for single-junction Si is 29%, for single-junction of any semiconductor is 33%.
People are trying to make double-junction cells of 30% efficiency practical for cheap mass-production.

 

[gleem]

I completely disagree, and what's more peeps on boats, RV ect are tending towards LI based batts, as is the entire industry because it's better. Good value? Do you mean most popular?

I do not disagree about the desirability of a Li-ion battery with regard to maintenance, discharge characteristics and weight but currently prices are much too high. A check of cost of replacing a 600 Ahr Pb acid 12 volt house battery system with Li-ion show a factor of 7 difference in price. When the price difference comes down to about a factor of two then I would consider them a good value. Once there is a good demand I expect the price to come down. And scaling batteries to higher capacities at least for residential/commercial purposes is doing just that the smaller Tesla POWERWALL at 14kwhrs is twice as expensive per kwhrs compared to their POWERPACK at 210kwhrs.

I imagine those who are completely reliant on solar power would laugh at the idea of generating heat using electricity, what if we take that out of the "average daily usage".

Certainly not direct conversion to heat but driving a heat pump/air conditioner should be fine where applicable otherwise fossil fuel, super insulation, or dress warmly where it is cold and run fans where it is warm.

Low cost of PV cells is a yesterdays' problem. Now, cost of the cell per se is only about half of the module cost. Therefore, now the focus is not on the lowest cost of cell, but on reasonable cost of cell combined with reasonable efficiency.

Solar cell costs are about $0.70 per cell and may come down more for current cell design but who knows about the more efficient cells. there are other costs to consider for solar generating plants which fossil fuel plants do not have as inverters, and storage devices and the need to house and cool these devices. Solar power systems still need transformers and power lines etc., Fossil fuel generators like a GE 2000KVA model produces an AC terminal voltage of 26kV which is stepped up to 67kV to 765kV for transmission. The max voltage I've found for a panel is 48 VDC. How do you produce 1Gw at 26kV AC.

It is beginning to seem to me the current idea of using residential and commercial installations and tying into the grid locally to augment the power grid may be the more efficient way to incorporate this energy source (thoughts?). No additional transmission lines, no storage facilities, power disruption is minimized.

There are 125M houses in the US installing just 4kw systems would increase the US max capacity by 50%.. require less than 275 sq ft of roof space that should work for 99% of houses. Need emergency power? 5kw generator would probably work for most people.

A model Ohio installation 5.1kw cost $19,000, produces 540kWhrs per month average which translates into about $1000 saving in electricity per year. http://dovetailsolar.com/Solar-Electric/Pricing-for-Solar-Electric-Systems.aspx

 

[Blank_Stare]

There are 125M houses in the US installing just 4kw systems would increase the US max capacity by 50%.. require less than 275 sq ft of roof space that should work for 99% of houses.

I generally agree with what you have to say.

Also, I am not disputing the validity of your numbers on this factoid, but I do wonder what percentage of households are in extremely dense residential zones, like, say, downtown New York, where the ratio of roof area to households is arguably small, not to mention building that get no significant length of time in full sun, because taller buildings shade them out? It probably doesn't significantly skew your numbers, but I do wonder

 

[gleem]

Also, I am not disputing the validity of your numbers on this factoid, but I do wonder what percentage of households are in extremely dense residential zones, like, say, downtown New York, where the ratio of roof area to households is arguably small, not to mention building that get no significant length of time in full sun, because taller buildings shade them out? It probably doesn't significantly skew your numbers, but I do wonder

Good point. I checked again from what I could glean it seems you can count on at least 90M single family house with another 16M being occupied only part of the year (second homes?) 18M households are apartments. and may include multi family dwelling.

And yes some may not be suitable for solar or minimally. Example. A neighbor of mine had Solar City install panels. I believe these are leased not purchased. The array was installed on an east facing roof among significant shade from nearby trees a real stupid installation. He is lucky to get two hours of sun each day.
So houses with north south orientations a roof installation is not very good.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Good point. I checked again from what I could glean it seems you can count on at least 90M single family house with another 16M being occupied only part of the year (second homes?) 18M households are apartments. and may include multi family dwelling.

And yes some may not be suitable for solar or minimally. Example. A neighbor of mine had Solar City install panels. I believe these are leased not purchased. The array was installed on an east facing roof among significant shade from nearby trees a real stupid installation. He is lucky to get two hours of sun each day.
So houses with north south orientations a roof installation is not very good.

So I was right, it doesn't skew the numbers too badly, just ups the required square footage on the year-round single family homes by what?...15% or so? That's 320 square foot per residence?...let me tell you, that's a tiny roof - that's like the size of the concrete slab of a 1-1/2 car garage - definitely do-able.

 

[nitsuj]

Once there is a good demand I expect the price to come down. And scaling batteries to higher capacities at least for residential/commercial purposes is doing just that the smaller Tesla POWERWALL at 14kwhrs is twice as expensive per kwhrs compared to their POWERPACK at 210kwhrs.

Im hoping this is a fairly significant year for batt storage with the Tesla batt factory nearing completion, Daimler getting into the market, Panasonic getting new competition on their heels.

Reading about energy storage and ignoring portability it seems to me that electrochemical may not be the best solution. The mechanical simplicity of gravitational potential energy and solar power makes me drool. lol

Apparently even flywheels are used to "store" energy. kept in vacuums supported with magnetic bearings, made of carbon fiber and rotating at up 60k rpm! Oh that's a cool one too! So cool when star trek complexity and flinstone simplicity converge.

 

[gmax137]

...an average US home uses about 30 kW-hrs of energy per day... the battery may be useful for up to 10 years... you may need up to about 235 ($23,000) of these 6V batteries ...

So, using these numbers, I would spend $23,000 on these batteries; they would last 10 years; and in those 10 years I'd use 10 * 365 * 30 = 109,500 kw-hr.

Then the battery cost is $23000/109500 = $0.21 per kwhr. That's more than I pay for my grid power (even where I live, and the power cost is high here).

Or, say you took a loan for the battery; 10 years at 4%, the monthly payment is ~$235, and that's just for the battery. That's more than my monthly power bill.

So, there's plenty of room for improvement in the numbers before I can see widespread adoption of solar.

 

[Blank_Stare]

So, using these numbers, I would spend $23,000 on these batteries; they would last 10 years; and in those 10 years I'd use 10 * 365 * 30 = 109,500 kw-hr.

Then the battery cost is $23000/109500 = $0.21 per kwhr. That's more than I pay for my grid power (even where I live, and the power cost is high here).

Or, say you took a loan for the battery; 10 years at 4%, the monthly payment is ~$235, and that's just for the battery. That's more than my monthly power bill.

So, there's plenty of room for improvement in the numbers before I can see widespread adoption of solar.

Yeah, exactly why I don't have a system set up for back-up power at my house.
That, and lead batteries take up a lot of space, take a lot of babysitting, and put off deadly gas...

 

[gmax137]

I lived in south Florida for awhile. The house I rented in had solar hot water heater on the roof. Now that made sense! On a sunny afternoon the relief valve lifted to vent steam from the storage tank. No electric conversion, just sunshine to hot water. Takes the load off the electric or gas hot water heater. Storage takes care of itself as the tank stays hot overnite.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Re: storing electrical energy, it seems about ten years ago everyone was talking about supercapacitors. I haven't heard anything about them in a long time.

 

[nikkkom]

Solar cell costs are about $0.70 per cell and may come down more for current cell design but who knows about the more efficient cells.

I would not worry. Market forces would "magically" do their thing. Whatever kind of cell would be optimal wrt cost/efficiency, market will eventually mass-produce exactly that one :D

there are other costs to consider for solar generating plants which fossil fuel plants do not have as inverters

Well, in fact all other kinds of plants, except maybe wind, have WAY MORE other equipment. Maze of piping for water, air, oil (usually more than one kind: say, "instrument air" and "pneumatic air" are two different systems). Valves everywhere. Gaskets. Pumps, pumps. I remember when I was reading about a 6 MW pump in a nuclear plant and was amused to discover that its sealing system required high-pressure air which... required another small pump just for that purpose! :)

Solar is winning hands down here. It needs only a handful of kinds of equipment, and it is all electric. No oils, water, gases, high pressures...

Solar power systems still need transformers and power lines etc., Fossil fuel generators like a GE 2000KVA model produces an AC terminal voltage of 26kV which is stepped up to 67kV to 765kV for transmission. The max voltage I've found for a panel is 48 VDC. How do you produce 1Gw at 26kV AC.

Yes, solar needs transformers. This is not at all different form any other plant.

 

[nikkkom]

Im hoping this is a fairly significant year for batt storage with the Tesla batt factory nearing completion, Daimler getting into the market, Panasonic getting new competition on their heels.

Tesla's Powerwall is not optimal economically (it's too costly, and I have doubts about longevity). Tesla is just repackaging and selling excess production originally designed for cars. They are, as a business, certainly justified in doing so, but we as consumers need storage tailored for non-mobile, large scale storage.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Tesla's Powerwall is not optimal economically (it's too costly, and I have doubts about longevity). Tesla is just repackaging and selling excess production originally designed for cars. They are, as a business, certainly justified in doing so, but we as consumers need storage tailored for non-mobile, large scale storage.

Aside from cost, or scalability, what disadvantages would a battery designed for mobile use present in a non-mobile application?

 

[nikkkom]

Aside from cost, or scalability, what disadvantages would a battery designed for mobile use present in a non-mobile application?

Cost is the key factor. A cell which is 4 times heavier, but twice as cheap as car battery, (and all other parameters are same), would win hands down for utility storage.

Car battery which needs replacement in 5-10 years is okayish for cars. Utilities would want to install them once and run them for as long as possible.

Car battery needs to be able to provide spiky output. Utility storage does not need that. This means that batteries which have many good params, but require only slow discharge can be suitable for utility but useless for cars.

 

[mheslep]

...

Solar is winning hands down here. It needs ...

... a gas or coal or nuclear or hydro plant. Intermittent power may throttle these back a bit, but does not replace any of them, and thus only adds to the total equipment installed.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Cost is the key factor. A cell which is 4 times heavier, but twice as cheap as car battery, (and all other parameters are same), would win hands down for utility storage.

Car battery which needs replacement in 5-10 years is okayish for cars. Utilities would want to install them once and run them for as long as possible.

Car battery needs to be able to provide spiky output. Utility storage does not need that. This means that batteries which have many good params, but require only slow discharge can be suitable for utility but useless for cars.

Thank you for the clear reply.

 

[nitsuj]

Tesla's Powerwall is not optimal economically (it's too costly, and I have doubts about longevity). Tesla is just repackaging and selling excess production originally designed for cars. They are, as a business, certainly justified in doing so, but we as consumers need storage tailored for non-mobile, large scale storage.

?? The cells are panasonic, at least the first gen powerwall was. They (tesla) do make and have installed "utility" sized power storage and market it as the powerpak.

I'm missing the point of "made for mobility" So because the cell has a much better energy density it's made for mobility? imo important factors for a battery is energy density, voltage curve, resistance, c rating and ease of use

As far as non-mobile installations and cost what beats flow batts? The energy department is supporting/funding both flow batts and Li for energy storage.

Tesla is making batts already?? news to me. I thought that was why they (Tesla) partnered with Panasonic.

 

[gleem]

Tesla is making batts already?? news to me. I thought that was why they (Tesla) partnered with Panasonic

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...gafactory-begins-battery-production/96133342/

 

[nitsuj]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...gafactory-begins-battery-production/96133342/

That's awesome! Though that article says initially the batts will be used in the powerpak and powerwall. and that eventually they will be in the model 3...not that the excess of batts from the car production are being "repacked" into the powerwwall/pak

 

[Ken Fabos]

So, using these numbers, I would spend $23,000 on these batteries; they would last 10 years; and in those 10 years I'd use 10 * 365 * 30 = 109,500 kw-hr.

Then the battery cost is $23000/109500 = $0.21 per kwhr. That's more than I pay for my grid power (even where I live, and the power cost is high here).

Or, say you took a loan for the battery; 10 years at 4%, the monthly payment is ~$235, and that's just for the battery. That's more than my monthly power bill.

So, there's plenty of room for improvement in the numbers before I can see widespread adoption of solar.

The true value of storage for anyone with PV is a lot higher than the average kWh price. As the cost of the PV drops and users have greater supply in excess of usage that value will become more apparent.

I realize there are large differences in how electricity is sold dependent on where you live. Here we pay a Service Availability Charge on top of usage, so a close to self sufficient PV and battery fitted home effectively pays much more per kWh than a home totally reliant on the grid. Many are on time of use tariffs, where the evening usage can be double the daytime price - for those it can be financially sensible right now. Note that predictions here are for significant retail electricity price rises, as much as 30% this year, and if that is mostly SAC rises it will shift the balance yet further in favour of battery installations. Most batteries will be still working after 10 years, albeit with reduced capacity that, for a lot of households, will still be adequate. Expect both working life and price to continue to drop as the battery industry develops and expands.

We are moving beyond renewables being used because of subsidies and other policy support into circumstances where market forces sustain it. Those market forces, combined with shortsighted responses like offering very low prices for PV sold back to the grid or forging ahead with Time of Use metering (both on the face of it, expected to reduce attractiveness of PV - batteries not much figuring into those decisions) continue to strengthen rather than weaken demand for PV and storage.

The service the grid provides to PV and battery using customers is in provision of backup supply, with ongoing improvements decreasing the frequency and depth of dependence on that backup. Equitable arrangements are needed for accommodating that and make best use of the excess such installations tend to produce; higher prices during weather affected periods where existing fossil fuel plant has to ramp up is reasonable, but again will make improved storage options more attractive. If equitable arrangements are not introduced going off the grid will begin looking increasingly attractive; personally our household is very close to the point where additional batteris and the occaisional use of a generator would be cheaper than paying for an ongoing grid connection. We are borderline for gaining any financial advantage from our PV and batteries installation, but if that price rise does go ahead it will no longer be borderline.

 

[NTL2009]

Good point. I checked again from what I could glean it seems you can count on at least 90M single family house with another 16M being occupied only part of the year (second homes?) 18M households are apartments. and may include multi family dwelling.

And yes some may not be suitable for solar or minimally. Example. A neighbor of mine had Solar City install panels. I believe these are leased not purchased. The array was installed on an east facing roof among significant shade from nearby trees a real stupid installation. He is lucky to get two hours of sun each day.
So houses with north south orientations a roof installation is not very good.

Solar panels on residential rooftops is the worst way to utilize solar panels. It ought to be frowned upon by anyone who is pro-solar.

As you mentioned, a residential install can have shading issues. And few of them will have rooftops in the optimal direction/slope, requiring additional resources for the racks, or just limiting how many panels you can place there.

Plus, every single installation has to be reviewed, permitted, inspected and have it's own transfer switch. And workers will go to a new site every few days, deal with different roof slopes, gutters, dogs, fences, and on and on. Solar is responsible for more deaths/injuries than nuclear, maybe even coal (on a MW-hr generated basis) - I can dig up the link if needed, from US BLS, IIRC.

Much better to have an industrial/commercial scale installation. A big-box store, warehouse, and/or large public building (school, library, etc). There's is no shortage of large, flat rooftops in populated areas where the grid is available and energy is needed. A crew goes to one site for an extended period of time, instead of a hundred or thousand individual sites. They work on one flat roof - much safer. Easy to get to for maintenance also. Economy of scale in so many ways.

I'd consider buying into 'shares' of solar farm like that, long before I would put panels on my roof. I wouldn't need to worry about getting my investment back if I moved. I could buy a share of panels in a locality that had the best combination of available sun, high kWh prices, and the dirtiest grid. That would put those panels to the best use, and provide the best financial and environmental ROI. Everything is so far in favor of solar 'farms', that any talk of residential solar is just silly and counterproductive (exception for the rare off-grid requirement).

 

[Blank_Stare]

Much better to have an industrial/commercial scale installation. A big-box store, warehouse, and/or large public building (school, library, etc). There's is no shortage of large, flat rooftops in populated areas where the grid is available and energy is needed. A crew goes to one site for an extended period of time, instead of a hundred or thousand individual sites. They work on one flat roof - much safer. Easy to get to for maintenance also. Economy of scale in so many ways.

I'm not so convinced that putting all of the eggs in one basket is the way to go.

Every four or five years we have a storm that knocks out the power to tens of thousands of people (Michigan, USA), and lasts for as long as several weeks, before everyone is back up and running. The usual reason for the failure is the infrastructure, namely poles and wires that get knocked out by either wind, snow, or ice, or a combination thereof.

I definitely am sick of extended blackouts. Aside from the regional occurrences, I have had, on average, a local blackout lasting more than 48 hours, about every 30 months over the past 15 years where I live. Now, a simple battery back-up would have taken care of most of those, but installing a system of batteries to last more than 3 days, is a pretty expensive proposition, and it doesn't take long to start justifying some solar panels, instead of a few more batteries, especially when you consider the potential for the regional blackouts of extended duration.

If I had the coin, I'd be talking about my solar system, not discussing the merits of having one, wistfully.

From a purely "economy of scale" stand point, your argument is clearly bullet-proof. On a practical level, there are at least some people who would be better served if the power generation was not super-centralized.

I live on a "spur", not a grid, when you look at how power gets to me. A few years ago, some automobile driver hit a pole 2 miles from me , at 2 in the morning. Everyone on a line between that pole and the stop sign 5 houses past my house, went without power for almost two days, except folks with the means to generate their own, because the power company has not seen fit to cross-connect our end to the grid a few blocks away from me, where there is another "spur".

I guess what I am saying is that there is no "one size fits all" solution for Solar infrastructure. In my case, I'd rather be self-dependent, than rely on some bean counters to decide if building the infrastructure properly is "cost effective".

Also, I would hate to think of what would happen if a big-box store that was providing the real estate on their roof caught fire, and the solar farm was lost. We'd be talking about a lot of people with no lights, for an extended period. If it took an extended period of time to build in the first place, imagine how long it will take to clean up the site, and then remove the damaged portions of the farm, or all of the farm, and rebuild it... the red tape alone would be a nightmare.

...and that's an awfully large basket of eggs, I think.

 

[mfb]

Plus, every single installation has to be reviewed, permitted, inspected and have it's own transfer switch. And workers will go to a new site every few days, deal with different roof slopes, gutters, dogs, fences, and on and on. Solar is responsible for more deaths/injuries than nuclear, maybe even coal (on a MW-hr generated basis) - I can dig up the link if needed, from US BLS, IIRC.

Coal is worse.
US coal is ~25 more deadly than rooftop solar, which is 4000 times (sic!) worse than US nuclear power. All per kWh of course.
If we take the global average and include all accidents, coal kills 250 times more people, while nuclear power has 5 times lower death rates than rooftop solar.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not so convinced that putting all of the eggs in one basket is the way to go.

Every four or five years we have a storm that knocks out the power to tens of thousands of people (Michigan, USA), and lasts for as long as several weeks, before everyone is back up and running. The usual reason for the failure is the infrastructure, namely poles and wires that get knocked out by either wind, snow, or ice, or a combination thereof.

I definitely am sick of extended blackouts.

That's definitely a problem, but unfortunately, residential rooftop solar won't solve it; The vast majority of residential rooftop solar installations are not allowed to operate during a blackout.

 

[NTL2009]

I'm not so convinced that putting all of the eggs in one basket is the way to go.

Every four or five years we have a storm that knocks out the power to tens of thousands of people (Michigan, USA), and lasts for as long as several weeks, before everyone is back up and running. The usual reason for the failure is the infrastructure, namely poles and wires that get knocked out by either wind, snow, or ice, or a combination thereof.

I definitely am sick of extended blackouts. ...

There are other ways to get residential backup power, they might (probably?) be more cost effective than solar and batteries every few years (natural gas/propane generator). But that's an individual situation for you to make the call on. I was really talking more about regular day-day power generation, not back up power.

From a purely "economy of scale" stand point, your argument is clearly bullet-proof.

Thanks!

Also, I would hate to think of what would happen if a big-box store that was providing the real estate on their roof caught fire, and the solar farm was lost. We'd be talking about a lot of people with no lights, for an extended period.

Nah. There are two large installations near us, on large school buildings, LOTS of roof space covered with panels. There are 1,760 panels on the roof, yet it has a peak capacity of ~ 440 KW. That's KW, not MW. A typical coal plant in Illinois has a capacity of ~ 800 MW. So losing one building like that would be like losing 1/2000th the capacity of a coal plant (and only when the sun is shining).

The eggs would be in thousands of baskets.