Does solar have what it takes?
It’s way too easy to be rah-rah all the time about something you care about. It can take great fortitude to listen and understand an opinion that runs contrary to one’s preconception.
In that spirit, I read with great interest a write up on the challenges of solar power over at Depleted Cranium. In essence, the point of the article is that the cost and lack of efficiencies inherent in solar make it a poor choice as a basis for our energy grid.
Regardless of whether that turns out to be true over time, the approach to thinking about this is great. For example: Â
- The energy source must be a financial net-positive without governmental subsidies (I would add, at least eventually)
- The source needs to be reasonable in terms of its use. You can’t reasonably expect us to cover our houses and, let’s say, bodies in solar panels to try to squeeze enough power out to run a home. Similarly you can’t cover an entire state with panels to run one city and so on.
- If you’re talking about a grid-supporting solution, the source must be stable. For instance you couldn’t support critical systems on a power generator that only worked when it’s sunny.
 Also, do check out the notes on “Solar Two” a Department of Energy project that looks pretty interesting. I’ll have to do some reading up on that one.
 Oh, and I almost forgot to mention my favorite part: A quick view of how much power comes from various sources to help sort through the way-too-convenient newspeak of “the plant will provide enough power for X homes”.Â