Are Solar Panels Sustainable On A Large Scale?

Solar and wind become more viable every month. I have solar panels on my house that in peak conditions give me 95% of the power I need. That's pretty viable. The month after I had them installed, we were told that the newer panels they have are twice as efficient 50% smaller. That's a huge jump in a short time. Batter technology, recycling technology, Solar panel technology is advancing at a breakneck rate month after month.

So...how is that not viable?

Keeping in mind that we give oil and coal companies billions of dollars in tax breaks, and subsidies every year. Sounds like those two technologies aren't viable? You've got to hold everyone to an equal standard.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yes.

www.extremetech.com...

Solar panels for major power are a bust.

I have a panel system on my RV that are down because of a near hit by lighting i did not damage anything else in my motor home.

I also worked with solar panels for over 30 years as a electrician and the first systems i worked on are now dead and have had to be replaced due to browning of the panels.

Most panels will fail around 20 years and have to be replaced.
For many chinese panels 10 to 15 years may be there max life.

Photovoltaic (PV) modules typically come with 20 year warranties that guarantee that the panels will produce at least 80% of the rated power after 20 years of use. problem is many of the companies have gone out of business and the warranties are toilet paper now long before 20 years is up.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes.

www.extremetech.com...

No.

Just because some website says that "diamond nanothread might be capable of withstanding the almost inconceivable stresses that a 60,000-mile-high structure would have to endure", does not make it true.

Find a peer reviewed paper that states the same, wait, you can't, because one doesn't exist.

a reply to: amazing

The month after I had them installed, we were told that the newer panels they have are twice as efficient 50% smaller.

I get told lots of things, I don't believe them all.

Have any data to back up that claim?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: D8Tee

But i think we can all agree given the advances in meta materials they are right around the corner possibly only a few years distant.

Point of fact i think we have Diamond Nano threads which are basically like carbon nano tubes but stronger and stiffer that could do the job now if we could somehow scale up production.

even if they were just a few years around the corner it doesnt mean they will be implemented in manufacturing for years to come. they cant just up and retool an entire plant for every new technology that pops up until they get their initial return on their investment or the benefits outweigh the costs of continuing with the old process. this is completely missing my point though. im talking more on the sustainability of the solar panel industry with our current tech. forget efficiency of it converting light to energy. for example if u had the best panel ever produced and it was 100% efficient at converting light to electricity but it took 100 units of energy to manufacture and over its lifetime it will only give back 90 units of energy then u have a system that is reliant on an outside energy source to be sustainable. the ultimate goal is to get completely off fossil fuels and for that to happen solar panels need to give back far more energy then it takes to produce and maintain that ecosystem. it was just back in 2007 or 2008 that we finally found a process that put us over that hump but if my memory serves me right they only produced around 5% more power over their lifetime then it took to produce the panel. if weve just progressed a small amount further wed still be producing a massive number of panels who sole purpose would be to produce power to replace the panels when they inevitably fail. to give u an idea, of how many panels that is, the avg panel youll see on a house is about 2 meters squared. thats about 500,000 panels per km2 side by side with no gaps. if we need 45,000km2 or so just to meet our energy demands and its not taking into account sustaining the solar arrays, thats 22,500,000,000 panels that would have to be produced around every 30 years since thats about the lifetime of a panel if your lucky. now commercial panels are larger but its the same surface area of panel in the end. u can start to get a grasp of the amount of hazardous waste and materials we will have to deal with at our current technology level. and thats not taking into account sustainability. if u do that u can increase the number around 20X with our current tech.

a reply to: D8Tee

I did say we would need to scale up production all the same, but given enough resources that could indeed be an achievable goal.

These diamond nano threads just like carbon nano tubes are a fact, taken to the logical conclusion they do indeed make the possibility of constructing a tether a distinct possibility.

Just because something has not been peer reviewed does not mean its an impossibility although i do agree it certainly helps define credibility.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

The month after I had them installed, we were told that the newer panels they have are twice as efficient 50% smaller.

I get told lots of things, I don't believe them all.

Have any data to back up that claim?

I'm serious. Everyone that we knew after us got theirs ...half the size or roof space. If you google some of this you'll see. You'll also see that there are islands and cities getting all of their electricity from Solar farms. Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times. Again, also keep in mind that manufacturing and recycling is moving forward in technology as well.

You almost seem like you want solar to fail? No?

Coal, natural gas and oil, though necessary are dying fuel sources. There will come a time when we don't need them at all or very little of them.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

The month after I had them installed, we were told that the newer panels they have are twice as efficient 50% smaller.

I get told lots of things, I don't believe them all.

Have any data to back up that claim?

I'm serious. Everyone that we knew after us got theirs ...half the size or roof space. If you google some of this you'll see. You'll also see that there are islands and cities getting all of their electricity from Solar farms. Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times. Again, also keep in mind that manufacturing and recycling is moving forward in technology as well.

You almost seem like you want solar to fail? No?

Coal, natural gas and oil, though necessary are dying fuel sources. There will come a time when we don't need them at all or very little of them.

yeah my problem with current tech is the fact that were paying for these systems with fossil fuels up front and if they arent self sustaining or just barely are then were going to create a mountain of waste at our current tech level if u try to push this on a large scale. then theres the environmental impact cause u can pretty much bet wherever these will be installed wont be able to exist in its natural state and will be maintained so panels can be serviced or just bulldozed flat and kept as bare dirt to be easily serviceable. for me its an environmental disaster at our current levels unless we can get a panel that produces far more power over its lifetime then it took to create. the last hard data i found on it was circa 2007-2008 and we were just 5% energy positive with that new research development. so 20 out of 21 panels would be earmarked solely to generate energy to replace the panels when they fail, while one panel delivers power to residential and industrial. thats an immensely inefficient system. the more i look at it the more i feel we should just invest in more hydroelectric power. its environmental impact is far smaller and the costs would be immensely lower. even though it has negatives i feel it also provides other positives beyond just power generation aswell. they just change the environment imo. whether thats good or bad is up to how we manage it.

a reply to: amazing

I'm serious. Everyone that we knew after us got theirs ...half the size or roof space.

Half the power. While photovoltaics are showing increasing efficiencies, nothing close to a 50 percent jump in a months time.

Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times.

Name one.

a reply to: TheScale

Good post, but try breaking it up into paragraphs to make it more readable?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

I'm serious. Everyone that we knew after us got theirs ...half the size or roof space.

Half the power. While photovoltaics are showing increasing efficiencies, nothing close to a 50 percent jump in a months time.

Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times.

Name one.

So there's Costa Rica that was 99% energy by clean energy in 2015... Nicaragua which was 50% in 2015... Scotland which is over 90%...Germany as been over 70% in some months...Denmark gets 40% in some months just from Wind energy alone...You can google all of those and there are many more.

And about my panels. Seriously...I can get 95% of my energy needs met during summer with newer panels that are half the size. They are roughly 50% more efficient. You can also google that. LOL

But the big question is, why are we having a disagreement. Don't you want renewables to make up more of or energy production? Because for many of those installations either for home or for a solar or wind farm, once you install it you get free energy for decades.

Some of you guys talk about polution but what's more pollution than oil and coal?

I think one day solar will be the gateway to a greater technology which uses the same basic idea but which will allow us to gather energy from space radiation instead of sunlight.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: TheScale

Good post, but try breaking it up into paragraphs to make it more readable?

yeah its a problem i have. gotta be less lazy and go over it after i get my thoughts out on paper and structure it accordingly.

a reply to: namehere

Think that radiation, or most of it, still comes from the star through.

Or do you mean from solar particle events, like galactic cosmic rays which emanate from outside our solar system?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

I'm serious. Everyone that we knew after us got theirs ...half the size or roof space.

Half the power. While photovoltaics are showing increasing efficiencies, nothing close to a 50 percent jump in a months time.

Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times.

Name one.

So there's Costa Rica that was 99% energy by clean energy in 2015... Nicaragua which was 50% in 2015... Scotland which is over 90%...Germany as been over 70% in some months...Denmark gets 40% in some months just from Wind energy alone...You can google all of those and there are many more.

And about my panels. Seriously...I can get 95% of my energy needs met during summer with newer panels that are half the size. They are roughly 50% more efficient. You can also google that. LOL

But the big question is, why are we having a disagreement. Don't you want renewables to make up more of or energy production? Because for many of those installations either for home or for a solar or wind farm, once you install it you get free energy for decades.

Some of you guys talk about polution but what's more pollution than oil and coal?

pollution and the burning of fossil fuels is what id like to avoid actually. i just see an ocean of fossil fuels that have to be burned to get solar panels to a point where they can sustain their own ecosystem. many people dont realize it but alot of the panels you see on homes are actually increasing the amount of fossil fuels being burned. the panels are of the older tech and they took more energy to produce then they will ever give back. for example. if they took 100 units of power to produce but only gave back 90 units, then u have a net loss of 10 units. so u end up burning more fossil fuels to get less power out of the panel for use in the end. so that ecosystem will always rely on an outside energy source to be sustainable.

i feel like were just better off waiting to push it till the tech matures abit further and it becomes far more energy positive. who knows maybe another tech will come along that makes solar redundant for large scale systems while we wait. ultimately i feel the best place for solar is just for residential on each home so we can get rid of the massive infrastructure costs we have with power transmission today. still i dont feel like its quite ready for that yet though.

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

I'm serious. Everyone that we knew after us got theirs ...half the size or roof space.

Half the power. While photovoltaics are showing increasing efficiencies, nothing close to a 50 percent jump in a months time.

Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times.

Name one.

So there's Costa Rica that was 99% energy by clean energy in 2015... Nicaragua which was 50% in 2015... Scotland which is over 90%...Germany as been over 70% in some months...Denmark gets 40% in some months just from Wind energy alone...You can google all of those and there are many more.

And about my panels. Seriously...I can get 95% of my energy needs met during summer with newer panels that are half the size. They are roughly 50% more efficient. You can also google that. LOL

But the big question is, why are we having a disagreement. Don't you want renewables to make up more of or energy production? Because for many of those installations either for home or for a solar or wind farm, once you install it you get free energy for decades.

Some of you guys talk about polution but what's more pollution than oil and coal?

pollution and the burning of fossil fuels is what id like to avoid actually. i just see an ocean of fossil fuels that have to be burned to get solar panels to a point where they can sustain their own ecosystem. many people dont realize it but alot of the panels you see on homes are actually increasing the amount of fossil fuels being burned. the panels are of the older tech and they took more energy to produce then they will ever give back. for example. if they took 100 units of power to produce but only gave back 90 units, then u have a net loss of 10 units. so u end up burning more fossil fuels to get less power out of the panel for use in the end. so that ecosystem will always rely on an outside energy source to be sustainable.

i feel like were just better off waiting to push it till the tech matures abit further and it becomes far more energy positive. who knows maybe another tech will come along that makes solar redundant for large scale systems while we wait. ultimately i feel the best place for solar is just for residential on each home so we can get rid of the massive infrastructure costs we have with power transmission today. still i dont feel like its quite ready for that yet though.

That's not quite true though. Manufacturing of solar panels is also more efficient and getting more efficient every year. Also less material is needed for solar panels and solar systems every year. The market and entrepreneurs will drive this...What we need government to do is stop subsidizing oil and coal companies and stop making laws that make it hard to install solar panels and stop creating new charges for renewable and electric cars etc.

For example, in Florida there are laws that make it nearly impossible to install individual roof top solar, if you wanted to do that. Why? Because the monopoly power companies don't want to lose money and pay elected officials to pass laws that favor them. This is what needs to stop.

If Coal and oil companies can't survive without government subsidies then they need to go out of business. We know there is still a need for oil and coal and new companies with better business models will pop up.

This is what needs to a happen.

Your claim: amazing

You'll also see that there are islands and cities getting all of their electricity from Solar farms. Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times.

Your proof:

amazing
So there's Costa Rica that was 99% energy by clean energy in 2015... Nicaragua which was 50% in 2015... Scotland which is over 90%...Germany as been over 70% in some months...Denmark gets 40% in some months just from Wind energy alone...You can google all of those and there are many more.

Are you purposely moving the goalpost so you do not have to admit you are wrong or are you just ill informed about the energy production in the countries you have pointed out? None of them make anything close to 60-70 percent of their overall power from solar.

And about my panels. Seriously...I can get 95% of my energy needs met during summer with newer panels that are half the size. They are roughly 50% more efficient. You can also google that. LOL

I see no 50% increase in efficiency here.

originally posted by: D8Tee
Your claim: amazing

You'll also see that there are islands and cities getting all of their electricity from Solar farms. Some countries are nearing 60-70% at times.

Your proof:

amazing
So there's Costa Rica that was 99% energy by clean energy in 2015... Nicaragua which was 50% in 2015... Scotland which is over 90%...Germany as been over 70% in some months...Denmark gets 40% in some months just from Wind energy alone...You can google all of those and there are many more.

Are you purposely moving the goalpost so you do not have to admit you are wrong or are you just ill informed about the energy production in the countries you have pointed out? None of them make anything close to 60-70 percent of their overall power from solar.

And about my panels. Seriously...I can get 95% of my energy needs met during summer with newer panels that are half the size. They are roughly 50% more efficient. You can also google that. LOL

I see no 50% increase in efficiency here.

I'm not sure why you're arguiing semantics or the tiny details? I'm not a mathematician but...gettign the same amount of energy off of 50% less material and panels is good enough for me. They're roughly twice as efficient. Ummm You don't have to get them or like them, I think that's a pretty good advancement in the technology. LOL Sorry if I said they were 50% more efficient although it kind of appears that way to me, but again, I'm not an electrician or engineer or scientist in anyway nor did I do well in math and Algebra is school. so....there you go.

And you talk about goal posts with those countries. Costa Rica over 90%, Germany over 70%? Scottland 90% LOL I'd say that is over my 60-70 percent comment. Not sure what you want me to admit to being wrong on. Maybe germany got that 70% with a combination of different renewables and not just solar. My appologies if that's what you're talking about.

You're kind of like one of those grammer nazis that, instead of talking about the issue is looking for every minor mistake. LOL

Let me set the record straight for you. I am no english major, no mathametician, and no scientist nor do I have the time to proofread and spell check every post I make here. I'm pretty certain they mostly make sense though. Most people seem to think so?

a reply to: amazing

Your claim was for solar energy production, that is not even close to the case.

Costa Rica gets 80% of it's energy from hydroelectric and geothermal power.
en.wikipedia.org...

Germany gets 6% of annual electricity needs from solar.
en.wikipedia.org...

Scotlands solar generation power is labelled as 'micro' looks like about 1 percent or thereabouts, I don't have the time to do the calculations.
en.wikipedia.org...

You're kind of like one of those grammer nazis that, instead of talking about the issue is looking for every minor mistake. LOL

I am nothing of the sort. I just don't like it when people hold ignorance as a virtue and tell others they are wrong with no supporting evidence.

Sorry if I said they were 50% more efficient although it kind of appears that way to me, but again, I'm not an electrician or engineer or scientist in anyway nor did I do well in math and Algebra is school. so....there you go.

Appearances can be deceiving. There has been no rapid 50% advancement in solar panel efficiency. If you are comparing by looking at rooftop real estate occupied, I'd suggest that the smaller systems are delivering less energy.