Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Five Solar Myths You Should Not Believe

By Reginald Norris
August 4, 2010 | 22 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

solar_myths With so much information available on solar power, the real facts are sometimes obscured by myths. One of our goals at MyEnergySolution.com is to dispel those misconceptions so that you can make an educated decision about solar. Here are five myths about solar power you shouldn’t believe:

Myth #1: Solar is only good in warm climates.

The average temperature in a climate region does not have an effect on solar panels. In fact, solar panels are actually slightly more efficient at producing electricity in cold temperatures. So even if you live in a colder climate that is further north, you still get enough sunlight that solar panels will work. (If you want to learn more abouthow solar panels work, you can click here.) Surprisingly, Germany, a northern country not generally known for sunny skies, is the world leader in solar photovoltaic energy with over 9,000 Megawatts. That’s almost enough to cover the roofs of 2 million U.S. houses! So next time you hear this myth feel free to point out that just because an area is cold or further north, that does not mean that solar panels won’t work well for you.

Myth #2: You still need fossil fuel energy as a backup even after you install solar panels.

Residential solar panels these days are almost always connected to the electric grid. The electricity generated by the solar panels powers your house and any extra electricity is fed back into the electric grid. This actually spins your electric meter backward! Most importantly, because your home remains connected to the electrical grid, you can continue to rely on electricity from your local utility at night or on cloudy days when the solar panels are not generating maximum power. So as long as you install the very common grid-tie solar systems, you do not need a fossil-fuel source as a backup.

Myth #3: Going solar means going without modern conveniences.

You don’t have to give up your modern conveniences to go solar. Your home will remain connected to the electrical grid and your solar panels will simply offset the amount of electricity you need from the grid. Thus, you have all the power you need night and day, don’t need batteries, and can enjoy all your current conveniences without paying for high electric bills. So, you’ll have a more comfortable home AND realize savings.

Myth #4: Solar power is not ready for mass consumption.

This has probably been one of the most harmful myths as it causes homeowners to wait to install solar. Decades of technological progress and billions of dollars of research have given us solar energy technology that is proven and reliable. Moreover, government and utility-backed programs are available today to make solar adoption very affordable for just about any homeowner or business. Just take a look at all the incentives and rebates available for homeowners from the government (both federal and state) and from your local electrical utility.

Myth #5: Making solar panels takes more energy than it could ever produce.

A report by the National Renewable Energy Lab shows that solar photovoltaic panels actually payback the energy used to produce the panels in 1 to 4 years depending on the type of panel. Because solar panels last at least 30 years, PV systems will provide at minimum 26 to 29 years of pollution-free electricity for your home!

Heard any other myths? Feel free to post them in the comment section below. We’ll be happy to do the research and provide you with the answers to separate fact from fiction.

Courtesy: MyEnergySolution.com

solar energy solar power

Solar Energy

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

22 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 22

Johnalbert

August 6, 2010

Solar is far and away the most environmentally friendly energy source in the world. Solar power technology is a completely clean, with no residues, waste or byproducts of any kind.

http://www.dynglobal.com

Comment
2 of 22

Anonymous

August 6, 2010

You have stated a myth in your mythbusting!!

"This actually spins your electric meter backward! "

This statement is only true for some meters. It may well be true in the US (I have no idea if it is or not) but in the UK only very old meters work in this way (remember this is a Renewable Energy World, not Renewable Energy USA :-) ).

Meters that can be spun backwards have been phased out gradually in the UK to prevent people doing utility companies out of money by deliberately spinning them backwards periodically creating false readings.

Comment
3 of 22

pfiddle

August 6, 2010

W live at 52.1480N with a south facing aspect. In the sunniest part of Ireland
We already use a 30-tube solar-panes to heat the hot water but I'm keen on PV. I already use PV for lighting at the front door and into the hall.
My question is - is it pie-in-the-sky to even think of using PV at such a latitude? Should I wait for prices to drop - I'm on a tight budget.

Comment
4 of 22

Peter-Segaar

August 6, 2010

With respect to myth breaker # 1 I expect REW to use the correct/actual numbers too: Germany has, with over 1,7 GWp of new capacity in Jan - May 2010, and the preliminary 1,7 GWp for June 2010 (data Bundesnetzagentur) already reached a cumulative nominal capacity of over 13 GWp at the start of the third quarter of 2010:

http://www.polderpv.nl/PV_weltmeister_2010_prequel.htm

With that volume, and taking a very conservative normalized production of 800 kWh/kWp a year for those kind of PV-installations (actually it is much higher), already something like 10,4 TWh/year could be produced (equivalent of 2-3 of 500 MW type nukes), in a "northern" country.

Don't be surprised if another 3-4 GWp of PV will come on-line in the second half of this staggering record year for world market for PV-installations (over 75.000 new PV-systems in first half year only): Germany.

Another "myth" broken?

Peter Segaar/www.polderpv.nl (Netherlands)

Comment
5 of 22

dennis-houghton-41194

August 6, 2010

Myth #2
In most places being connected the grid actually serves as a fossil fuel backup for your solar PV system

Comment
6 of 22

ehusman

August 6, 2010

You have not busted myths 1, 2, or 5.

1. I wish you had mentioned insolation - this is the key factor. Unfortunately, Germany has very poor insolation. The proliferation of solar panels there is wasteful of scarce resources (you frequently see them pointed in the wrong direction) and due entirely to controversial subsidization. Note that most counterarguments use installed peak capability and estimated production, not actual production numbers.

2. The grid is how you use fossil fuels (mostly coal) as a backup; pointing out that you can connect to it does the opposite of proving that you don't need them.

5. Perhaps this is worth a look: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html (there is also an insolation map there)

Comment
7 of 22

natasha-long-82395

August 6, 2010

Agreed that the grid as back-up currently, and for the foreseeable future, means fossil fuelled back-up. This will only change with heavy government pressure, probably in the form of legislation.

However WRT the amount of energy yielded from solar PV in northern latitudes, the PV company I work for has installed PV on schools all over the UK along with monitoring systems. Nearly all of the PV systems out-performed the projected yield.

I agree that in some cases in Germany cowboy installers have given bad advice and installed sub-optimal systems, but this is the reason for shopping around.

No, the insolation in northern Europe is not as good as southern Europe or equatorial regions, but that doesn't mean that a significant amount of energy generation is not possible. It is not 'wasteful of scarce resources' for one simple reason. PV panels *not* installed in Germany/UK etc *wouldn't* have been installed in sunnier countries. If those panels hadn't been installed in Germany/UK etc, most of them probably wouldn't have been installed at all. As with mobile phones, developing countries are only going to be able to afford PV on the same scale as developed countries when we make it affordable enough for individuals to buy. This won't happen until developed countries already have wide ranging PV coverage or incentives in those countries drop to unattractive levels. It's not pretty but it's true.

Comment
8 of 22

glenn-carney-121907

August 6, 2010

@peter-oconnor-37493 (comment 3)
At the moment PV in Ireland is a waste of time and money. As you know it is regularly cloud in Ireland even during the summer. This will reduce output considerably. Germany definitely does have more sun than here no matter what the solar panel companies will tell you. We have to deal with all the weather systems coming in from the Atlantic! Also Germany had an amazing financial incentive (with unbelievable feed in tarrifs - I think 4 times the cost of electricity) which is nowhere near the case in Ireland (where we have 9c for each kWhr, less than half the cost of electricity). Saying that, PV panels will produce electricity in Ireland but expect a pay-back of about 25 years (more if you take into the cost of an Irish electrician!). On the other hand solar thermal is a good buy in Ireland especially if a new build. You would be better spending money on reducing energy consumption and energy efficiency.

Comment
9 of 22

Anonymous

August 6, 2010

The biggest myth I have seen over and over, and you have not even touched- is the myth that solar energy is (only) electricity. The fact remains that heat from the solar spectrum is far, far more efficiently collected than electricity, and you do a great dis-service in your attempts to skew the perception of solar energy being only for electricity. A confused and mis-led public will trust neither you nor your industry. It is like saying that food is only meat, or that wealth is only money.

I guess it "shows to go ya", those who hope to decieve make themselves known.

Comment
10 of 22

lewin-emanuel-48410

August 6, 2010

Chuck Lewin, New Generation Energy, lewin@newgenerationenergy.org:

I submit myth #6: We need breakthroughs from the science laboratories to make solar work. While improvements in efficiency or cost would be great, solar, which typically provides its energy when demand is high (read that electricity is most expensive) is actually at grid parity in many parts of the world when pricing markets are sensibly constructed. Focusing on breakthroughs reinforces a 'wait and see' attitude with the public, when infact we can be building with what we have. Because it works!

Comment
11 of 22

PhiloSolar

August 6, 2010

@ehusman
I agree that insolation is an important factor, but the examples you give and your view of the German subsidies seems misguided. The FiT is a performance based incentive. As such people would get paid less if they had the panels facing the wrong direction. Can you explain how what you say is possible?

Regarding myth 2 I think you all are being a bit too literal and missing the point of the myth busting here. The myth is that as a home owner you would need to purchase some form of back up power in the event that the panels aren't working (at night). Clearly being grid connected busts this myth. And as for the more literal version (not relying on fossil fuels for backup power) I'm still not convinced that the grid is a true form of backup. When you enter a net metering agreement you get credits for each kWh produced in excess of your consumption. If you use a kWh from the grid but don't pay for it because of the credit you previously earn are you really using grid power? Sure, technically the power you use at night isn't generated from the sun, but that doesn't seem like a big deal to me. You may have sent plenty of kWhs to the grid that you didn't use so somewhere someone is using that green power. Even if you're a stickler here, the point you will win is a minor technicality.

As for the re-mystifying article you suggest about the energetic payback of solar panels, this is an old game. A reputable agency (NREL) collects data and presents their conclusions, and a blogger somewhere tries to debunk it. In this case the article you suggest is referring to a different study so we have 2 agencies against 1 blogger. And the blogger's task is to convince the world that the scientists' interpretations were off by more than 10x. Good luck.

Comment
12 of 22

les-nelson-7781

August 6, 2010

In support of Comment #9 above, vast numbers of buildings in the US use natural gas or oil for water and space heating. Solar thermal technologies can reduce consumption of these fuels for these end-use purposes, while PV cannot. Also keep in mind that the installed capacity of solar thermal products for water and space heating worldwide far exceeds that of solar electric products; that fact should be recognized and support for the increased use of solar thermal strongly supported.

Comment
13 of 22

photoncatcher

August 7, 2010

Let's back away from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, radioactive waste and dead birds from wind power. Let's consider the economics from a consumer's point of view.
One myth that can be busted (in my too often grey and rainy country, the Netherlands) is that solar energy is, and always will be, too expensive. The regular local residential public utility electricity price is a whopping 22 eurocents per kWh (an incredible 0.29 US$/kWh),in part thanks to very high government taxation (>0.10 US$/kWh) and an unbelievable string of fees (e.g. paying the city council for the power lines running on municipal property). With such an outrageous consumer price it is easy to calculate that with solar panels at US$ 6.50/Wp turnkey system ready to go on your home a 3,500 Wp system over 25 years at 800 kWh/kWp/year/ with one inverter change during its lifetime has a electricity price of 22 eurocents/kWh. Or in other words: one can get a fixed utility price of 22 eurocents for super green electricity over a span of 25 years. The only people betting that public utility power prices will get lower in the future are the nuke-believers (too cheap to bother metering. . . . ). The nasty message: the local folks argus that it takes too long for solar to "pay back" (one more myth?). Thus, in some cases solar-generated electricity has already gained grid parity.

Comment
14 of 22

jeff-anderson-44139

August 7, 2010

The electric meter on your house there is generally two type's mechanical and solid state electronic. The mechanical type has a spinning disk with rotating dials of mechanical moving digits. Some of these meters have been updated by adding remote meter reading. The way these systems work is it counts the number of times the disk rotates. The problem with these systems is that it can't tell which direction the disk is turning. So would be charged for the electricity you produced. Most electric utility meters that have electronic digital display are not by directional. Another word it doesn't know the difference between power being used and power being produced.
If you are not sure if your meter is by directional just call your utility company. The other way to check is to search for the meters manufacture website and send them an email to find out if your meter is by directional.

Comment
15 of 22

jeff-anderson-44139

August 7, 2010

August 7, 2010
How long before you get a full return on your solar investment?
For solar hot water system this can be as short as 5 years, and as long as 25 years. For the fastest payback systems should be sized to handle 60 to 80% of your hot water heating needs. If the system is designed to handle a higher percentage would require expanding to a much larger system to accommodate shorter winter days. During the rest of year the excessive sizing would go un-used. The payback period is generally shortened when there are more people living in the house. A family of four should be able to recover the cost of the system in 10 years or less.

Solar PV return on investment is difficult to get a return on investment to less than 20 years. I installed a 1300 watt solar tracking system that has about 16 year return on investment estimate. The reason it is so short is because most of the labor was done by me. I also got $4000 from the goverment to install the system. And the final thing was that I got 22.5 cents per kilo watt the system produced.

The prices of the solar PV panel are down right now. So if you have the cash you should check to see if solar is right for you. Right now is a good time to install a system.

Go to this link below to get free solar PV estmating software.

http://www.energy4you.net/pv.htm

Comment
16 of 22

david-king-45455

August 8, 2010

The question of payback time depends on the tariff charged. However for domestic supplies, if a reasonable net tariff arrangement applies, then Solar thermal, using Chinese vacuum tubes and a heat pipe delivery, should pay for itself in about 2 years on domestic rates. PV, if thin film oght to pay back in about 4 years, older silicon types probably 6-8 years for pay back time with most tariffs.

Comment
17 of 22

pfiddle

August 8, 2010

To the answers 16 & 17.
Both correct and yet ... I fitted a cheap (€1,350,-) 30 tube system in a few hours (I'm NO plumber but t'was easy enough if one takes a few lessons) and as I run a B&B 'payback' was the same year. We use most hot-water in summer months. In winter the wood-boiler provides all the heating we want.
We also installed the new '50LED' lamps and PV for outdoor lighting. Our monthly electricity bill is €56,- and because we rely on gas for 1hr/day max - our gas bill is €200,- per annum. I'd still like to use PV for computers etc.

Comment
18 of 22

FreeAsTheWind

August 9, 2010

Great conversation! Not to get into the thick of the argument, but you would also have to take into account the "other" costs associated with fossil fuels that we currently pay, but that aren't factored into the cost per BTU of energy.

These costs, such as the cost of keeping the flow of oil moving (Military), health (illnesses caused by the toxins released into the environment)and the damage to the environment itself (heavy metal pollution and the like)are difficult to factor into your particular solar installation, but they are indeed real costs that you'll be doing your part to do away with.

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell

Comment
19 of 22

pfiddle

August 9, 2010

Great points Bob - s'true for you. The real cost of oil can be seen in the 'oil-wars' and the pollution and then the health hazards of pollution.
Quite correct to point that out.

Comment
20 of 22

technotard

August 10, 2010

As background for the following:
Almost 40 years ago I created an inexpensive hybrid-passive solar system that is now used world-wide including in the North Sea where it is a main component in commercial greenhouses that have no connections to the utility companies. I have design/built additions to homes here in the wet, dark Pacific Northwest that have R-2 insulation and NO HVAC. Yet, many of my clients are growing bananas and oranges in their family rooms. I have created transformational methods of construction to bring it out of the 17th and into the 21st century. Studies by ODOE showed that without PV, a home built with this system will operate at 24% of the energy consumption of a similar home built to the Model Energy Code BEFORE PV is added. Because of this, a DOE director has put extreme pressure on me to bring the omni-directional BIPV portion to market first. It is projected to cost less than a non-solar roof. If covered completely in this system, the utility companies will gladly send you a check every month because of the huge amount of excess electricity you will provide it at their peak load times right where they need it. Only hydro can beat its cost per kW.

NOTES:
1. There are 6 forms of solar, not just PV
2. Use Mother Nature to the greatest extent because she doesn't send a utility bill.
3. The cell/array plus inverter constitute just 1/3rd of the cost of a solar panel installed. That is why we are successfully working on the other 2/3rds
4. PV needs light not sun to generate electricity. The hotter the panel, the less efficiently the cell operates. Panels are put in the desert far from the clients because the land is cheap.

Myth #1 As the first president of a national solar association, our first effort was to study solar in the U.S. Surprisingly, we discovered that we could get the lowest net energy bills in the wet, dark Pacific Northwest.

I have run out of space and will continue in the next Comment.

'technotard'

Comment
21 of 22

technotard

August 10, 2010

Continued:
Myth #2 While currently true, I am aware of many diverse systems under development, including one of our own to be incorporated into the structure of our homes, that will allow for the storage of excess electricity to be brought back when needed.

Myth #3 See end of "background" and Myth #2. Ironically, while they are getting lower in price, new appliances are becoming extremely more energy efficient.

Myth #4. I strongly agree. Why wait while your electricity rates are climbing much faster than inflation. A good investment in stock is one that brings a payback in 7 years. In some states, the payback is currently below 5 years AND the incentives and rebates are now being reduced.

Myth #5. Good answer. Right on.

pfiddle: We are at least 4 years from introduction. GO NOW before your electric rates climb any more.

ehusman: We have found Mother Nature to be a stronger method of reducing energy needs than insulation. Studies have shown that over R-19 insulation is not a good investment. Payback period ~ like 30 to 40 years.

anonomous: Correct ~ see Note #1 on my previous comment

chuck: Right on. The breakthroughs in PV efficiency/cost are going to be miniscule and the main cost is in the Rest-of-the-System. That is where we come in and the cost reductions opportunities there are huge.

russ: please see the above. Our commercial greenhouses in the Shetland Islands operate year 'round with NO PV and NO utility connections. I was privledged to see and assist with the prototype of another method that is handling a large residence,plus their farm equipment, 3 cars and 2 boats. Work is underway to reduce the complexity of many answers so that they can be installed in homes.

jeff: for just a few dollars mare, add a hybrid-solar system to your hot water system and you need even less storage space while lowering your annual bills.

bob: Right on. Last year the U.S. subsidized oil to the tune of $72 Billion.

technotard

Comment
22 of 22

Energy_Credits

August 25, 2010

re: #4, just to put a dollar amount to further shatter the myth, like'em or not, it's worth noting how lucrative the federal credit is for homeowners who install solar panels.

It's 30% of the cost of solar panel installation.

And as long as it's installed between January 1, 2009 and December
31, 2016, there is *no* maximum credit.

So $10,000 installation = $3,000 credit. Not bad.

-mike
http://energycredits.com/consumer-tax-credits/solar-power-tax-credits/

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!