Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Why Big Solar is not Better Solar

By Andrew Gilligan
February 4, 2011   |   9 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

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.

9 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 9
February 7, 2011
Andrew, I think you answered yourself in your last paragraph. The biggest problems are the policies, legislators and policy makers. The people we have to convince are the people. Solar products are available to anyone. We don't need a few legislators and policy makers to make decisions for the millions of us, deciding what we should buy and install. People should be purchasing and installing systems that benefit the people for either local or personal use, reducing their dependence on the grid altogether.
Comment
2 of 9
February 8, 2011
true small solar is better for line terminations and big solar for renewable pledge
Comment
3 of 9
February 8, 2011
Five reasons for considering small vs central (large) solar misses the most important point. But when addicted to fossil fuels, that point crashes the party.

Absolutely no one today views fossil fuels as belonging to future generations. Each year each N. American consumes an amount of hundred million year old resources equal in weight to 5 Cadillacs. As a result, renewable energy is merely a conversation topic, something to talk about on Sundays, but not on other days of the week.

A typical solar thermal (ST) plant captures about 12.5% of sustainable resources it acquires. That might improve to 16-17%.PV systems now capture equal benefits when not tracking. The energy embodied in the ST is much less than PV for equal area; about 1/6th that of PV. And because ST can have storage, it doesn't blink on and off with clouds (relevant to electric grids).

But the real issue is that both waste 85% of the resource they acquire. Even on rooftops, the local solution rarely performs. You send that equipment to the best schools and they end of in bars grousing about how the world is falling into a toilet!

A system that captures resources more efficiently can convert fossil fuels into sustainable energy infrastructure. There is not a lot of time to do that. In the 1950's the US used more oil than it did in all previous decades. In the 1960's it did that again. As we travel to the other side of the bell curve of finite resource use, the opposite happens. One of the next decades we will use more oil in one decade than in all the remaining decades. Which decade is that? That is a topic for Sunday.

There are cost effective ways to capture more infinite vs finite resource we use, that can deliver 3 times as much benefit for their cost than today's ST systems and 30 times more than PV. But when all our energy metrics are created in times when we are partying on finite fuels, why spoil good times? Market forces will do that soon enough.
Comment
4 of 9
February 8, 2011
This article starts with a false premise:

"As solar energy becomes a more attractive and profitable investment, both small and large-scale projects are being developed."

There is NO evidence that these solar schemes are "profitable." Projects are being developed because of "free money." Billions. Without government guarantees we would have any "solar development schemes."
Comment
5 of 9
February 8, 2011
Often big projects including Solar take more time to takeoff because of so many clearances both financial and site selection. On the other hand there can be more small projects by many Companies and Individuals.Infrastructure and efficient execution of the project is a prerequisite as any down time of the project will be fatal.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Comment
6 of 9
February 8, 2011
Often big projects including Solar take more time to takeoff because of so many clearances both financial and site selection. On the other hand there can be more small projects by many Companies and Individuals.Infrastructure and efficient execution of the project is a prerequisite as any down time of the project will be fatal.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Comment
7 of 9
February 8, 2011
Small solar? Rooftop? First of all have a good roof. The average house will require a $24,000 system that will last about 20 years. So you may need a new roof to match that. A lot of areas in the US. are not going to get enough sun to be practical. This is one reason the big solar is being built in the southwest. Trasnmission lines? These big solar projects are being built near existing grids and gas lines for their back up. Not a good use of land? Have you seen where they are? Evidently not. All 6 billion people on earth will fit shoulder in the third smallest state, New Jersey. And don't forget step up generators. Do your homework next time. And as the Colorado River goes dry, there are less turbines turning at the Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon Dam at Page,AZ and the Davis Dam at Laughlin,NV. Lets go with these 38 new small package nukes. Look them up at WestingHouse and Bechtel.
Comment
8 of 9
February 9, 2011
Kodain, who says solar has to be put on a roof? The large systems you mention are all ground mounted. So what is stopping a homeowner from doing the same? If the land is available and in a good solar spot, use it. Unfortunately, most systems that are to get a rebate are required to be a certain size and have to be installed on a roof. How absurd. Professionals educating the public correctly, rather than politicians promoting their ideals, should hopefully prevail in order to get systems installed easily in ways that benefit the people, keeping installation cost down.
Comment
9 of 9
February 9, 2011
It was inspiring to learn solar photo voltaic has achieved lower cost/watt installed than combined cycle natural gas plants. With the averageinstalled cost/watt for photo voltaic from $5.00-$8.00, imagine the advantages of recent thin-film developments, ie. near 100% absorbtivity, and around 90% conversion efficiencies, at a cost of less than $1.00/watt installed costs. Of course, again, thin-film requires a surface and a compatable adhesive to attach the thin film to that surface. It seems the proponent of small systems has identified many of the factors which make them more attractive and economical than the cheapest form of fossil fuel electric produc tion.
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!

Register Now   Sign-In

Andrew Gilligan

View Andrew Gilligan's Profile
About: Business Development Associate at Sol Systems LLC more »
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters