Wafer handlers: Senior photovoltaic engineer Adam Lorenz works on some solar wafers. The company he works for, 1366 Technologies, aims to convert sunshine into power as cheaply as coal-burning power plants do. (Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff)
Will solar power ever be as cheap as coal?
Some predict that within five years, it could rival fossil-fuel energy.
By Mark Clayton | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ December 4, 2008 edition
Reporter Mark Clayton discusses the growing interest in solar power.
Reporter Mark Clayton
Lexington, Mass.
“Solar power is the energy of the future – and always will be.”
That tired joke, which has dogged solar-generated electricity for decades due to its high cost, could be retired far sooner than many think.
While solar contributes less than 1 percent of the energy generated in the United States today, its costs are turning sharply downward.
Whether using mirrors that focus desert sunlight to harvest heat and spin turbines or rooftop photovoltaic panels that turn sunshine directly into current, solar is on track to deliver electricity to residential users at a cost on par with natural gas and perhaps even coal within the next four to seven years, industry experts say.
“We’re confident that we’re not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be competitive with fossil fuels,” said Ray Kurzweil, a National Academy of Engineers panel member after the panel reported on the future of solar power in February. “I personally believe that we’re within five years of that tipping point.”
To do that, however, the cost of electricity produced by rooftop solar panels, for instance, will need to fall by half – from about 32 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) today, including subsidies, to about 15 cents per kwh by 2012, according to a new report by FBR Capital Markets, an investment bank, and market researcher Solarbuzz.
Evidence of a shift appears to be taking shape around the country. Google, the Internet search company, has invested in several young solar-power start-ups with an explicit cheaper-than-coal goal. San Jose, Calif.-based Nanosolar already claims to be shipping “thin-film” solar panels that generate electricity on par with the cost of coal-fired power. And in Lexington, Mass., Frank van Mierlo and Emanuel Sachs are leading a team of engineers with one audacious mission: Make a silicon photovoltaic cell that turns sunshine into electricity as cheap as electricity from a coal-burning power plant.
“There’s no doubt that we’re going to see solar as cheap as coal power a lot sooner than many people realize,” says Mr. van Mierlo, president of 1366 Technologies, standing beside an industrial furnace inside the company’s pilot manufacturing facility.
Proof of what he says lies a few footsteps down a hallway where Sara Olibet, an applied physicist, is painstakingly measuring the efficiency of dozens of solar-cell prototypes, each with a different combination of chemical coatings designed to maximize power output.
In her lab, she uses tweezers to select one-inch-square cells and put them into a refrigerator-size machine that shines light with sun-like intensity. In addition to efficiency ratings, readings are taken along the light spectrum to evaluate the cells’ coatings and other aspects being tweaked toward a single optimum formula.
For 1366 Technologies, whose name is derived from the “solar constant” of 1,366 watts per square meter that strike Earth every moment, the immediate goal is to produce a 3 percentage point gain in cell efficiency. While boosting a solar cell’s efficiency from 15 percent to 18 percent may sound trivial, it would mean a huge cut in production costs, from $2.20 cents per watt today to $1 a watt – without federal or state subsidies, van Mierlo says.
At that $1-a-watt level, 1366 Technologies claims it could produce solar panels with cells delivering electricity to a home as cheaply as the delivered cost of coal power – about 10 cents per kwh.
“It’s not hyperbole to say that we’re within reach of grid parity,” van Mierlo says. Adding to that $1 a watt a modest profit and cost of installation, the delivered cost of power would be about $3 a watt – or 18 cents per kwh – without any subsidies. At that rate, a rooftop residential solar module would produce power on par with the cost of grid power in the Northeast today.
Others are less sure. “Relative to every other significant generation source, solar is still quite expensive today,” says Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. “This technology holds significant promise, particularly utility-scale solar thermal technology. We want to tap into solar technologies and the sooner the better, but it doesn’t seem around the corner.”
Still, an array of experts agree that solar could cause a “disruptive” shift in US energy generation five years from now. When “grid parity” for solar arrives at that time, the nation will likely see sharp growth in solar panels installed on residential rooftops, driven not by environmental concerns, but by a desire for more economical electricity, these energy industry analysts say.
Next year, enough solar panels will be sold in the US to generate 330 megawatts of power, the FBR projects. But the US could well see a 20-fold rise in US solar panel sales by 2013, enough to power about 3.5 million homes with two-kilowatt rooftop solar arrays, it says.
That surge could arrive faster with new federal tax credits that cover 30 percent of the cost of a solar installation. In some states, the news is even better for solar customers.
“The reality is that even today, there are some places in California where, with state incentives, solar already has grid parity,” says Robert Margolis, senior energy analyst for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Nationwide, the date is closer to 2015, he says.
“Even the credit crisis, funny enough, may actually accelerate it by temporarily squelching demand and causing solar prices to come down faster,” says Travis Bradford, president of the Prometheus Institute, a think tank focused on solar power.
Several analysts expect the solar panel industry to soon enter a brutal shakeout that will eliminate many weaker companies, but also benefit consumers by chopping solar panel costs in half.
Right now companies like Nanosolar that already have funding have soldiered on. Van Mierlo says 1366 is shepherding its resources. It could launch a manufacturing facility in 2010, but the company can afford to wait patiently, refining cell-manufacturing technologies until the perfect moment for full production, he says.
“In five to seven years, the idea of building a home without solar energy on it will be as silly as building without plumbing,” Mr. Bradford says.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Scott | 12.04.08
No, they’re talking about cost parity, not replacing it. These panels are connected to the grid and feed excess energy during the day to the public grid and at night you draw energy from the grid. There’s no extra cost for storage and their analysis is accurate.
3. Solar Refrigerators | 12.04.08
Most of my customers who live off the grid are still using propane refrigerators and lights waiting for the solar pricing to come down.
The energy efficient dc solar compatible fridges are close to the same price but when you add the cost of the panels, batteries, and charge controller it’s still not worth it to them.
Ben C
http://www.BensDiscountSupply.com
4. solarday | 12.04.08
Utility consumption typically peaks during the hottest days in summer. To meet this peak demand, many power plants are built to function only for a few hours a day during peak seasons. These plants that provide peak time network reliability typically burn ‘dirty’, have a very low return on investment, and drive up the cost of electricity substantially. These plants can be eliminated if solar cells can instead be used to meet peak demand. It seems that even before solar cells attain grid parity and can be used in residential applications by individual owners, they would be worth the money to utilities to meet peak demand.
5. Dan | 12.04.08
Solar doesn’t work at night but that is the optimal time for wind generation. And of course there’s tidal, small turbine hydropower, and some even bigger sources like high altitude wind (tapping jet stream forces 24/7) on the horizon. Renewable energy will soon be the only energy source we need, the only question is whether we’ll jump start it with early investment to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change on the economy, national security, and world stability.
6. cekestner | 12.05.08
Still the best bet for solar is solar water heating. Yes, it’s true that in many areas of the country, the majority of sunny days are in the summer, but so what?
Solar water heating is cheap, easy to install, and - for folks who have trees nearby can be made relatively falling limb proof.
Solar cells in this situation would need to be heavily armored.
7. Garth Bowden | 12.05.08
The subsidies can’t be included in the cost per kilowatt hour because that’s extremely misleading. The technology’s efficiency does not depend on the level of government subsidy; the issues are totally distinct.
That being said I’m sure that costs for solar will decrease dramatically as some existing technologies are taken from prototype to implementation.
8. Barry Andrews | 12.05.08
Solar doesn’t need to replace coal completely to be viable. It will be become part of the total solution- wind, biofuels and other alternatives will exist along with traditional forms of power generation. The future of energy is about shifting the mix of energy generation rather than completely replacing existing forms.
Global warming is only one of the negatives of carbon based energy generation- one only has to visit India or China to realize that reduction of air pollution and the attendant economic and social costs are reason alone to pursue non-polluting alternatives as part of a global long term solution.
9. Earle | 12.05.08
Thermal cycle plants work fine at night. Solar day, fossil night, or as just stated, 200% solar collection in the day covers the night. Been there done that with SEGS in California. Solar is awesome for humans, as peak activity coincides with solar maximums. Who will ever understand the common person who instantly shouts coal, gas, oil, etc at any mention of soar power. Maybe food tastes better from coal powered grow lights in the underground layers they live. I don’t know, I like the sun.
10. Brian | 12.05.08
Many coal plants (usually the oldest and dirtiest) are “peaking” plants — that means they only fire up when the sun comes out and people turn on their air conditioners. Those plants are also (regardless of coal) expensive because they must me kept ready for service, year round, just so they can be used a few hours per year. Solar panels compete very well on cost with those plants, particularly if you figure in the cost of dealing with the polution (health problems, lost productivity, federally funded cleanup projects, lawsuits, etc.) that coal plants bring with them.
11. David Scott Lewis (Zytech Solar, a Going Green 100 Winner) | 12.05.08
When comparing the cost of electricity generated from NEW coal-fired to solar, solar looks quite competitive, should be at parity in a few years (and already is in certain circumstances, i.e., specific configurations in selected locations), and will be cheaper within ten years — and possibly within five years.
There will be many winners in the solar power sector, winners with thin-film solutions, winners with concentrating solutions (both PV and thermal), all sorts of winners. Concentration technologies work best in the sunniest areas, but even standard modules circa 2015 may be competitive with coal, especially with clean coal.
@bitwonk, don’t be surprised to see solar/wind hybrid solutions since wind tends to work best at night, whereas solar addresses peak demand needs. We’re already combining our LCPV (low concentration photovoltaics) systems with our small wind systems (”small wind” is the correct industry jargon). Although this isn’t a focus for us, it’s certainly one solution, especially for off-grid environments such as remote villages/rural areas and other places that are not connected to a national/regional power grid.
12. Sane | 12.05.08
bitwonk…In the parts of North America (and the indeed the world) where these guys are probably most seriously looking at cost of solar one day competing with cost of coal, the hottest sunniest days are precisely when the most electricity is required. Admittedly this only works up to a certain share of generation capacity but this is no where near achieved yet. In short, solar power WILL one day compete effectively with other sources of energy, the only question is how widely spread and in what quantities.
13. NoExternals | 12.05.08
The cost of coal is not just about the price the natural resource; it’s also about the harm done to the environment and health from burning coal, which sadly isn’t factored into the “cost.” When it is factored in, solar has to be more economical, not to mention healthy and less destructive.
14. tbrown | 12.05.08
sorry not to see plextronics printed ink based solar cells mentioned, the efficiency is not as high as with solar cells but the production costs are much lower, making up for the loss in efficiency, and driving down the cost of the kwh.
15. Astralis | 12.05.08
I pay 13 cents/kw. Why would I want to invest in a technology that still hasn’t been proven only to increase my rates when it might become proven?
16. Seth Masia | 12.05.08
Bitwonk, your comment ignores the cyclical nature of the grid’s electrical load. Solar generation is a very good match against afternoon air-conditioning peaking loads. It’s incredibly valuable in reducing the need for “peaking” generation in the summer. Regarding rooftop solar — the whole point is to spin the meter backward while the sun shines so as to neutralize the cost of the draw during evening hours.
17. Matt_M | 12.05.08
@bitwonk- Yes, you’re totally right, because they haven’t invented the battery yet.
Besides, solar is just one part of the renewable energy solution. Coupled with hydro and wind, and a few combustible plants running clean fuel, we’d be done with coal entirely.
18. Ciceroji | 12.05.08
Bitwomk’s comment is my favorite from naysayers. They are the people that used to proclaim that cars would never be able to go as fast as horses. Then we built roads, improved the suspension and engine. It is the same argument. A flaw is brought up which can EASILY be corrected with technological innovation. It is NOT a fundamental flaw.
1. It doesn’t matter because peak power use is during the day.
2. They are alot of new technologies available and in development to store power. (Technology)
3. One solar thermal plant currently exists which already can store power for 8 hours. Sorry forgot the name.
19. 123andy | 12.05.08
Anyone willing to bet their energy future on this kind of projection deserves what they will get, which is a huge shortfall. I am not against solar, I have invested significant $$$s on its growth, but please get real and set objectives that make sense. Until energy storage and transmission costs are factored in and they are competitive overall solar will remain a nitche source, perhaps an important one, specially where distributed power is concerned, but for the rest of us maybe get to 10% by 2030. That would be huge
20. nkptexan | 12.05.08
I agree with bitwonk, it is never discussed that solar power can only provide 25%-30% of the capacity of any fossil fueled plant, and that is only if the sun shines every day. Because of this FACT, solar will only truly be competitive with a fossil fueled plant until costs are approximately 75% of a fossil plant.
21. walterrhett, Charleston, SC | 12.05.08
A article that signals very good news! The dedication and focused concentration of the engineers working on developing the technology is the sub-text here, and I would be interested to know: who is the “father/mother” of solar tech; what is current paradigm; what break-throughs have accelerated the development; what are the scientific obstacles/problems that are the most difficult; what are the funding sources for these companies? These really needs to be a series. Cost parity with the grid is really an after-effect of a lot of scientific work, which constitutes the real story.
22. A Comment | 12.05.08
“To do that, however, the cost of electricity produced by rooftop solar panels, for instance, will need to fall by half”
Nonsense. Make coal producers pay the full cost of restoration from “mountain top removal”; the destruction of rivers, salmon, and the recreational and food opportunities lost; and the products of carbonizing the atmosphere - for example, the cost to the counties of Alameda and San Mateo, California when their billion dollar international airports are flooded by the early stages of global warming. Suddenly rooftop solar panels would be extremely competitive.
This junk about alternative energy “supporting itself” when we’ve just spent a trillion tax dollars trying to project military power into the oil regions is hooey that we should throw back at its authors, each and every time it is proposed.
23. R Johnson | 12.05.08
Kudos to 1366 Technologies and all those that support them –vendors and lay people, too. This conversation should’ve been held 20 or 25 years ago. The technology is overdue. I am glad that things are happening at a more rapid pace. Keep on.
For all the detractors: step aside, there’s a new way to do business; it’s called intelligently.
I’ll keep my eye out for changes and have monies ready to invest!! Go for !!!
24. Bll O’Neill | 12.05.08
To think we have been using roofs for the last 2000 yrs to keep water out of the buildings. What a waste of real estate! Roofing as we know it, is a liability, soon to become great asset.
25. Matt Giwer | 12.05.08
Not only no power at night, 1366 w/m^2 is only when the sun is directly overhead which only happens in the tropics two days a year. Outside the tropics it is less. Between dawn and noon it is less. Between noon and sunset it is less. On cloudy days it is less. The peak only occurs on 21 June, the first day of summer in the northern hemisphere. Before and after that date it is less. Taken all together and to get through the winter it is not 1:1 but more like 10:1. And to get through the winter expect to need a basement full of batteries.
26. Mark Chalom, Architect | 12.05.08
My home is made of adobe earth, A technology that is 6,000 years old plus. My large windows face south. This is my solar system as well as my structure. no moving parts. no maintance. it is 18 years old. My hot water is
supplied by the sun and the energy is stored in the water itself. My power comes from a large wind farm throught the power grid. My son was concieved in a solar home. He is 24 years old, always lived this way and now installs large solar PV systems. Who is going to tell him solar energy is still far away? The environmental cost of coal needs to factored into the cost. It is hidden and subsidised. Solar is cheaper and better then coal now and has been. Mark Chalom, Architect.
27. Richard Brownscombe | 12.05.08
There are some issues with day and night electric demand, but solar generated electricity is “sold” to the utility company in the daytime and bought back at night. This agreement already exists in many states and communities. No batteries required. This is why building a better electrical infrastructure in the US is so important for the future. As more people generate electricity locally, the need to shift electricity to where it is needed increases. It will be a big help, but of course, not the only solution to clean energy. I live in South Florida, so I’m sure some extra daytime electricity will be welcome in the northern states this winter and for morning demands as they awaken on the West Coast.
28. emjaysea | 12.05.08
Way to regurgitate the neigh-sayer’s line, bitwonk. When it’s reality, will you keep at it, or just come up with some new reason why we should keep on raping our resources and polluting our air?
29. Milton Bulloch | 12.06.08
when the cost are economically viable, solar could aid each housing unit to be a net sum zero user of generated electricity. During the day the housing unit sends energy back into the grid and withdraws at night and on cloudy days. This the kind of technology that will be the engine of the future re-shaping the economic fabric of our national economy.
30. atheistcable | 12.06.08
Bitwonk wrote: Coal plants also work at night. Solar doesn’t.
Not true. Solar works at night and on cloudy days. We already have the technology to place huge solar panels above the clouds and in orbit where they will catch solar radiation all the time.
31. Anita Knight | 12.06.08
Coal power releases contaminants into the air, ie. hydrogen fluorides and more, whereas Solar power is completely clean.
My great grandfather built a solar collector for his roof from lead pipes with U-joints connecting them, then put a glass cover over the bed. He also built a rain water cystern and connected it to the solar collector. My mother said they never ran out of water or hot water.
Back when Jimmy Carter was president, he promoted solar water heating and had one erected on the White House, and the first thing President Reagan did when he moved in, was to have it removed.
I won a solar collector, control panel and water heater that worked together from a radio program contest back in 1981. My son took plumbing and installed it for me. When my light bills came in, the cost was cut in HALF!!!
Trouble came overnight when we had an overnight freeze. Next morning, water was running down my kitchen window. My son checked the panel on the roof and found the copper tubing bubbled up like cauliflowers!! So, at least I had this treasure for 2 years.
The technology has evolved light years now and it is more than welcome!
32. Jeff in Shanghai | 12.06.08
The premise of this story is vexingly narrow. To say that solar generates only 1% of US energy consumption is probably true, but sorely misses the point. Solar provides something like 99.9999999% of daily energy consumption, if you consider those 1366 watts of sunlight bathing every square meter of the earth during daylight hours. The problem is that we’ve built so many of our consumption habits around fossil fuels, for so long, that we now can only think about consumption in terms of fossil fuels. We need to liberate our thinking from the habits of fossil fuel, like cars, and buildings that make no reference to the bountiful energy that the sun provides every day, even on cloudy days.
Here’s an example. I’ve just leased a new office in Shanghai. It’s an old warehouse, but happens to have waist-to-ceiling windows on three exposures — east (morning), south (midday) and west (afternoon). Yesterday the external temperature was barely 32F, with a biting wind. In our office, it was about 70F, thanks purely to sunlight as we have no other heating source. Most buildings are not built this way. Even modern buildings with insulation are designed to maximize the efficiency of the ***fossil fuel energy*** that we bring in. They are not designed to exploit solar. Look at typical American houses. They are oriented to the street, and to aesthetics, not to the sun. They have windows to let in light, or afford a view, but not to harness energy. If they are double glazed, it’s to keep fossil fuel-created heat or fossil fuel-created cold in.
Look at our cars. They are big and heavy, even the small ones, and 99.99% still burn gas. Think about your engine. If your car is new, it probably has an “energy efficient” engine. But look carefully. Even an efficient engine creates “excess heat”. So our automotive engineers create a special system of pipes and baffles and circulating water whose sole purpose is to take “excess heat” and wick it into the atmosphere. Think of this: Heat that you just created through the “efficient” burning of gasoline is ***deliberately*** wasted. The amount of energy from the gasoline that you paid to put int your tank that is deliberately wicked into the atmosphere? Somewhere between 60% and 80%!
I relish the idea of highly efficient solar cells as much as anyone, but there is so much more we can do to harness solar energy — and we should start by rethinking some of the basic assumptions about the way we live and how profoundly our way of life has been defined by fossil fuels.
Jeff in Shanghai
33. freecleansolar | 12.06.08
The cost of solar power has decreased by 90% in the past decade while the cost of traditional utility power has increased by 4% annually. Installing a solar power system at your residence or small business is a great investment that will save money for years to come. You can reduce or eliminate your monthly utility bill to near $0. With today’s federal tax credits for solar and many state and local cash rebate programs, you can reduce the installation cost by up 50% to 70%. This means you can install solar for as little as a few thousand dollars. Then compare this cost to paying a utility over a 20 or 25 year timeframe. The savings from solar can be tremendous and produce a very healthy ROI. Web sites like freecleansolar.com have a directory of local installers, and rebate and incentive information for states including california, arizona, colorado, new jersey and many more.
In addition to saving money, the best part is that you’ll be doing something good for the Earth at the same time.
34. sonofasun | 12.06.08
Concentrated solar thermal is able to store heat to use at night, and battery storage technology is already advanced enough to act as a temporary backup, and its just getting better all the time. Wake up, coal kills people, and it destroys mountains.
35. Jim Shroff | 12.06.08
This article mentions that the cost of electricty generated by SOLAR PANELS would match that of Coal generated electrc power. Does this include the COST OF BATTERIES for storing electricty for use during nights, cloudy and rainy days?
The article does not mention how much percentage of electrical energy consumed by a standard house, of say 2,000 square feet, would have to be supplemented by local utilities to account for extended periods of inactivation of solar panels due to natural conditions.
36. Subbiah Arunachalam | 12.07.08
Collaboration with scientists in tropical countries where the Sun is plentiful virtully throughout the year would speed up solar energy research for the benefit of all.
37. Jock | 12.07.08
Bad news for solar: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-24-01.asp
A gas used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, and thin-film solar panels is 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and it is far more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated.
The powerful greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, is at least four times more widespread than scientists had believed, according to new research by a team at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.
38. Michael Hogan | 12.07.08
Storage, storage, storage. The solar PV advocates and Mr. Owen from the Edison Electric Institute sound like they’re talking about different things - because they are. PV and wind advocates love to talk about “grid parity,” but grid parity means nothing if all you’re talking about is the break-even cost of instantaneously producing a kWh of electricity. Grid parity needs to take into account all of the grid services required to provide the level of power quality and reliability expected by industrial, commercial and residential consumers in a modern developed society. That’s what Mr. Owen is talking about, and that’s why he singles out concentrating solar thermal as the technology of most interest, since it can now be deployed with large-scale thermal energy storage systems that allow grid operators to call on the productive capacity when it’s needed, not just when the sun is shining (or the wind is blowing). Only that type of resource can replace the role of coal plants in our electric system, and since coal constitutes 80% of the CO2 produced by the power system, that’s really all that matters. PV and wind are decades away from being able to do that on a large scale, which is why the talk of grid parity for things like solar PV cells is pretty meaningless from the perspective of both power grid transformation and climate change. Solar thermal, geothermal, biomass and (to a lesser extent) the steadier profile of offshore wind are the renewable technologies that are ready to do the real work of replacing coal.
39. Greg | 12.07.08
“Solar power is the energy of the future – and always will be.”
I was more familiar with nuclear fusion as the source that will always be in the future instead of solar. To those two, Googling added hydrogen and shale oil, giving use four fuels that notionally will never arrive.
Also,
The country of the future and always will be: Brazil
The car of the future…: Electric
The material of the future…: Gallium arsenide
It’s a surprisingly popular theme.
40. Mr Ed | 12.09.08
As I read what everyone has to say; I see one that stands out. “I invested $$$ for whatever.” It is all that. How much can I spend and make the most money back or save in the long run. How much is it going to cost and last me?
I would enjoy telling people the best power investment money spent for the home living and the health of all.
There is always a thought, How about dropping the usage of the power. Most products we use drop the power to 24V from 120V.
Water current is that best plan I have red so far. It will always be there as long as the earth turns.
No one has said Nitrogen fuel cell. Remember, you always take a risk that no one will cross that solid yellow line every day, even on that cell phone.
The USA has changed and so has the demand. Whoever has the money to start the business to making it easer and cheaper to live life, please hurry up and produce what we need.
41. Simon Greeysmith | 12.15.08
From Australia …. we’ve just had the government announce a completely disappointing and inadequate 5% emissions reduction target. Part of the reason for this is our heavy dependence on coal. Where will the coal industry be when solar is as cheap as coal …. disruptive technology indeed. Any government with some foresight would see this. Any government with some foresight would not be giving us a 5% target to placate the coal industry.
42. jimh | 12.17.08
Hey bitwonk, ever heard of a battery, or a capacitor, or running a generator to compress air while the sun is shining. Compressed air can be used to turn turbines, run motors, etc… Lots of ways to store energy so that it can be used after the source quits generating.
Combined with wind, tidal, geothermal and others there is no reason to assume that there won’t be enough power at all times that is needed. It’s called redundancy and you have some from all the types that can generate.
43. Jonathan Robins | 01.02.09
Coal is much more expensive than solar power in many applications. At SolarPath sun solutions we are constantly doing cost/benefit analysis of traditional grid-tied solar lighting vs. grid powered electricity. Having independent DC electricity generation is much less taxing on infrastructure, and reduces overall maintenance cost/cost of deliver.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. bitwonk | 12.04.08
Coal plants also work at night. Solar doesn’t. You have to store the solar-generated energy for night, cloudy days, etc. So you need more than a 1:1 ratio of solar to replace coal, gas, etc.