Is solar a good option?

[I Think]

Good post, but a little off in efficiencies. Efficiency does not matter nearly as much as cost of panel per watt delivered.
Lower efficiency panels cost less per watt, so for the average user they are a better buy.

if you really want to know which are the most efficient solar panels (or solar cells) out there, I actually happened to be putting together a list of solar records recently and can give you the rundown. But, as I do so, I’ll drop in a few key notes making the point above a bit clearer. Before looking at solar panels as a whole, let’s have a quick look at the producers of some of the most efficient solar cells (the key component of solar panels) and their efficiency records:

46% efficient solar cells by Soitec & Fraunhofer Institute. Notably, these world-leading solar cells from Soitec and Fraunhofer Institute are in the concentrator triple-junction solar cell category. Such solar cells are complicated and are not used in residential or commercial applications… because they are bloody expensive. They are used in space applications by the likes of NASA, where a bit of extra space (or, as it may be, less space via extra efficiency) can make a huge difference.
44.4% efficient solar cells by Sharp previously held the overall efficiency record. However, they still hold the record for triple-junction (concentrator) solar cells.

37.9% efficient solar cells by Sharp. A big step down, these are in the triple-junction, non-concentrator solar cell category. If this is all new to you, it might take you awhile to see the difference in the categories. The difference is that these solar cells don’t use anything to concentrate the light hitting the solar cells, while the 44.7% efficiency cells noted above do use something to concentrate the light (of course, adding to their costs).

32.6% solar cells by a Spanish solar research institute (IES) and university (UPM). These are another step down, as they are in the two-junction, concentrator solar cell category. (For an intro on “junctions,” by the way, check out this multi-junction photovoltaic cell article on Wikipedia.) Again, these are still far different solar cells from what are used in commercial or residential installations.

There are about a dozen or so extra categories that I could run down. Some categories have very high efficiencies but the solar cells are quite expensive, while others are actually on the other end of the spectrum (no pun intended) and are very cheap but have very low efficiency. Of course, some are both inefficient and expensive, but apparently worth researching nonetheless. The key, as I noted earlier, is finding the best balance between cost and efficiency.


http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/02/whi ... efficient/

[I Think]

*removed*

[bob vernon]

Solar in north Africa is moving ahead quickly. Morocco has the first 25% of their Noor project and when completed it will produce about 580 Mw. That's about half of what the new Site C dam here in BC will produce. They've even got technology that will overcome the problem of generation when the sun sets.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ga-project

Tunisia also has plans for big solar. Different than Morocco in that their mirrors will focus on a big tower. The plan is to send the power into Europe with a cable under the Mediterranean to Sicily, 94 miles away and then into Italy.

http://www.nurenergie.com/index.php/eng ... ts/tunisia

There are other north African projects that will be built. Even with oil temporarily (for a few years or even a decade) falling in price as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia try to put competitors, like the OilSands, out of business, Europe will still be there with a demand for energy. And north Africa has a lot of sunshine.

Solar here in Canada? We just don't get enough sunshine in the winter, the time that we need the energy. We might be too far north.

[Donald G]

by bob vernon » 58 minutes ago

Solar here in Canada? We just don't get enough sunshine in the winter, the time that we need the energy. We might be too far north.

Good post regarding Africa and I agree with you regarding Canada. It does not matter how efficient your system is if you are not getting adequate sunshine to run it or it does not meet peak electricity periods.

[Smurf]

Check out Arizona. According to Wikipedia they had 1112 MW of solar power in 2012 and it is increasing all the time. I have been watching the huge projects near Wellton just east of Yuma. Panels as far as the eye can see. Apparently they are shooting for

As of January 30, 2013, 19 projects, with a total nameplate capacity of 13.450 gigawatts (GW) are actively seeking permission to build on federally owned BLM land in Arizona,[3][4] and one, the 300 MW Sonoran Solar Project has been approved.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Arizona

You see panels all over Yuma, on top of covered parking lots, wherever there is a spot for them. But there are two things you have to remember, Hydro is more expensive down there as I can vouch living down there part of the year, so it makes it worthwhile and they have a fantastic amount of strong sun.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/ ... nshine.php

Days of Sunshine Per Year in Arizona

Number of Sunny Days
In the table below, the average number of Sunny Days for a city in Arizona is the total days in a year when the sky is mostly clear. This includes the days when cloud covers up to 30% of the sky during daylight hours.
Partly Sunny Days have cloud covering from 40% to 70% of the sky during the daytime.
Total Days With Sun is a sum of the Sunny plus Partly Sunny days. The rest of the days are mainly overcast, with at least 80% cloud cover. All the numbers are annual averages, made from years of weather watching.
Annual days of sunshine

City Sunny days Partly sunny days Total Days With Sun
Flagstaff 162 102 264
Phoenix 211 85 296
Tucson 193 91 284
Winslow 177 99 276
Yuma 242 71 313


Amount of Sun
Here's another way to look at how much sunshine a city gets. The % Sun number measures the percentage of time between sunrise and sunset that sunshine reaches the ground. Again, these amounts are yearly averages based on many years of weather observations.
Percent sunshine yearly
City % Sun
Flagstaff 78
Phoenix 85
Tucson 85
Yuma 90

Those desert areas are excellent for solar due to the amount of sun year around. Also they do not have an abundance of water for cheap reliable hydro power of any size.

Check out these charts showing the sun in BC

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/ ... verage.php

The charts are all different so it is hard to compare but if you look at Yuma 90% sun and Vernon 42% sun it gives you a good idea of the difference in the prospects for reliable solar. We just don't make the grade.

[Donald G]

The collective information would indicate that solar is a good option where you have the sunshine to "fuel" the energy system for the time periods needed.

Canada would seem to be lacking the sun requirements in almost all areas. IMO it can be used to supplement electrical needs providing you have a 24/7/365 system as your main supply.

But it brings up the question of why duplicate given the present cost and reliability of Hydro Electricity in BC ??

[Mr. Sanity]

Solar will only ever really be a "supplement" this far north but don't ignore it just because. Also down the road who knows, some new breakthroughs might make it work! I have to stay optimistic regardless, it's better for the heart. That being said, large industrial sized solar plants in the deserts will most likely power most of the world. If the USA converted every golf course to solar they could power their nation (or close to it). It's really just a question of priorities.

[Mr. Sanity]

The collective information would indicate that solar is a good option where you have the sunshine to "fuel" the energy system for the time periods needed.

Canada would seem to be lacking the sun requirements in almost all areas. IMO it can be used to supplement electrical needs providing you have a 24/7/365 system as your main supply.

But it brings up the question of why duplicate given the present cost and reliability of Hydro Electricity in BC ??

As panel and installation costs drop and the price per KWh increases (another Fortis increase rumored for this year) it makes sense to offset your electrical costs with cheaper solar power if possible. Another thing to consider on the horizon is the "Time of Use" billing that was introduced in Ontario soon after Smart Meters were installed. The image below is an example of their summer billing, they use a slightly different graph for winter (red and yellow reversed).This will happen in BC, it's just a matter of time. Green = $.083/KWh, Yellow = $.128/KWh and Red = $.175/KWh.

[Donald G]

by Mr. Sanity » 4 minutes ago

As panel and installation costs drop and the price per KWh increases (another Fortis increase rumored for this year) it makes sense to offset your electrical costs with cheaper solar power if possible

IF solar generated power was cheaper than hydro electricity I could see your point. At the moment, in order to encourage solar power, BC Hydro is buying solar power at a higher price than it sells hydro produced power for. BC Hydro actually absorbs a loss in order to encourage the development of alternate sources of energy.

In the real world in BC today Hydro electric is, by far, the cheapest electricity to produce. The actual statistical comparison has been given on several Castanet strings. I know that the Site C string is one of them.

[flamingfingers]

Geothermal has had applications here in BC but has not been seriously investigated by BC Hydro or government. Much more environmentally friendly and never ending with output.

[Hurtlander]

I live four hours north of Kelowna, there are three homes that I am aware of that are using 100% solar power, somehow it works. But, the main reason these homes are on solar is because they are large acreage isolated properties, putting in solar was actually no more expensive than installing 5 or 6 power poles and wire from the main power line to the houses, and replacing the batteries every 4 or 5 years is cheaper than what 4 or 5 years of what BC hydro bills would cost.

[Donald G]

by flamingfingers » 13 minutes ago

Geothermal has had applications here in BC but has not been seriously investigated by BC Hydro or government. Much more environmentally friendly and never ending with output.

IMO it is not up to BC hydro to spend taxpayer money researching and building geothermal projects. It is up to private entrepreneurs and private industry to do the research and show that geothermal electricity can be produced as inexpensively as hydro electricity.

[Donald G]

by Hurtlander » less than a minute ago

I live four hours north of Kelowna, there are three homes that I am aware of that are using 100% solar power, somehow it works. But, the main reason these homes are on solar is because they are large acreage isolated properties, putting in solar was actually no more expensive than installing 5 or 6 power poles and wire from the main power line to the houses, and replacing the batteries every 4 or 5 years is cheaper than what 4 or 5 years of what BC hydro bills would cost.

Interesting. Are they using it for lighting, heating, hot water, cooking and air conditioning ??

I know of three houses that are using solar power in this are but only for inside lighting.

[Hurtlander]

Interesting. Are they using it for lighting, heating, hot water, cooking and air conditioning ??

I know of three houses that are using solar power in this are but only for inside lighting.

For the most part yes. They are using solar for lighting and running major appliances. I am not an electrical engineer so I don't know all the exact technical details, but these houses each have huge huge banks of battery packs and inverters to provide 110V and 220v where needed. Because of our location very few homes have air conditioning, it's a luxury that's only needed for one or two weeks each summer. These houses use hot water in floor heat and hot water radiators, the water is heated with wood heat. For fire insurance purposes they use external wood furnaces, if they plan on being away for a few days in the winter they do need to hire someone to drop by once or twice a day to fill the wood stove and feed the animals.

[Donald G]

Sorry Hurtlander. I thought that you meant that every hydro need was being met with solar energy, but only the lights and possibly some of the appliances are. Wood provides the heat and hot water for the residence.

I can not see how that combination would meet either the price or "green" standards of Hydro produced electricity. Especially if the lights and fixtures are being jacked up to 110 and 220 Volt with the need to purchase and replace an adequate number of deep cycle batteries at today's prices. I take it that the residence is far removed from the property boundary and that having the hydro poles put in and wire strung must be much more expensive than I thought.

It would be interesting to have an energy installation expert do a cost estimate on the installation and maintenance of the system being used as opposed to a standard hydro hookup with alternate gas or oil heating. Especially of the cost of "to the furnace" wood is factored into the equation.