We've all heard about the Solyndra fiasco, but solar panels seem to be the next big thing in renewable resources. We even spent a whole hour hearing about the wonderful new solar panels at Aragon.
Despite the obviously clean energy behind them, solar panels are still fairly cumbersome to use and install. They require lots of space, access to sunlight for a good period of time and expensive metals such as gallium arsenide. As a private source of energy for a large company with its own buildings, solar panels seem to be the way to go, but with the large space requirement, could they really be efficiently used as a main power source for a city?
Here's another website claiming that the cost of solar panels will decrease, but until they do, the demand curve dictates that only a few people will have access to them.
One last thought, people are excited because solar panels have a 14% efficiency. Is that really all that great? According to the World Coal Organization, the average efficiency is twice that amount where the most efficient plants are a little over three times as efficient. With our growing population, is it really necessary to use solar power for public use versus coal or some other renewable resource?
4 comments:
I was reading in the SF Chronicle this morning, in the Business section, that BrightSource Energy announced plans to construct power plants in the Southern California desert. These would include FIELDS of mirrors (slightly hyperbolic?) that would concentrate the light rays to a 750-foot tower and boil water, which would turn into steam and, through a turbine, generate electricity for about 300,000 homes. It's a great idea (I was actually toying with this idea in engineering class last year, although it's certainly not totally new), but considering that there aren't too many places in the US with deserts like that in southern California, I don't think solar power could be sustainable across the board. Nuclear power, I believe, has up to 88% efficiency, compared to solar panels' 14% efficiency (although they are improving that). Solar power should definitely be part of the energy solution, but it's not sustainable or efficient enough to be the only solution.
If you wanted to read that article, here's a link to the online version: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/14/BUDF1LI082.DTL
I feel like solar panels are very good for us. Even if we can't see the benefits right now (because 14% isn't a very high percentage), we will be able to see them down the road when the panels slowly pay for themselves (and when that happens, it will be nice).
Also, even if everyone is waiting for the price of solar panels to go down, they need someone bold to stick their neck out and buy them when they are expensive so that people can see how efficient and how much of a great buy they are and be willing to spend the money (it would help our economy too!). I think Aragon is one of those people that was bold and bought solar panels even though they were expensive because we are setting an example for all the other schools to follow.
While Sophia brings up a good point regarding the large space requirement needed for solar panels, I still think the benefits of using solar energy outweigh the costs. The sun is an excellent source of natural energy that is already here, so why not harvest it and use it to its maximum potential? Furthermore, while some coal power plants may be more efficient than solar energy, coal is not a renewable resource and can cause tremendous amounts of environmental degradation, such as air pollution, water pollution, and eutrophication. Other forms of renewable energy sources, such as geothermal power or biomass, are available, but solar power is one of the more clean-burning sources. All in all, while solar panels may have their limitations, all options come with their positives and negatives, and I think solar energy is a considerable option.
I agree with Jeremy and Sophia. Solar power, while a truly renewable energy source, simply does not provide enough to fulfill our nation’s current wants. If we do arrive at the point of total exhaustion, when the last bit of coal has been refined, it will be a hard, and I predict impossible, transition to solar power – simply because of the efficiency difference, as noted by Sophia. Going from such a high efficiency fuel, to barely 14%, is simply unimaginable in the enormous machine that is our economy. Production would halt, and supply for most petroleum produced goods would plummet, as companies need to adjust to a much less powerful energy source. But as Jeremy proposes, energy from Nuclear power provides a much more enticing solution. Pursuing both roads – solar and nuclear power – is a good call, but at the end of the day, there will need to be massive efficiency increases in solar power in order to provide a stable transition for an economy that has been on a petroleum induced sprint since the 19th century.
Post a Comment