| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Richard Tarara wrote:
I'm not sure what the cost of PV material is in bulk, but current
commercial panels ARE NOT cost effective (at $4 or more per KW).
I think prices are closer to $4.00 per watt. ($4 per kilowatt
would change history in a big way.)
Required accoutrements will drive up the cost somewhat.
We can agree that _right now_ photovoltaics are not king of the
mountain. But the gap is not ridiculously large.
And there are other things to think about, such as solar-powered
steam engines, which AFAICT do better than solar photovoltaics
(although this is, once again, a moving target).
Then
there is the 20-25 year lifetime of the panels--versus 60 years plus for
nuclear or coal generated electrical plants.
That's irrelevant. Over such a lifetime, the cost of the
fossil-fueled plant is trivial compared to the cost of the fuel.
There's no point in calculating based on a 60-year lifetime
for the plant if you don't have a 60-year supply of fuel. Which
you don't.
For the solar systems, of course it is almost all capital
and almost no fuel.
> But all that aside, calculate
the AREA needed to supply the world's current (or better yet projected 2-3x
current) TOTAL energy demand and see if that is reasonable.
I did the calculation! It's documented in the reference cited
previously.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/energy-reserves.html
A similar calculation appears in the Physics Today article I
recommended. For the US, the area is large but not ridiculous.
If you're in Japan, you've got a problem. If you're in Mali,
you're sitting pretty.