On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:21:31 -0400, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>>> It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years!
>>
>> Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex setups.
>
> I have to laugh at this.  "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years"
>
> Solar isn't ready yet.  It's not cost effective.  But cost effectiveness isn't even the issue.  It's not sustainable.  You need fossil fuels to mine the materials, ship them, assemble the components, etc.  Until you can power all those things with pure solar, you are still dependent on fossil fuel.
>
> I've seen all these "Solar farm" installations, and they are butt-ugly.  I find it ironic that we are cutting down trees to make room for these things...
>
> You can save energy more cost effectively in other ways.  I have no doubt that solar technology will continue to innovate, but the worst thing we can do right now is subsidize it.  When it's ready (and it will be), it will succeed on its own merits.
>
> -Steve

It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:35 -0400, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual.

It's not a good deal for the taxpayers who have to subsidize it to make it a good deal for the individual.  Would you buy it if it was full price?

-Steve

On 6/11/2013 12:21 PM, John Colvin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>> It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for
>>> it.
>>
>> Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years!
>
> Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated
> electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex
> setups.

Don't have a source, I read it long ago. Note that none of the advertisements, brochures, etc., mention expected life of the PVs.

I do know that the life of any semiconductor is measured as the integral of the heat it experiences. Heat causes the doping to migrate, and when it migrates far enough the part fails.

PV panels can get pretty hot in direct sunlight.

Heating/cooling cycling will also cause cracking.

If you're considering a PV system, I'd ask serious questions about the useful life of the system, and what maintenance is required (at a minimum, they'll need the dirt and mold regularly cleaned off).

Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance you can get replacement parts for 20 years.

On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance
> you
> can get replacement parts for 20 years.

I bet most companies don't even get to live 20 years. And usually the
older a product, the harder (i.e. more expensive) it is to fix it or
get spare parts (e.g. cars).

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I have to laugh at this.  "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years"

A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:18:09 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I have to laugh at this.  "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years"
>
> A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it.

But the difference is, houses frequently last far more than 20 years :)

-Steve

On 6/11/2013 1:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance
>> you
>> can get replacement parts for 20 years.
>
> I bet most companies don't even get to live 20 years. And usually the
> older a product, the harder (i.e. more expensive) it is to fix it or
> get spare parts (e.g. cars).


Actually, parts for old cars are a lot cheaper than for new ones! But I think that's an anomaly.

Steven Schveighoffer:

> I have no doubt that solar technology will continue to innovate, but the worst thing we can do right now is subsidize it.  When it's ready (and it will be), it will succeed on its own merits.

The situation is far more complex than that.

Bye,
bearophile

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Actually, parts for old cars are a lot cheaper than for new ones! But I think that's an anomaly.

I guess it totally depends on where you live. :)

On 6/11/2013 1:18 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I have to laugh at this.  "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20
>> years"
>
> A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself
> compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it.

Rents have lagged significantly behind the cost of buying for some time, now (because people buy homes for speculating on real estate price increases). This means you are financially better off renting.

Owning a home has lots of nice advantages, but saving money isn't reliably one of them.