We don't have abundant solar power because of financing, not science

Ultimately, the problem with solar, wind, and any other "periodic" or localized generation method is storage and distribution. I live in an area with incredibly cheap power due to hydro dams that generate well in excess of what we need. However, there's only so much we can do with that excess in terms of efficiency of generation because it costs so much to send that energy long distances.<p>In addition, you have the obvious periodic nature of solar and wind, which mean that not only do you have the distribution problems, but you also can't just flick it on and offset a bunch of peak load or burst demand (such as when hospitals "turn on" in the morning).<p>You could have 100% efficient solar technology, and it wouldn't change much the economics of green energy because of the physical nature of problem. Thus, you need to change how we deal with the physical nature, and thus the economics themselves by improving the technology in other places. I work for a startup which is building a combination of efficient storage infrastructure and a distributed software system to help manage the heuristics of controlling supply and demand with this storage system and generation technology (including solar and wind, but also traditional generation as well), helping to do things like smart "time shifting" of energy supply.<p>Since superconductors are still a ways off, and even with them it doesn't change the nature of periodic generation, I think storage technology is likely the most important area for investment in the immediate future (and not just because that's where my paycheck comes from :) )

Very common problem with similar optimistic analysis is that they compare end-user price (includes taxes and distribution costs) with the price of solar panels (no installation and maintenance costs).<p>In reality, you have to calculate additional costs when dealing with unpredictable sources. Either you have to have 100% backup in traditional source or you have to conserve the energy (usually below 50% efficiency).

"Researchers at Queen’s University in Canada have compiled a comprehensive study of solar power plants and found that improvements in financing, and industrial streamlining could allow for the technology to become as cost-effective as traditional electrical sources. In other words, a much larger part of the globe could currently reach grid parity if cheap loans and better supply chains were available."<p>In other words, solar photovoltaics are not yet affordable without technological improvements in the supply chain and without subsidy in the form of below-market financing. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Solar power is a classic disruptive technology. It currently does not meet the mainstream market's needs in terms of:<p><pre><code> - availability - cost per MWh - suitable locations (close to established high voltage power lines) </code></pre> Each of these factors is being steadily improved over time. And once solar technology meets the mainstream market's expectations for energy production, incumbent producers will need to retreat their offerings into a vanishingly small market for those needs not met by solar.

Wrong, we don't have abundant solar power because of science, not financing. Go build something using solar power, the technology just isn't there, but most importantly neither are the physics. I spent a couple of years building an industrial product that ran off of solar power. We are in the sun belt, which is a region of the U.S. that has the most sun relative to the rest of the country. What I learned is that solar power is a joke. There just isn't enough solar energy arriving at the surface of the planet to make it worthwhile to use. It's a fantasy, get over it and invent something new, like a 600cc nuclear reactor.

We don't have abundant solid gold toilet seats because of financing, not science, either. Now this isn't to say that there is no market for solid gold toilet seats. Surely, I'd buy one, if the cost was the same as a regular toilet seat. But it isn't, now is it? Yes yes, I know this will kill my Hacker News karma. Deduct away.

Solar is not a viable means for today's energy consumption, and it certainly won't be a viable means for tomorrow's energy consumption.<p>The energy race has been decided already, and the only answer to fossil fuels is Liquid Floride Thoriam Reactors (LFTR). It's an alternative form of nuclear energy that has been around since the Manhattan Project. Unlike the current nuclear power plants of today, it is impossible for a nuclear explosion to occur, there is no waste generated (well, there is about 1% waste, but the waste generated is actually a very rare metal NASA uses to power deep space satellites), and Thorium (the equivalent to Uranium) is 1000x more abundant than Uranium.<p>LFTR will be the worlds core energy source within 30 years. China is the only country actively developing a LFTR program- if it comes to fruition, they could be the power suppliers of tomorrow.<p>Learn about it in 5 minutes: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4</a>

It's not financing. It's the fact that we don't have a carbon tax. Price carbon near the cost of sequestration and you will see plenty of money invested in alternative energy. Anything else keeps the decision making in the hands of the central planners. Ask Gorbachev how well that worked.

Finance is the most important issue for solar adoption, especially for distributed generation. For residential customers there is very little reason not to invest in generating your own power from rooftop solar, unless you don't plan to be in your house for 5-7 years. Even then there are studies that show you can get your money back from increased resale value.<p>Think of solar like this - why would you not want to independently produce your own power and escape the clutches of your local utility company? In most states in the US, utilities are monopolies and although they are regulated, they employ thousands of lobbyists to influence those who regulate them. The result, predictably is annually escalating electricity rates. The utilities raise rates to build new plants, transmission lines, increase management and employee salaries, and lately in California, cover underfunded employee pension costs!<p>Unfortunately, without a finance option available, you have to come up with a big chunk of money to install a system (essentially pre-paying for 7 years worth of electricity up front).<p>So, if you can finance the system over a reasonable period of time so that you don't have to pay for the entire system upfront, it makes makes it much easier to pull the trigger on purchasing a system.<p>Of course, if you can afford to pay for it upfront, it makes even more sense.

I wonder how the failure of Solyndra fits into this thesis.

A friend of mine founded a start up to finance solar power.<p><a href="http://www.clearspotenergy.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.clearspotenergy.com/</a>

1. Bullshit. 2. you all are better at math than I am, so I won't bother to point out the obvious.

Solar power on its own cannot supply base load electrical power. Period. Full stop.<p>Only in combination with an extensive power storage infrastructure could such a thing be possible. Constructing such things would easily cost as much, or more, as constructing all of the necessary PV plants.<p>Moreover, very substantial changes to the national power grid would also need to be undertaken.<p>At the best possible costs this work would easily exceed what it would take to build enough fission power plants to provide all of the base load, and that isn't happening with any degree of rapidity either.