I've seen a few analysis that have noted that solar has a know maximum output. THe sun only provides a maximum number of W/sqft. It won't provide more, it won't work for 24 hours, and the peak angle will only occur briefly and is only availible at certain latitudes at certain times of year. Let's not ever talk about cloud cover.
Even with perfect efficiency in the cells meaningful solar farms will need to be huge.
GTOlover, you got me wrong. Just because I noted that the lack of solar subsidizes hurt solar doesn't mean I supported government initiatives to prop up a struggling industry. My feelings are mixed on the subject. And yes OPEC drove prices up, which launched the solar industry in the first place. But those prices came tumbling down when increased exploration flooded the market with new oil. That's when the solar industry dried up.
Rob, cheap oil, gas, and coal damaged solar? What! Solar damaged solar, as I recall the Carter years were in the midst of an OPEC hostage of gas. It may seem cheap by today's prices, but it was not considered cheap back then.
Your premise is that the benevolent government has the ability to project winners and losers. Just look at the USPS or Detroit to understand how government really works. You are a good poster, but do not try and defend subsidies of a financially losing product. When the technology meets the market requirement, then no one has to incentivize the sales of the EV product. Stop wasting my tax money!
Good point Butner. There is probably a small specific market of buyers who are willing to pay a hefty pemium to drive a car that is environmentally friendly. That limited market is probably tapped now. Take away the subsidies and that market will probably shrink as the non-subsidized premium rises.
Subsidies and build industires and they can crush industries. When we moved from the Carter Administration to the Raegan Administration, solar subsidies dried up. That set back the solar industry about 30 years. Of course cheap oil, gas, and coal did damage to solar as well.
Chuck, we have had several years of EV sales now. Gasoline prices have not come down in that time, but the sales of EVs are only as much as a sports car, the MG B, were in the 1960s and 1970s. This is in absolute terms. In percentage terms, EV sales are much less. I use the MG as an example becuase I had one. I use it also becuase it was basically a luxury. They cost as much as a family sedan but only carried two people and little luggage. They also got great gas mileage compared to other cars generally available. They were not subsidized, though. I fully epect that the EVs will not get to the 200,000 level for any particular model. You do include the Volt in this category, but it has an ICE for charging. The others do not. If you limit yourself to pure EVs, then the picture is even less favorable.
Considering our deficit, and considering the progress in economy cars with ICEs available today, why would we continue to subsidize a technology that is not ready for prime time?
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.