Is Solar Power Really Practical?
Harnessing The Sun's Energy Is Becoming More Popular - But Experts Question Its High Cost
-
Play CBS Video Video Solar Energy Pays Back Solar power is being harnessed to power more American homes and businesses than ever before. And as Bill Whitaker reports, the high price of solar energy is offset by its long term paybacks.
-
Video Eye To Eye: Solar Power Solar power consumer Diana Ungerleider talks with Bill Whitaker about the savings she's incurred by using solar energy in her home. Ungerleider also discusses her motivation for going green.
-
Diana Ungerleider put solar panels on her roof last year, and now her electric meter is spinning - backward. But despite radically lower energy bills, she may have to wait about a decade for a real financial pay-off. (CBS)
-
Interactive Alternative Energy Learn about the types of renewable energy that are used in the U.S. and the regions of the country considered to be most suitable for each kind.
-
Interactive Energy Savers Stay warm, save money this winter
“It’s almost like putting 200,000 refrigerators … in one place,” said John Blazevich, CEO of Contessa Premium Foods.
And it’s powered primarily by the sun. An array of paper-thin solar panels rolled across a roof the size of two football fields has helped cut Contessa's energy use, CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker reports.
“In half, which is significant for an operation that requires so much energy,” Blazevich said. “It can be done and we did it.”
Diana Ungerleider put solar panels on her roof last year. They not only got her meter spinning, but, as she says: “it’s actually spinning backwards, meaning that the electricity being generated ... is feeding back into the grid."
But her head spins every time she gets an electric bill.
“So, last year you paid $220 for a two-month period?” Whitaker asked.
“Right,” Ungerleider said.
“And this year only $14?” Whitaker asked.
“Right,” she said. “I’ve saved, like, I think, over $1,000 in one year.”
Known for fun in the sun, California more than all the other states combined, is now putting the sun to work.
At a Napa winery, the sun ripens the grapes and provides all the electricity.
“This is going to become a launching pad,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger recently announced the most ambitious program - Southern California Edison, the region's largest utility, installing solar cells on 65 million square feet of commercial rooftops over the next five years.
“When it’s complete, it will produce enough power for 162,000 homes,” he said.
Much of this sun worship is pie in the sky, say critics like U.C. Berkeley's Severin Borenstein.
“Solar energy is definitely not the magic bullet for high energy costs,” said Borenstein. “Right now, solar photo voltaic power is very, very expensive compared not just to fossil fuels, but compared to the other renewable sources that are out there."
And, as Ungerleider says, that’s the biggest downside. She paid $50,000 for her solar power.
But, she says, “my system will probably pay for itself after about 10 years. And after that, it’s just free energy.”
Solar and green technologies added 15 percent to the $40 million cost of the new Contessa food plant.
“I feel the smart businessman would be justified doing this, ‘cause it’s going to help them in the long run,” Blazevich said. “And it’s going to help the planet.”
Rising demand for solar technology should bring prices down eventually, but for now it helps to have green in your heart and in your pocket.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From CBS Evening News
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 51 CommentsWind, tide and nuclear are all more practical. Powering the entire country from the SW US would not work because of transmission losses. It could be done, but it couldn''t compete with other carbon free power sources.
Solar power supplies enough energy to replace all fossil fuels and nuclear used in the world, including in this nation.
If 100 square miles of desert can turn sunshine into al the energy produced by all the power plants in the country, as is known, then we could shutdown all the coal plants and nuclear plants. Does not this have some value besides straight market trade value for just the energy unit?
If we could use another piece of desert to manufacture hydrogen from sunshine, and eliminate all the imported fuel used for cars, trucks, planes, and other transportation, wouldn''t this have a value beyond its straight market value of energy unit?
We live in a world that cries out about burning oil and climate change, but then do not have real value for those things when presented with other solutions.
Does having an abundance of energy, not shortage, of pure clean renewable energy, that could propel an economic growth surge, that we don''t have to pull from other nations, have some sort of value beyond the BTU per dollar that oil presents?
Then there is the problem with location. Those in the northern states have short days and long winter nights when there is little sun for the panels when electricity is most needed, for heating, lighting and drying clothes. Places like the Sacramento valley can have pea soup fogs that can last for days.
For those living in Arizona with a large, flat roof it will be a great idea, but it makes it unfair to people living in other parts of the country if these people would be the only ones able to take up any government subsidies.
Is Solar Power Really Practical?
----
They said electricity would never be really practical because of the cost to run power lines to each house and the cost of wiring houses.
Telegraph then telephone service was never going to be practical due to the thousands of miles of line needed to be strung.
Same for municipal water, sewer, and storm drainage.
And lets not forget the boondoggle that the trans-continental railway was, I mean the cost of supplying water and coal to trains trying to travel all those thousands of miles will make it to expensive.
Point is, nothing new was ever inexpensive and practical.
Problem is, today unless something can show instant profit for a company no one wants to invest in large enough scale manufacturing to reduce the cost. The days of a company (and its stockholders)looking forward 10-20 years is over, profit NOW is the watchword.
I think nuclear should be doubled in America. However, a nuclear power plant is god''s gift to terrorists. And there''s the waste issue.
Just consider the following, folks:
The primary cost of solar panels is the energy cost. The materials are Silicon, which is basically SAND, and steel, which is basically DIRT (esp. Red Dirt). Put energy into SAND and DIRT, and you get solar panels. Then there''s the energy cost of transportation and installation.
So, WHY ARE SOLAR PANELS EXPENSIVE?? The energy itself should be cheap, if its SOLAR!! The reason solar panels are expensive is because there''s been no government-sponsored (socialist) ''Manhattan'' prject to develop autonomous solar panel producing plants that sit in the desert, scoop up abundant quantities of sand and dirt, absorb abundant quantities of the suns energy, and poop out solar panels. Why has there been no such project? Because the power-money is on oil and nuclear. It doesn''t want widescale adoption of solar. It just spent $1.5 trillion of YOUR tax dollars taking over the worlds second largest proven oil reserves, and it doesn''t like competition.
ENERGY is the primary ''cost'' of producing solar panels, and a solar panel producing plant comes with its own source of energy: the sun. Its that simple.
Posted by dmw1167 at 11:19 AM : Jul 08, 2008
You''re right. However, I think what this article demonstrates is a major shift in energy priorities and not just demonstrating how much it costs. Hopefully this major shift will increase motivation and speed up the tech development.
Just because Rome wasn''t built in a day doesn''t mean you quit building Rome. Same thing here; just because the technology for cheap and clean energy hasn''t been fully realized doesn''t mean you quit or transfer your resources and manpower somewhere else.
America used to be the country of technological and social innovation. Unfortunately, that has been long gone due to the overall laziness of the general American population who can be simply described as ''If I can''t get it tomorrow, it''s just not worth trying to get.''
Not everyone wants to be threatened with getting shot for refusing to fund government-led projects -- no matter how good they are -- they are nonconsensual, period. If a program is enacted by violence, then I is believed by some that we will have Soviet-style failure. If that concern means nothing to you, then surely yours also means nothing. Good luck. Our environment can be protected by free enchange. Violent threats by greeny liberals will only make things worse. Those who think that is untrue will only cement further into place the behaviors of irresponsible people who really will damage the enviroment whilst blindly believing protection is simply the ''goverment''s job''. Government has failed. Wise and voluntary consumerism is our only chance.
any other source.
Evidently you do not live in an area where energy conservation is very important. Southern California Edison has an inverted rate schedule where the more you use the more you pay for each KWH. Southern California Edison allows each homeowner to purchase about 350 KWH at their lowest tier rate of $0.13 per KWH. Once you reach 200% of that amount your rate per KWH increases to $0.32 per KWH. Thus if you lived in Southern California your electric bill would have been approximately $1300.00 for the 4660 KWH that you used. My total subsidy was around $21,000.00 making the total cost of the system about $50,000.00. The price of a new BMW of Mercedes. As for the comparison with the stock market I was trying to make the point that if you had to rely on the stock market to generate the same amount of money that would have been required you would need a significantly larger investment even without the subsidy. By the way the major part of the subsidy ($16,000.00) is supported by ratepayers through the California Energy Commission as a capacity charge against what it would cost to install peaking capacity on the Edison grid. Finally I have published this information without any grant on my own at my own expense.
We just spent $1.5 trillion in Iraq so that ExxonMobil could have a no-bid contract to exploit their oil, and THAT''s not subsidizing? Over the years, the U.S. government has spent $1 trillion on nuclear fission research (for energy, not bombs, bombs was several more trillion), and THAT''s not subsidizing? Time and again, money for alternative energy research can''t be found, they are told: make it in the ''free'' world. There''s nothing ''free'' about your world. But go ahead and drive your SUV and think you made that choice all on your own. Several billion dollars in SUV advertising over the years says something different. Spend $600 billion a year on the ''free market'' for weapons systems, to protect yourself from a handful of bedouins armed with box cutters. ''Free market''? You''re being gamed.
And all of this doesn''t even take into account the fact that photovoltaic power is intermittent. It doesn''t work at night or when it is cloudy. These sorts of grid tie systems don''t have to take that into account because they use NG or coal power at night. If batteries or some other form of energy storage were included in the price, then the cost would be several times as much.
Another problem is that peak supply only coincides with peak demand in the Southwest. In the Southeast it is often cloudy and elsewhere peak demand is at night for heating.
And no one has taken into account the interest on a $50,000 loan.
I have seriously considered a photovoltaic system, and once you take into account all the drawbacks it becomes obvious that generating electricity with PV is like driving a Bentley. It is cool and a great status symbol for the well off, but it isn%u2019t realistic for the average person.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 51 Comments