Tell me more ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 11 down vote favorite
2

The first time I came across these arguments against solar energy was in "Overload" by Arthur Hailey. Admittedly, this is fiction, but the arguments seems to have some merit.

  1. Using solar cells to produce comparable amount of energy will need so much area that it will cut out sun light from that much area and this is also a type of pollution.

  2. The cost of solar energy is so high that it creates more damage than other sources indirectly. The extra cost of solar energy can be used to offset the ill-effects(?) of conventional energy sources.

So my question is, are these arguments valid?

share|improve this question
2  
The cost of any new or underdeveloped technology is often way higher initially. The concept of "market momentum" is the flip-side of this fact. Consider, for example, that the first VCR was $50,000, and the first home-use ones initially sold for $1,000. – horatio Jun 21 '11 at 21:07
ok... That answers one point, what about the other? – rest_day Jun 21 '11 at 21:12
someone who knows what they are talking about can address it :) I wouldn't say I answered your other point either. I think it is plausible that there might be reasons specific to solar power that might impose a lower bound on costs (for instance), but I can't go any further than that. – horatio Jun 21 '11 at 21:14
but then your point could be a valid reason for the high cost of solar energy. I will not discount that. – rest_day Jun 21 '11 at 21:18
2  
@Fabian - the point of point #2 (if you still wish for clarification) is that it costs X amount of resources to produce 1 KW of energy using method A and Y amount of resources using method B. The question asked is whether the relative cost of producing using method B (solar) high enough that it effectively negates the extrernalities cost of method A (externality being, say pollution etc... for coal). In other words, is it cheaper to produce the same amount of energy via non-solar means PLUS pay to clean up any negative side effects of those means. Hard to answer due to valuation of externality – DVK Jun 22 '11 at 0:42
show 8 more comments

2 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

1) I've heard many times of the creation of light as pollution, and also the "right to light," but I've never heard of blocking light as a form of pollution. Nonetheless, keep in mind where most solar panels are installed: rooftops, patios/porches, car ports, in yards that would've been unlikely to produce vegetation, and out in the middle of nowhere. In regards to the first three, those are already opaque and furthermore, they are places where it's actually preferential to block light, as it cools those surfaces/areas down. In regards to the latter two, nothing of value is being lost. It isn't like solar panels are going to be blocking sunsets (save for instances where the homeowner is an ass), be blocking sunlight from reaching crops, or resulting in any significant loss of plant or animal life.

PV panels aren't even completely opaque anyways. Aside from the frame, they're a glass top, a series of silicon wafers, some small wires, and a paper backing. They're roughly 40% transparent.

PV panels are also almost exclusively installed in locations where moisture won't build up below them. If they're on the roof, it's usually somewhat windy up there, and the heat of the shingles and attic will make quick work of any moisture behind the panels. If they're on the ground, they're either installed with dual-axis trackers on 15-25' poles, meaning that their shadow doesn't stay in one spot for more than an hour or two... or they're installed at least a few feet off the ground to avoid snow-cover (i.e. the snow has to completely fall off the panels when it slides down; you don't want to put your panels 6" off the ground where snow would simply build up on the bottom) and other types of problems, so once again, any moisture build-up will be whisked away by the wind.

It seems to me that a "light-blocking" argument would be far more valid when it comes to fences, but I doubt there's too many people out there that would argue that we should completely discontinue building fences.

2) False. Well-designed solar hot water systems destroy electric and propane water heating costs, and they even beat natural gas so long as you're willing to wait a while.

Even a PV system, which is only about 40% as cost-effective as a flat-plate drainback solar hot water system, will pay itself off if it's installed in a proper location (i.e. decent sunlight, low chance of baseball-sized hail, etc.) Furthermore, the panels are made almost entirely out of silicon (the second most abundant element on the planet), and the most expensive natural resource used in a PV system is Copper, followed by Aluminum. When you buy a solar PV system, the majority of the cost goes towards labor (probably 70% if you added the installation + the panel production + etc.), not a scarce, nonrenewable resource. It isn't like they're made out of oil, and we're putting 2 bbl of oil in for every 1 bbl of oil that we get out of them.

share|improve this answer
Thanks Michael for the answer. But to clarify, I was thinking more of in terms of 'solar farms' (if that is a correct word) which will produce power comparable to that of a coal or hydro-electric plant. That is why light pollution made sense to me, because you might need acres of solar panel to produce power in comparable magnitudes. Please correct me, if I am wrong. – rest_day Jun 22 '11 at 1:36
Believe it or not, central locations for power distribution are not actually desirable. Plastering the roof of a school building would be a good idea, but putting ten acres of solar PV panels out in the middle of nowhere is not. This is because the electricity has to travel over wires, and those wires have resistance. (This is commonly known as voltage drop. I found a reliable source contradicting my previous numbers on how severe voltage drop is, so I'll have to look into it further, but nonetheless, it's a problem.) – Michael Jun 22 '11 at 2:28
For this reason, it's unlikely that there will be many massive solar farms unless they can find room for them close to population centers. If you can avoid putting the source 50-100 miles away from the population centers, you should, and solar, unlike nuclear or even coal or LNG, can do just that. As PV becomes more and more economical, it will be showing up on more and more large rooftops (schools, grocery stores, strip malls, warehouses, etc.)... not more and more solar farms out in the middle of nowhere. – Michael Jun 22 '11 at 2:28
So in future, will PV become the preferred roofing material? :) – rest_day Jun 22 '11 at 3:03
1  
Very interesting read but it requires a lot more references, especially the second part. I’d love to believe this but I’ve heard the opposite countless times so references would be especially important here. – Konrad Rudolph♦ Jun 22 '11 at 10:51
show 3 more comments
up vote 1 down vote

Using solar cells to produce comparable amount of energy will need so much area that it will cut out sun light from that much area and this is also a type of pollution.

For example, theoretically you could fill the Sahara with solar photo-voltaic cells and use that to supply Europe's electricity.

Yes you can argue that that would be "a type of pollution"; but life is about trade-offs, and maybe this would be a good one.

[Illustrative anecdote: I read once that when environmentalists discovered how much coal pollution there was in Eastern Europe they reconsidered whether nuclear power was really such a bad a idea after all.]

The cost of solar energy is so high that it creates more damage than other sources indirectly.

I'm not sure what the argument claim is. The energy is free. There's a cost to capture it, store it, transmit it, etc. I don't know what "damage" you're talking about.

For example, currently using a solar thermal system to heat water in the UK is a "more or less, just about, not really, go for it if you're keen but it's at least a 10-year payback period" kind of investment, for residential homes (and not worth it for holiday homes).

share|improve this answer
Looking at the solar insolation maps for the UK, yeah, it's probably not a good climate for even solar hot water. I live in Texas, and my 80-gal water heater is full of 140F (60C) water by 12:30 in the Summer and about 1:45 in the Winter. If you were to add an additional panel, you could probably get these same results in the UK if there were the same amount of cloudy/overcast days, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that the UK gets twice as many overcast/cloudy days as we do. – Michael Jun 22 '11 at 4:59
@Michael Yes Texas is sunnier and warmer than the UK. – ChrisW Jun 22 '11 at 5:02
PS: How much does a kWh cost in the UK? – Michael Jun 22 '11 at 5:04
@Michael - I couldn't tell you, except by looking it up: I don't live there. My info is based on hearsay from my mother and an aunt who each have a house or cottage in the UK, and consulted with architects on whether it's worthwhile for them (answer: OK for my aunt because she's keen and lives there full-time, and certainly not for my mum because hers is a holiday home), and from a school-friend who's an investment advisor for 'ethical/green' investment funds. My parents lived in San Antonio too, and I visited them there, so, yeah: it is sunny. And warmer than the UK. – ChrisW Jun 22 '11 at 5:14

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.