Here is another report that presents the views of 2015, but oddly enough many of the issues raised are still valid in 2021. The authors concluded that because solar energy is expensive, relies heavily on government assistance, and burdens American taxpayers, it is not yet an economically reliable source of energy. Federal and state governments have spent billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies to encourage solar power’s development and use, but the benefits of doing so have been minimal. States attempt to increase solar power capacity by implementing RPS, but struggle to meet these mandates even with the help of subsidies. For these reasons, solar power is not a worthwhile investment of taxpayer dollars.
For solar power to be considered physically reliable, it must consistently meet consumers’ energy demands without causing detrimental effects to grid operations or infrastructure. Solar energy struggles to meet these criteria relative to traditional energy sources. Solar power is inconsistent, inefficient, and cannot consistently meet demand. To mitigate these problems, expensive new transmission infrastructure and grid management techniques would be
needed.
The authors also concluded that solar power remains an expensive form of energy generation compared to fossil fuels, requiring extensive state and federal subsidies to incentivize its use. States also mandate the use of solar power through renewable portfolio standards, but have had difficulty attaining those standards even after spending billions of dollars incentivizing and integrating renewable energy. Because the solar industry is dependent on these mandates and subsidies, it is an an economically unreliable energy source. For how little emission benefits solar power has provided, it is not a worthwhile
investment of taxpayer dollars.
Solar energy is physically unreliable because it is inconsistent and inefficient. The sun is not always shining, so solar plants cannot always produce power. As a result, utilizing solar energy is an inefficient way to produce electricity and is dependent on more reliable energy sources like coal and natural gas for backup power. Because solar power is intermittent and remotely located, our current grid infrastructure is ill-equipped to integrate significant amounts of solar power into the United States power system. Even rooftop solar causes energy congestion problems and complicates the management of electric grids.
Improved solar forecasting, grid-level energy storage, the aggregation of multiple solar plants, and new transmission lines may make solar power more physically reliable in the future, but utilizing these technologies would cost billions of dollars and it is difficult to evaluate the costs and benefits
of incorporating them.
Solar power does reduce carbon emissions, and is overall less harmful to the environment than traditional fossil fuels. One of solar power’s biggest environmental drawbacks, however, is its need for water in arid regions. Solar plants can use cooling systems that use less water, but they produce less electricity and pay higher capital costs when these systems are utilized. Another drawback of solar power is that the primary manufacturer of solar panels is China, where manufacturing companies have been known to harm residents and ecosystems through their disposal of toxic
chemicals.
Germany has spent billions of dollars on solar, but the country's implementation of solar power has had many negative side effects, such as fiscal instability and high electricity prices, and practically no net environmental benefits. If solar power truly is a viable alternative for more traditional energy sources, as solar energy advocates claim, it should be able to compete in the market without decades of government assistance. It is a mistake to view solar energy as an obvious alternative to conventional energy sources. Spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a system that is not predictable, efficient, or reliable is wasteful and illogical.
The authors concluded in 2015 that solar-generated electricity is unreliable in two of the three aspects that we explored. The “green” face of solar is appealing to many, but the environmental benefits of solar energy are outweighed by its economic and physical costs.
[So, what facts in the above have changed to make solar now economic, especially since the O&M costs in the larger solar (and wind) projects have gone underestimated and unrecognized until now?]
[Also see discussions of solar and wind in: https://i2mconsultants.com/downloads/corp/BEYONDHYDROCARBONS-2020ExpandedIIRev.pdf ]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
