From Guest Blogger Arthur Smith: Most Common Solar Energy Myths Debunked
Solar energy is a huge power resource all over the world, because as of last year solar power generates more than 1% of the electricity demand globally. That is no easy feat to achieve, because power generation market still is ruled by non renewables like oil, coal and natural gas. However, the percentage could be even higher and one of the reasons why it isn’t possibly are all of the prejudices that surround solar energy, because they prevent people form exploring this type of electricity generation as a viable option for their homes and businesses. So to break through these prejudices, here are some of the most common solar power related myths and why they are just that, myths.
1. Solar panels aren’t efficient in colder and cloudy climates
One of the main solar energy related misconceptions is that solar panels only are efficient in places that are warm and sunny most of the time and that everywhere else there is just no use for them. But since this one is probably the worst myth among all of them, I thought I debunk it first. Solar panels work by using their solar cells to collect energy form light, turning it into electricity. Notice how I said light not sunlight? That means, that specifically sunlight isn’t necessary for the solar panels to work, and they will work just as well on a cloudy or smoggy day where daylight or ambient light is still in full supply. As for colder climates as oppose to tropical ones for solar panel use, solar panels actually do better in cooler temperatures. Heat actually lowers the efficiency of solar panels and the optimal temperature for them are under 90 degrees Fahrenheit, so if you live in a cooler climate, your solar panels might even produce more energy as they would if you lived in a place where it is above 90 degrees most of the year.
2. Solar energy is way too expensive
The second myth that needs to be busted is that solar power is so expensive that regular humans cannot afford to use it as a viable energy source. And again that just isn’t true. Of course, solar panel installation does cost money, there is no doubt about it, however they are worth the investment. So much so that solar panels usually pay themselves off in money savings in only one to two years. On top of that, the costs of solar panels are diminishing with each coming year, so soon solar panels might not even be such an investment anymore and everyone will be able to afford going green with their electricity.
3. Solar power isn’t able to supply energy 24 hours a day
Then there is the concern that solar power and solar panels can’t supply you with energy 24 hours a day, since once the sun goes down they stop producing energy and you are left without electricity. However, that also isn’t true. Modern solar power systems harvest the energy during the day and store it, so it is accessible when it gets dark outside, because these systems are able to track your energy consumption patterns and supply you with energy even during the evenings when our energy use increases, because we turn on our solar flood lights, watch more TV and do more activities that include us having to utilize electricity. Additionally, nowadays, basically all solar systems are also connected to the electricity grid, meaning that, when the solar panels can’t produce enough power to meet your energy use, the energy will be supplied to you by regular electricity grid.
4. Solar panels, that are attached to the roof, can cause it to collapse
And last but definitely not least is the myth that solar panels, that are installed on the roofs of houses and other buildings, can cause the roof to deteriorate or even collapse. This is a valid concern, because nobody wants to end up with damaged roof, however, if anything will mess up your roof, they won’t be your solar panels. In fact, solar panels actually protect your roof from harm, because they usually are attached using a mounted railing system, meaning that they are like an extra layer of protection for your roof and a barrier between your roof and different damaging elements like rain, show, wind and such. And if there ever is something wrong with your roof, the panels can be quickly removed for repairs and then put back up.
Renewable energy is something the world strives for, because if all of our power would be produced using renewable resources, we wouldn’t have to worry about these resources running out. And the first step towards this is to learn more about renewable energy sources like solar power and understand them, so there isn’t any more doubts that these resources are anything but good for us and the world around us.
I don’t generally open up these “guest blogger” articles because I find the quality so infuriatingly inferior. Here I was intrigued to see if the title was poorly worded or intentionally had two meanings. Judging from hyperbole and inaccurate information in the balance of the article, this article is no exception.
I would have to judge the title to mean neither a a debate against the vast number of objections or the significant objections. It is just poorly worded.
For PV panels to have a pay back period of 1 or 2 years the panel costs,installation costs, permitting, lost income on alternative investment would all have to be less than the cost of the price of electricity during that same period. If we consider that taxes in some areas increase with the solar investment then the payback period only lengthens. At best this may be true in some locations with subsidies. The fact that it is not true is what makes solar leasing attractive. Any addition of battery storage is likely to eliminate this as a consideration completely. But there are other reasons to go solar which were not included.
Clouds reduce solar insolation. The claim that pv panels, “will work just as well on a cloudy or smoggy day” is patently false.
Solar panels causing a roof to collapse seems to essentially be a straw man argument.
All in all the article is worse then much of the bad information available on the web. It would even make a poor advertisement for solar panels by a partisan company.
From the article:
“Solar energy is a huge power resource all over the world, because as of last year solar power generates more than 1% of the electricity demand globally.”
That is an entirely useless and meaningless statistics even though it has been repeated over and over again ad nauseum.
Most of the surface of the earth is water which means that most of the sun’s energy falls upon water where we have no access to it. Much of what does fall on land does so in places which are inaccessible. Surely no one would consider putting solar installations on K2 or Mount Everest. That statistic is no more relevant than stating that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun or stating the number of moons that Jupiter has.
I see no reason to take seriously any article that repeats useless statistics.
When some nation of significant size succeeds in meeting all of its energy needs with solar systems, I will change my opinion, which is, that solar energy, even though it has its uses, can make no more than a minor contribution the the power needs of prosperous countries.
Notwithstanding that Mr Arturs Smits is I am sure a fine young man, well intentioned and passionate about our world, his comments rather than enlightening to ordinary people are simply dangerous.
I dont use the term lightly either.
Craig should take responsability as moderator of what could be a meaningful forum and in particular one focussed on the critical topic of greenhouse gasses. Craig has the button to publish or not publish submitted content. Instead I have noticed this year that he is doing his best to reduce the crital debate to irrelevance through meaningless diversionary and dangerous commentary.
A wasted opportunity in my opinion.
Craig please rethink your position and assume greater responsability as an information source for ordinary impressionable people.
You are doing them and yourself an injustice.
Lawrence Coomber
On the other hand, why not publish a variety of opinions? We are perfectly free to disagree with them if we wish, and I not infrequently do.
Frank with respect that sounds politely disingenuous.
Throughout this year you have been an even handed commentator supportive of meaningful and reflective opinions, and respectful in your condemnation of misguided or inaccurate opinions. It follows that you may not regard all opinions as equal or justifiable or worthy ones. Some opinions left unchecked can be much more than misleading and have negative consequences particularly for ordinary impressionable people outside their comprehension comfort zone.
Those who see themselves as leaders or specialists in some particular field of endeavour, have a duty of care to the majority of ordinary impressionable people everywhere who may be feeling insecure and uncertain about climate change and greenhouse gasses impacting their future. Misguided or inaccurate opinions should be resisted by forceful counterbalancing opinion rather than be allowed a free pass to gather traction under the pretence of upholding the principal of encouraging diversity of opinion.
The subject of greenhouse gasses is a critical one globally and the theoretical machinations around this subject have been thoroughly exhausted. The science is in; the debate is over; the conclusions are locked in; and the solutions strategies for enduring energy dense generation technologies going forward and global regeneration strategies for all people are coalescing.
There has and will probably never be a greater challenge for people to overcome and it should not take an Einstein to conclude therefore that global policy reform initiatives and technological solutions necessary to permanently reverse greenhouse gasses whilst maintaining energy security for all people, is a challenge of such proportions that only the world’s best and brightest in their respective fields will collectively be able to mobilise and take on the challenge successfully.
This is not an issue that will be solved through the rich diversity of varying opinion from all and sundry, that we are (or should be at least) supportive and encouraging of in general life matters.
This is not an issue that will be solved through a “light bulb” moment experienced by anybody anywhere and trotted out in the blogosphere. The issue is (and always has been) in the hands of those collectively who are directly responsible for implementing the appropriate solutions across a wide range of disciplines.
So where does that leave those (most of us) who exist outside of this exclusive group? Well firstly we should become comfortable in the understanding that our individual and unique opinion on the issue will definitely not be of any interest to those who are directly involved in the issue.
Lastly, I suspect that there will be some very surprising (for many people but not all) outcomes from the Marrakesh climate change conference this week relating to reform principles and policies necessary to be adopted by nations for global energy generation technologies and security going forward.
Lawrence Coomber