The production of said panels is still way too fuel consuming. You would need gigantic mirror towers to gather enough energy for a solar powered melting pot, capable of solar panel production.

I'm also a bit sad, that smaller silicon crystals turned out to have better energy yield, than the formerly used big ones. They had such a aesthetically interesting pattern.

solar power is the future. unlimited power just floating in sky waiting to be used

solar panels won't be cheaper than fossil fuels until they can be produced without fossil fuels. have you looked how much they cost to make without government subsidies?

That's cool, but unfortunately it's still more profitable for energy companies to burn fuel. I just hope we can sort out nuclear fusion, then there would be no excuse to keep burning coal etc.

>"2016 was the year solar panels finally became cheaper than fossil fuels."
>Your thoughts?

Load of bullshit, for the most part.

Government subsidies paying 80%+ of the cost isn't a fair stance for cheaper. Solar panels lose their ability to generate energy over time, and after about 5-8 years drop down to about ~40% of what they were originally outputting before they stop working and need to be replaced.

In areas where the old, aging power plants won't be able to keep pace with the project growth and the LGBT city councils refuse to allow any new ones to be built and instead buy electricity from other cities, driving the price to the highest in the country(south california), they are worth while. That includes the gov.t subsidies paying for a large portion of the solar panels to line the house and the power company paying 2/3 of the going rate for power being put back into the grid. It's a very, very niche and specific zone, but I guess the statement isn't entirely false.

Battery banks also go bad after about 6 years (including on cars). A battery that hold enough juice to travel 130 miles (100 with A/C on) will cost about $20k to replace. Might as well throw away the prius and buy an actual car at that point.

And then there's the cost of coal, which surpassed Uranium in 2013 in cost/watt (including acquisition, emission control, and disposal costs). Shame the 60's powerplant that was supposed to be decommissioned 15 years ago in Futenma got Tsunami'd, else the hippies wouldn't be so irrationally against it.

>>1602
Jefferson needs to happen and it needs to happen soon.

>>1602
> Might as well throw away the prius and buy an actual car at that point.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071391_life-after-death-what-happens-when-your-prius-battery-dies
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1078138_toyota-hybrid-battery-replacement-cost-guide

The price is closer to $5,000, which would get you an 'okay' used car from a private seller.

>>1495
What are they even trying to symbolize by making the cross out of solar panels?

>>1495
Greenwashed bullshit. A 6kW set will set you back $15k and break even in 10+ years - that's excluding PV degradation, weather and battery replacements. I'd rather put that money into a low yielding fund and double it instead.

>>1669
Your tax money died for their sins.

>>1670
>break even in 10+ years
And by then the technology will be outdated with cheaper better stuff on the market. Not to mention the batteries would likely be toast by then.

I'm uneducated about energy extraction methods, which would be cheapest?
which would be eco-friendliest?
which would be most endurable?

>>1495
Now it's 2018, solar cell tech has been a bit more stagnant than we'd all like, and the US (one of the few major countries with enough empty desert to build massive solar plants in) still has tariffs on Chinese panels in some futile attempt to save some tiny domestic companies. I'm not holding my breath for a solar takeover in the next 20 years.

>>1683
Wind is very cheap, as in actually cheaper than coal and natural gas on real world grids where natural gas is subsidized instead of renewables, and it scales enough that it is the majority of generation in economies as large as the UK and Texas on many days. Capacity is still growing even after the US dropped rules that would have made coal fired plants more expensive.
I don't think anyone can confidently say what is most eco-friendly. Even if you replaced that extremely broad question with "what has the lowest effect on the greenhouse per Mwh generated" it's not straightforward. I don't want to shill wind too hard because it has obvious location limitations, but it's pretty great by this metric. Solar, hydro, and nuclear require a lot of energy to build (which for now means lots of fossil fuels burned), but have the potential to generate a ton of power in the equipment lifetime to offset.
Nuclear is theoretically the most enduring method if we're talking about the longevity of the equipment; that shit is supposed to be built to run indefinitely, but then people cut corners and it goes down in a natural disaster, and then other plants are shut in the ensuing political storm. Solar is of course on top if you mean the source itself, since if we switched to nuclear power we'd most likely run out of uranium before the sun dies.