The amount of tax subsidy for solar PV is relatively small. The benefit of driving the technology to higher efficiency levels is large.

The point that is being missed here by some is that the existing PV technology that our govt is using our tax dollars to subsidize is not financially viable. Some folks are cashing in on it (I don't blame them) just like cash for clunkers, but this existing PV technology will never stand on it's own as major source of affordable energy. It simply is a waste of tax payer dollars in the long run (just like ethanol).

Seems he knows what he's talking about. A few thoughts:

You live in Arizona --your mileage will definitely vary (higher) than for the rest of us.

PV Life is not a fix output over time. That is, sure, they will continue to make electricity 20 years out. ...but not anywhere near what they did as new.


Hopefully Redbeard will chime in here. He's very into the PV product. ..sells it, understands it with a high level of engineering pragmatics.

It's not that large. Panels take space --the energy isn't super dense. Even if we got panels w/ 100% efficiency we would need a lot of area. note; people had a bich-storm over an oil pipeline thru the frozen wasteland.

Sip away Sparky, I'm not tellin ya to stop. If it works for you, great. My comment was aligned with the manner in which you argue rather than your argument itself.

Island, if panels were 100% efficient - your assumption, not mine - consider 100 watts solar energy per sq foot in full sun at the sunniest latitudes. 1 square mile gets 2.7 x 10^9 watts at high noon. 4 hours per day, 365 days per year, is 4 x 10^12 watt hours per year. Total electricity consumption of USA is appx 3.7 x 10^12 watt hours per year.

"consider 100 watts solar energy per sq foot in full sun at the sunniest latitudes. ...at high noon. 4 hours per day... 365.."

Yeah, but I don't need to, because I'm planing relocate to an an Escher painting so my commute will be down hill both ways.

I mean, C'mon...

Well, you're the one who claims that 100% efficient solar panels would not be a practical power source. Yours was a false statement, and upon being shown this you make some stupid comment about Escher. What a contributor you are.