Is solar power silly in countries with little sun?
-
photo by AndiH (source: Flickr Creative Commons)
Several recent articles in the British and international media have dealt with the question of solar power and government schemes that encourage homeowners to install solar panels.
One such plan, announced yesterday by UK energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband is a Pay As You Save program that provides ‘green loans’ to those who install energy saving eco-measures. The loans are purported to cover installation and purchase costs while money saved in energy bills is meant to outweigh the repayment of said loans.
Miliband is quoted in an article from the Press Association:
The Warm Homes, Greener Homes strategy will remove the deterrent of upfront costs and reduce the hassle of moving to greener living… Making homes more energy-efficient will help protect people from upward pressure on bills, tackle climate change and make us less reliant on imported energy.
While generating or capturing solar energy makes sense as part of national plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs and save money for those who install stall solar panels, the specifics of the schemes have attracted criticism from different ends of the political spectrum.
George Monbiot rails against the UK government’s feed-in-tariff (FIT) scheme – specifically how it encourages the installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels in middle class houses – as a scam that rewards those with money while punishing the poor. Monbiot believes that it is an inefficient way for taxpayers to subsidize the green image of the middle classes. From his piece in the Guardian:
Had this money been spent instead on insulation or double glazing, it could have helped relieve fuel poverty at the same time as cutting emissions. But the feed-in tax is both wasteful and regressive. The government has now decided not to oblige people to improve the efficiency of their homes before they can claim a tariff: you’ll be paid to put a solar panel on your roof even if the roof contains no insulation.
Monbiot praises investment in large wind farms, geothermal energy, insulating homes, replacing incandescent light bulbs with LEDs and even nuclear power over ‘wasteful’ FIT programs. Note that his main criticism is with photovoltaic panels used to generate electricity, not the thermal variety, which generate heat.
While solar electricity from photovoltaic panels clearly makes less sense in cloudy places like the UK when compared to California or Australia, there must be some reason there’s a lot of them in Scandinavia. What is clear is that renewable sources should be tailored and used specifically according to local conditions and needs: turbines where there is plenty of wind, ocean wave and current power on the coasts, geothermal where that exists and – I can’t believe I’m actually writing this – solar in hot, sunny climates.
The proliferation of photovoltaic panels in Canada and northern European countries would seem to contradict the obvious – as shown in the European Commission map below – but perhaps they’ve become a ‘must have’ fashion accessory for the modern middle class home. Or maybe there is another reason. For example, this blog claims that they actually work well in cold climates.
Regardless, government schemes should go for what’s most efficient and effective when trying to save money, energy and resources as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Renewables will get cheaper and better, including solar. But for now, Monbiot’s argument seems pretty sound.
by Graham Land
Graham Land grew up in Washington, D.C., where he was part of the local hardcore punk scene. Through this unique musical movement he became involved in grass roots anti-racist activism, animal rights and Ecology. Since 2000 Graham has lived in Europe, earning an MA in history from Malmö University in Sweden and working as a musician, English teacher, sports therapist, customer service agent and writer. Graham has a podcast with author Saci Lloyd and is currently pretending to work on his first novel.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Tags: emissions, energy, geothermal, government, Green, Monbiot, panels, photovoltaic, power, scheme, Solar, UK
Thanks for your comments. For those interested, a rebuttal to Monbiot’s argument (also in the Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/03/solar-panel-workable-future
And Monbiot’s follow up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/05/solar-feed-in-tariff
Solar power is actually silly in countries with abundant sunshine. The conversion of photons to electricity is none linear with respect to the energy input. By the time 3 PM rolls around, virtually all countries have little sun. Solar and wind power generating systems are always rated in KW, not KWhr.
The combined efforts of super-insulation such as Canadian Straw Bale systems, under-ground dwellings, Solar considerations, both active and passive and Wind Energies can be combined with good common sense to make survival in a new improved “Earth Shelter” comfortable and worthwhile. We in the Western world are approaching an age where oil will become scarce due to huge Asian demands, and depleted sources. We will soon look to nuclear power for survival, and not after the American inefficient model, designed primarily for weapons grade products but the more efficient Tsinghua University’s (China) pebble bed gas exchange reactors with extremely high energy output for a given fuel input/waste output charge. An even better model is the Indian Thorium bed reactors, the output from which is safe for humankind after only 100 years of containment, and requires only plentiful thorium for fuel. Fission will supplant oil and coal as they run out, but only long enough to develop renewable, or perpetual if you will, Solar Wind Wave, Tidal, and Geothermal Energies to their fullest. Nothing can be more silly than to do nothing, rationalizing away all openings for survival of the species, and nothing can stop the Asian depletion of finite world resources.