Solar Power
Nanosilicon contacts like these can go underneath the solar cell instead of on top where they block some of the sunlight. Pic: Bandgap Engineering
It must be really depressing being a solar nark these days. With the increased popularity of solar power throughout Australia and the world, and regular announcements of improvements in technology, better storage capacity and cheaper prices, solar power is going through the roof (or on the roof). The more the narks whine about what they see as the limited capacity of solar, the more breakthroughs in technology occur to push back the possibilities of clean, solar, renewable energy future for our world.
One of the key developments in recent times has been the drop in cost of solar cells along with improvements in the generation of power by each solar cell. The latest breakthrough in this latter category comes from innovative U.S startup company Bandgap Engineering.
Using nanotechnology, the firm is looking to develop a “super” solar cell that could eventually generate as much as twice the power as conventional solar cells. Double the power? Yes, but that’s not all folks as the technology will also reduce the cost of solar cells. According to this October 16 MIT Energy Review article, the firm will develop “…silicon nanowires that can improve the performance and lower the cost of conventional silicon solar cells”.
These “super” solar cells — surely a narks worst nightmare — are planned for the not-too-distant future but Bandgap is developing a version of the technology which will have an almost immediate impact. Using existing manufacturing technology the company says it’s nanowire-improved silicon cells with help boost the power output of solar cells by increasing the amount of light the cells can absorb.
“For example, by increasing light absorption, it could allow manufacturers to use far thinner wafers of silicon, reducing the largest part of a solar cell’s cost. It could also enable manufacturers to use copper wires instead of more expensive silver wires to collect charge from the solar panels,” said the MIT article.
The money pitch is that these changes could see “solar panels that convert over 20 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity (compared with about 15 percent for most solar cells now) yet cost only $1 per watt to produce and install,” as a mid term goal, and a long term goal of efficiencies over 30% according to Richard Chleboski, Bandgap’s CEO.
So there you have it solar fans, the latest in what is the latest in a continuous line of technological breakthroughs in relation to clean energy. Congratulations to the team at Bandgap, this is great news…unless of course you’re a member of that rapidly diminishing group the solar narks.
Talk with us more about this over at our Facebook Page.
About Rich Bowden
So a “nark” is someone who questions and decides not to go solar due to the impact on the environment in making and later disposing of limited life solar panels. Got to love how “the greens” vilify anybody who has a different opinion to theirs.
Mmm there’s so many political parties in history that have done just that and ended up being vilified themselves. German socialist party for one.
Thank you Robbie for proving Godwin’s Law
Robbie did prove the law but his point about being derogatory about the anti solar lobby is valid. The term “nark” is loaded.
Sorry Kim but the very definition of Godwins Law states that Robbie invalidated his entire argument by invoking the Nazis.
Although I have to concur with you, even as die-hard solar user/supporter, that the use of the word ‘nark’ to describe (I assume) the anti-solar pro-oil lobby (prefer the term ‘Kocheads’ myself) does detract from an otherwise informative article.
well you could consider the term “nark” a let of when you consider implications of failing to adapt in addition to the already current effects on life quality – especially in the case the science and the proof has now long contradicted comments of these “narks”, or perhaps better described ‘pessimist’
“Although I have to concur with you, even as die-hard solar user/supporter, that the use of the word ‘nark’ to describe (I assume) the anti-solar pro-oil lobby (prefer the term ‘Kocheads’ myself) does detract from an otherwise informative article.”
I think your preferred term could also apply to someone who can turn an article about a wonderful breakthrough that could potentially make solar a economically viable alternative into a childish “nah nah” rant.
Is this really where journalism is going these days.
Godwin’s Law is not a law – just as Murphy’s LAw is not a law – it’s just a quaint little internet tactic used by those without any understanding of history or politics (i.e all greenies)
John Galt: I love the irony in your choice of handle. I wonder if you appreciate it too?
“German socialist” is a bit opaque, but much more likely to refer to left-wing politics than Nazism, hence Godwin is not triggered.
I suppose that if you were present when the Wright brothers made their first flight, you would be busy telling everyone that it will never catch on. The passengers would get cold sitting out in the breeze, it’s too slow, insufficient range, unable to go to the toilet whilst flying, and will never be able to take enough passengers to be viable. Ditto with the first steam engine.
The world is full of Narks, all deserve to be denigrated for being clueless mental pigmies.
That’s not fair on the pigmies
I do not think that the Wright Bros business model included having the Government steal large amounts of money from the tax payer to fund your un economical business. If all subsidies for this useless and uneconomic form of generation were removed all of these solar companies would go broke. This already happening by the way with the largest manufacturer of panels in China just declaring bankruptcy.
Wow – that’s rich.
Did you not realise that:
* Every coal fired power station in Australia was paid for by taxpayers (I’m talking 100% paid for, not subsidised).
* All the transmission lines in the pre-wind/solar age were paid for by taxpayers (as opposed to today when the wind or solar farm pays for its own transmission line).
* coal is (even now) subsidised by taxpayers (due to the deals done when the coal stations were privatised).
But other than that I’m sure you’re right.
Not so.
There are quite a few coal-fired power stations which were entirely paid for by private investment. And of the majority of them, I am assume you are refering to the ones built by the old State electricity authorities. Those were paid for by electricity consumers, not taxpayers. None of those authorities relied on general taxpayer revenue, they borrowed their investment capital on the bond market and paid it all back with revenue from electricity consumers.
Solar and wind farms do not pay for their own transmission line, they only pay for the line to connect to the existing grid nearest to their facility. The electricity grid network is used to convey their power to the customers. The electricity grid network is also paid for by electricity consumer, not taxpayers, and not the solar and wind farms.
Cyril, your uninformed, if the subsidies paid to the oil companies were also removed and they damn well should be, youll be paying £10 a gallon for petrol if you could get it, this then level playing field would shake down to natural energy as it would be cheepest, cleenest, and inexaustible,. also keep in mind, if the Earth continues to warm and it will with fosil fuel, and the ice cap on Greenland melts, never mind the poles, just Greenland, then the Earths seas will rise 24ft world wide, bang goes your holiday in sunny bloody Blackpool mate and Skeggy, well its gone so yeah remove the subsidies on solar panels but also remove the subsidies on oil.
I live too far from the beaches. I need a beach to come to me. Melt baby melt. Long live CO2.
Uninformed, I am pretty sure everything you just stated was false.
But if someone is talking about alternatives to optic fibre then it’s okay to be a Nark.
How’s the progress on getting electricity from moonlight ?
Thought so.
Solar cells can generate electicity from moonlight as it is reflected sunlight. Maybe you should have thought about that.
bullshit
I have thought about it, and they don’t. The intensity of moonlight is only about 1/100000 th part of the intensity of sunlight.
While a solar panel will produce energy even if you shine a torch on it at night, I’ve done this myself and seen the (very small) numbers on a multimeter, it is so small as to be irrelevant. Just how much power do you think a 100W panel produces under moonlight Rhino? That was a very silly “comeback” as I am sure you know very well that PV is useless at night, and even an overcast day dramatically reduces their performance.
Fact is that solar is a very, very long way from ever being a replacement for fossil/nuclear energy. Energy storage for use while the sun is not shining being one of the big stumbling blocks, as well as the general inefficiency of PV cells (yes, of course that will get better over time, but just how much time?).
Add to that the fact that some of the biggest solar manufacturers are going broke (http://www.economist.com/news/business/21574534-troubling-bankruptcy-troubled-business-sunset-suntech) or shutting up shop after huge losses (http://www.pv-tech.org/news/bosch_shuts_down_solar_division_total_loss_amounts_to_2.4_billion) and the future looks a little bumpy for PV industry.
FYI: I will soon be relying on a stand-alone PV system and am not against PV tech at all, I just don’t like unreasoned PV evangelism that trumpets PV as a replacement for our current mainstream/base load power supply. It is quite clearly nonsense.
If you look into the background of most of these renewable energy fanatics it is notable how few have an engineering background.Except for the experimenters , the supporters seem to be of the same ilk as
the UFO believers.The Greens , if they have any higher education at all, are mostly from the “Yarts”.
The Labour Party members are similarly untechnical, but this does not keep them from pie-in-the sky promotions.
enno you muppet…strangley enough it can still be windy at night and waves still roll in and tides still change…oh…there is also this amazing thing called a battery…welcome to the 21st century mate…did you just unbury your head from the sand for one second this century?
Batteries? They are the thorn in the side of any stand-alone PV system owner, especially if you live in a cool/cold climate. And the article is talking about a “clean, solar, renewable energy future for our world” which presumably means PV replacing fossils on a large scale. Just how big will these battery banks be, and how enviro friendly? Or are we going to go down the inefficient road of having hundreds of thousands of stand-alone systems powering individual homes?
Even if PV cells were 100% efficient, battery/storage tech is the bottleneck and still needs to come a very long way, and as a stand-alone PV system user I wish it would hurry up and happen.
So researchers are “looking to develop…”. ” It could allow developers to…”. We “could see solar panels that cost $1 per watt.” Could. Might. Perhaps.
Why don’t you write about this when it has actually happened, not the same pipe dreams they were writing about in the 70′s.
In the real world, governments are forcing those without solar panels i.e. those on social welfare, renters, itinerants, the low-paid to subsidise the electricity bills of rich middle-class hypocrites. Utterly immoral.
I totally agree. I’m a low income renter, my energy bill is around $2,000 in arrears and growing despite paying $60/fn, more than 10% of my income.
No one seems interested in helping us become green, gov and landlord too busy feathering their nests and green washing the climate warnings written on the wall.
So you’ve got a problem with the Government and the Corporate fossil fuel dinosaurs not with the green lobby – you need to vote accordingly
Sigh, and the source for your last statement is? Maybe you should look at the facts (the real “the real world”) of where solar panels are being installed: http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3392. Turns out “A broad range of communities have accessed solar under the RET scheme and the figures explode the myth that the RET is supporting metropolitan middle class welfare and is evidence of the RET’s equitable effectiveness”.
(itinerants?? you mean tenants?)
Also, the actual component on our electricity bills of how much we pay to subsidize people with solar panels is tiny (a few percentage points max). Check AEMC sources for that.
Ali,if you are really that keen to become greener you should do your own homework. There is lots of information available, even from government. What do you expect? That they come in every night and switch off your appliances and lights for you?
Why do people have to turn these issues into an “us vs them” battle? Stop whinging and start taking actions that will save you money.
@Ali Cat: It seems you have other issues like turning on aircon and heaters instead of opening a window (or turning on a fan) and putting on a jumper.
If you are paying more that ($60/fn ~ $120/month = $360 per quarter) $360 per quarterly bill then you need to look at turning off the second and third fridge also…. unless you are a hydroponic type of person and the business has not kicked off yet?
Seriously you are saying you pay more than what 3 adults living in a unit pay per quarter (over several years our highest was $320 and we used the drier and heater)? and the only income is less than $600 / fortnight? something does not add up. Maybe you need to provide more details before complaining about green policies.
It may pay to switch off everything and have a look at the meter to see if it is still spinning as you may have an earth leakage….
Well I’m a landlord and a solar generator and frankly it’s the same dumb schmucks that pushed for these stupid “green” policies that are now pissing and moaning because they can’t afford to benefit from them.
Ah but $1 per Watt is happening now, in fact wholesale prices are at about 50 cents per Watt, with system prices, that includes installation and all the hardware like the inverter at about $1.5 per Watt. Return on investment can be achieved in 3 years, and then free power from then on. That is the reality.
Your numbers on the cost per Watt are correct, but not the return on investment – at least in Victoria. As I am retired , I used our “smart meter” to record the hourly consumption through the day (in Jan this year with an aircon on sometimes in the afternoon), and compared that to the generated power estimate for a 1.5Kw North west facing system (provided by quotes i had requested). Given the 8 cent feed in tariff that now applies here in Vic, the payback period was between 12 and 15 years which is probably outside the life of the system – and certainly nothing like 3 years. probably much more effective to swap over my halogen downlights with LED ones as and when they need replacing?
I too went solar (I live in a block of units: yes it was much easier to get approval than I expected as most Strata managers and *MOST* installation companies can handle the paperwork and are happy to help) and found the bill drop by around 1/3 we were not big users but seeing a $300 a 1/4 bill drop to around $200 means the investment of around $2600 will be recovered in around 6.5 years… HOWEVER, we tend to use more power now, just during the day instead, so effectively saving even more and we are about to come to the anniversary of the install and although Mark Group were not the cheapest BUT they were one of the most professional I dealt with as the original company I was trying to work with suddenly became busy and could not fit me in as a unit would take longer to do than a single storey dwelling… ie the installers would do 2 houses compared to 1 unit.
If I had known it was so easy to get approval in a unit I would have done it when the 60c/kw was offered here in NSW and started making money, but alas 6.5 years is still a good ROI.
Another example of tall poppy syndrome that holds Australia back. The poor do not subsidise the rich and middle class who pay high taxes to support your Centrelink benefits.
Solar power is good for the environment, good for Australia, and means fewer coal powered generators have to be built. Get a job and save your money, solar power is not that expensive and will pay itself back in a few years.
HIGH TAXES? joke , “your” centerlink benefits , ? solar we agree on ,
I agree with the facts that Solar Power is good for everyone. Currently the problem is that people renting can not get Solar as they do not own the place and may not be able to stay in the same place long enough even if the landlord agreed to allow putting the solar in if the tenant pays for it.
The solution for this situation could be that the power companies who already own solar farms could sell people slots at their solar farm (expand their farms by allowing individuals to purchase extra solar panels, expand their inverters) meter those slots separately and deduct the power collected by those purchased slots from the individuals power bills. This way if a person moved, their power bills would still get the benefit from the solar panels.
You can already buy “green” electricity from power companies. They “guarantee” that it comes from renewable sources. (Not sure how they sort clean green electrons from dirty black coal ones inside the copper wires, but I’m sure they have a clever way to do it.
Anyway, even Renters can do this.
trouble is, it costs more than normal electricity…
It is the proper function of the serfs and slaves to suffer in the service of their superiors
to achieve great things. The Pyramids and countless other great works of civilization since would never have been built without the iron heel of the ruling classes upon the necks of the underclass whingers and would-be welfare recipients.
By the time the present generation of Solar panels are due for decommissioning, the energy used to recycle etc should be from clean renewables. The production of panels these days should also be from same.
Whether it is or not, particularly the cheaper panels from China, is another thing.
The term nark is somewhat pejorative but if it means somebody who objects to something without sufficient real knowledge of all the details around it, or nitpicks negative or magnifies missed details in order to criticise rather than constructively comment, so be it.
The antisolar lobby try so hard to undermine clean energy efforts, we have to wonder who/which of them are plain “useful idiots” and who are paid shills of dirty carbon (look up Koch brothers)
Just noticed the date on this article.
And the second to last paragraph surely only applies to their proposed stop-gap solution.
Solar panels that cost $1 per watt, but are sold on to Australians for significantly more than that I bet…
Only because we have ‘sold out’ with manufacturing which means R&D also gets off-shored as the CEO of Ford US rightly pointed out with the US economy.
We need to push to get manufacturing back here… how about charging a ‘carbon tax’ for all imports to counteract the carbon used to manufacture the item overseas? Maybe that would level the playing field… but it needs to take into consideration the OH&S costs they save on in developing countries as well, this would make it easier, even with a strong dollar, to at least be self sufficient.
RobbieJ enno and CRISP have it right.
Don’t get me wrong, it is great to see R&D into potential improved efficiencies of PV solar technology, but this whole article comes across as nothing more than reinterating the clickbait headline.
PV solar has its place, but overall from a grid stability and general consumer perspective, it is not in the grid connected arena. CRISP summed up the second point, as this will still not be economically viable without being subsidised by government/taxpayer.
As for grid stability, there are serious issues with a high percentage of grid connected PV solar in a given area and the base load generation required to cover this when something out of the ordinary happens, such as when a cloud goes over. This only becomes noticable once you get over 10% generation as PV solar. Typically the base load generation cannot increase output fast enough to pick up the slack and brownouts occur.
Solar has its place in stand alone and pumping applications, however, for grid connected situations (without storage) it is more trouble than it is worth once it becomes common.
If you are looking for a clean, safe, environmentally friendly source of power generation for the future look no further than nuclear power – specifically Thorium based reactors that cannot melt down.
I was just going to leap in and say Thorium nuclear, but you bet me too it.
Very interesting comments about grid–tie-in solar and brownouts. I did not know that.
Unfortunately the ‘brownouts’ assume everyone is home using 1.5kwh (or more for larger units) of power and all homes in the area are covered by the dense cloud cover, it is like saying evolution is true as it just has to happen once… there are brownouts already without solar in some areas so what is the difference?
Power suppliers are the ones responsible for monitoring the loads and they too have access to weather forecasts… so I can not see where there is an issue, unless it is privatised and they start cost cutting to make more profits for bonuses and dividends… whoops… forgot that was on the card as the NSW government wanted to push through the NW rail link at any cost….
frank…lookup DYESOL….works under cloud cover…wow…progress hey…now we just need a product called Ceramic Fuel Cells for home micro generation using natural gas at 60% improved efficiency compared to using large power stations to generate…and maybe chuck in your own small personal windmill and hey presto…
stop making excuses use whats available the market will push prices down and efficiency up if we can somehow not let the manufacture and development become monopolized. we have solar and dont have bills except for the installation costs and admin. the sooner we can get ourselves off grid the better and supporting good changes creates further good changes all the cynics need to get a life
To me, this is an entirely new use of the word Nark. I read the entire article thoroughly, wondering why a word used as a derogatory term for a police informer, fink or spy was used in this context, and wondering how it came to be connected to critics of solar power. I am still wondering …
My parents (born 1920′s rural Victoria) used to use the word nark in the same way as the author of this article. I think a word like ‘naysayer’ would be better. Same meaning but more mainstream English.
@jeff. Thanks for that. I agree ‘naysayer’ would have stopped me looking for some connection to a snitch, fink, grass, spy or dog. Of course there is also the word “narky” as in “Don’t get narky with me young lady” meaning upset or moody, and the slight hint of a possible reference to a narcotic addiction. I’ll have to admit it: As far as the use of Nark goes in this context, I’m a Naysayer
For context, this is a purely Aussie slang term:
4. nark. noun– Australian term — one who complains and spoils other people’s enjoyment http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nark
It must be specific to a region within Australia… I’ve never heard it while living in WA & QLD.
I have heard ‘narky’, but never nark.
Ditto for Victoria.
Narky for someone being snide,.. Sure.
But ‘nark’, that’s a police informant.
I read the article thinking the journo didn’t know what the work usually means.
Betting it’s a Sydney-Centric thing, like a lot of the slang that you see reported as ‘colourful Aussie colloquialisms’ in international press.
Thorium is the safer nuclear option.
Australia has estimated 30% of worlds thorium.
Thorium repeating myself.
Can you provide any links to mainstream policy discussion about Thorium reactors. I hear about them a lot in blog comment threads but i have never heard about them from anybody who, you know, counts.
Where are these utopian power generators being installed?
I hope I don’t sound like a “nark” (ha ha) I would love to hear news of a sustainable practical power source.
“generate as much as twice the power as conventional solar cells”
“convert over 20 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity (compared with about 15 percent for most solar cells now) ”
I know I am not a math whizz, but anyone else see this?
Hi mills,
Good spot! I’ve edited the post to include their long term goal:
“[20%] as a mid term goal, and a long term goal of efficiencies over 30%”
Cheers,
Finn
Whilst I can’t wait for Solar becoming more prominent (Japanese investments in space based solar is pretty exciting), the tone of this article is nothing short of juvenile. In fact it’s almost counterproductive …
I’m confused, you blame the complaints of narks on the progress of solar technology:
“The more the narks whine about what they see as the limited capacity of solar, the more breakthroughs in technology occur”
Surely this cause and effect you’ve identified is a good thing and you should encourage narks to step up the complaining?
That is a loose use of the word ‘prove’.
Since 1980 when solar panels appeared in bulk on the market in NZ , I’ve been waiting for such improvement and I’m certainly not a nark ,all rather weird when there was an abundance of hydro power that was cheaper anyway.My green party believed the dams altered the climate and could burst, but I enjoyed cleaning my gutters,windows and car with boiling hot water anyway.
I love the derogatory comment. I have a small holiday shack on off grid solar. I am a solar nark because I cannot afford to pay for the full system I require. I am a nark because I resent taxpayers money subsidising systems for those that can afford it. I am a nark because I resent people like the article’s author’s condescending attitude to the not so well off like me. When solar gets cheaper, a lot cheaper such that the subsidies stop, then I will stop being a nark.
The 36 Megawatts used to process layers of sand and charcoal over 3 days to make basic Silicon glass will never be recovered in the life of a solar cell. Of course further refining is necessary using more energy. The protective glass is also energy hungry to produce, much the same for the aluminium for the frames. Alumina is heated by megawatts to melt and then electricity is passed through electrodes to extract the aluminium ..
Reading some of the posts, I now understand that there are increasing balance issues related to any rising percentage of solar input to the grid. As solar input becomes more substantial, juggling the somewhat random solar injection is difficult given the lag in ramping up the base load supply.
I was wondering if an over-supply of power could be used to store energy to be converted to current at high demand periods later in the day?
Please don’t crucify me for making a suggestion. I’m no engineer, just a dreamer, and besides, its a while since I did a pee.
Here’s my idea for storing energy. Create a very large circular pool with a low-drag high gloss interior. Minute air injector holes cover the interior of the perimeter vertical wall to introduce a fine foam to reduce skin friction. At several points around the vertical wall. (At different depths) tunnels or pipe inlets run away from the wall at an angle. These pipes contain impellers attached to large pump/generators. The other end of these pipes are re introduced to the pool at a corresponding angle. The pool is filled with water. Excess electrical energy from the grid is fed to the pumps which then serve to rotate the water in the storage pool by injecting water at pressure through multiple angled jets around the perimeter. On site solar arrays could maintain or boost input to power the pumps. Over a period the body of water is moving briskly and the water level around the perimeter wall is higher than that at the centre. When power is required in the grid, the return injectors are closed, and the exhaust water from the pumps is redirected under the whirlpool through pipes to the centre of the pool and re introduced through the floor into the shallows. Power to the pumps is shut down and the impellers in the pipes now power generators. Deflector panels are opened into the water flow at the tunnel entrances to increase flow to the impellers. Fine foam injected through the millions of fine holes in the outer perimeter wall reduce skin friction, maximising the vortex action. Water exiting the impellers is drawn back to the low pressure area in the centre, reducing back pressure on the rear of the impeller blades. As the main body of water finally slows, larger blades could be lowered into the water from above the pool to harness the stored energy, almost to a stop in water flow. This may provide a coal fired power station some breathing time to ramp up when caught short on input. Anyway, I need to go take that pee.
What’s wrong with a mechanical flywheel?
I don’t understand kW’s, nanotechnology, yada, yada.
I DO understand that my current coal-fired electricity provider is charging me up to 3x what they’re buying electricity for, and alternative suppliers are all about the same.
Technology to cut these b….ds out, bring it on!
I think you’re all missing the point. The current solar cells are useless and doubling their capacity will only make them slightly more effective, but, still useless. It’s good to see they’re trying though.
What a rubbish article. It was really just a veiled attempt to introduce a new derogatory term. This is the standard tactic of the Maoists though. They cannot win a n argument with facts or logic so resort to name calling.
I have been looking for someone else to raise this question. When one uses solar power, the planet stays the same. When one uses fossil fuel, the planet has less resources. A fossil fuel company calculates its profits by reference to price and cost … but the cost does not include the depletion of the planet’s stock, just the amortization of the money costs incurred. With thinking like this, fossil fuels are a whole lot more expensive, and solar becomes the better buy without the distortion of subsidies!
The proce of fossil fuels is set by a world-wide market based (in part) on the costs of finding and producing new resources, from a finite (but large) base. The cost of depletion is already built-in.
BTW there is hundreds of years supply of coal, so the price won’t rise in a hurry because of depletion. There may be other reasons to use “price signals” to reduce coal consumption.
Oil and gas – perhaps 100 years supply but everything has been thrown open by shale gas and shale oil technology.
a “nark” is a police informer. It is derived from the Romani word “nak” meaning “nose”, an informer being a person who is too nosy about things that don’t concern them. It has shifted meaning in America where it is used to mean a DEA agent as in “Norbert the Nark”. Your usage is just confusing.
So, these new solar panels… They work at night time?
Solar power can be generated 24/7 because the sun always shines on some part of planet Earth. The problem is that to make solar power 24/7 feasible without the need for back up fossil fuel or nuclear power, a transcontinental grid distribution system joining all the globe would be needed. This is unlikely to ever occur because of political, technical and economic factors. The technology of transmitting large amounts of power over long distances still poses a major hurdle so remote sites where renewable energy could be generated by example using hydro power are in many cases not utilized.
You can make solar cells as efficient as you like but until you can use the power when the sun isn’t shining you don’t have a viable technology. I live off grid and recently replaced my solar array for less than $2K (bought the cells from a Chinese supplier and soldered them together myself). The commercial panels I started with lasted only 12 years and though guaranteed for 25 neither the distributor or manufacturer are still in business. To replace my Lead/ Acid batteries with the more environmentally sound and much longer lasting Nickle/ Iron batteries will cost more than $10k. That, though is considerably cheaper than the 120K+ quote for connection to the coal fired grid. Original and now backup power is an Indian built 22HP Lister diesel which runs on filtered sump oil and 10% diesel or kerosene driving a US surplus Lincoln welder alternator. Flat out at 1000rpm it uses around 3 litres an hour and it is very quiet. So quiet that it would probably be viable in suburbia and we don’t have any transmission losses.