Just an FYI, My solar panels in Long Island NY, make more electricity than they cost, In the summer I put more in the grid than I use, enough that it offsets the shorter days of the winter (which is more than 1/2 the year). I also generate electricity even on cloudy days.
I think for it to properly work, there should be solar panels on every building across the US. We need to find a way to make it cost effective to be everywhere, and make them look good (like the solar shingles). It is important to find ways to squeeze all the renewable energy we can, from everywhere we can.
My point is if you’re talking about the limited resource of federal funding, it makes a lot more sense to focus solar in areas with the maximum return on investment. And environmentally speaking that makes the most sense too considering the resources that go into making these. If you installed the same panels in a place like Arizona, you would yield a significant more amount power. And of course, the amount of solar you generate is dependent on the number of panels you have.
I think solar is a great option for augmenting energy needs, but it’s far from an adequate solution. In highly dense urban areas there’s simply not enough surface area. It also doesn’t solve the problem of energy storage. If we envision a future where most cars are electric, solar will be insufficient. Ignoring the amount of solar required to charge an EV, which is not insignificant, the fact most people drive to work during the day creates a bit of an issue unless it can be stored. That’s why I think the future will more likely depend on EV charging stations and perhaps at work parking lot charging than being primarily reliant on home charging.
Perhaps battery technology will progress to where batteries are cheap, more environmentally friendly, and offer substantial longevity. But as it stands right now with lithium ion batteries for home or grid storage on a universal scale, they’re just way too expensive and don’t have the longevity to justify the cost.
Beyond all the obvious environmental conditions where solar is not or less effective, never discussed is the fact that solar does not create the “kinetic inertia” required to maintain the frequency of electricity in the grid as demand changes aka provided grid stability.
It’s also worth noting in some places like CA, in some sense they have too much Solar- there are times when the grid is producing too much energy- which its own type of inefficiency and can cause financial problems for generation companies. There are ways to deal with this, some of which are pretty clever, like using these periods to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. They have a problem of too much power when they don’t need it and not enough when they do.
There’s also a whole geopolitical issue too. If we don’t want to be reliant on some of the worst countries in the world for energy, we can certainly attain that with renewables BUT that means we need to be producing these technologies domestically. Relying of China for cheap Solar panels and batteries (or required materials) is not energy independence.
Again, I’m not anti-solar by any means. I’m just suggesting it’s not a realistic solution to our longterm energy needs if we want to remove ourselves from fossil fuel reliance.
In fact, my sister and I recently inherited my grandfather’s beach house in Rhode Island along the Long Island Sound. We’re in the process of planning a bunch of renovations, including looking into taking advantage of the government subsidies. My sister just installed 13Kw IIRC of solar in her house outside of Denver. The house has an ideal location and positioning to utilize solar. Additionally, we will be installing a heat pump HVAC system as it currently has no AC and baseboard electric heat. Lots of projects to do there… But anyways, I’m all for using it to reduce personal costs and grid energy consumption, but as a population scale issue I don’t see it (along with wind) as anything close to the be-all-end-all of energy.