Solar Energy Pros and Cons

I pay nothing for the fuel on my solar system since the sun's rays are free. Because the electricity goes through a sophisticated inverter before it gets to my appliances, the electricity is higher quality and more consistent than grid supplied electricity. I do not worry about maintenance because my installer warranties the system for 5 years and the panel manufacturer warranties the panels for 20 years. The inverters are the most complex part of the system and will have to be replaced before the panels lose 15% of their output capacity. With federal, state, utility and local incentives a solar PV system is 1 of the most lucrative and safest investments a homeowner of business owner can make (in many cases better than investing in energy efficiency).

According to a conservative Republican fund raiser I spoke to, the cons is that your neighbors will think you are a Democrat! LOL

I will answer this first from the view point of prospects who have decided to not install solar after being presented with a great ROI and environmental impact proposal. Most are concerned about the aesthetics of the panels and how they blend in (or rather don't blend in) with their architecture and landscape. Others don't see the long term payback as incentive enough to do a project that none of their neighbors have done. Some don't like to be on the cutting edge of technology.

From my own perspective as an owner of a solar system, the only drawback I have found is that I had to sweep some snow off of the panels twice last winter after heavy snows. Also, when the power has gone out in my neighborhood, my inverters shut down the delivery of electricity for safety as well. This is not a drawback of the technology however, but a drawback of the grid-tie implementation with no battery back-up.

The classic answer: It depends! The real answer is that neither is the most efficient use of resources. The cons is that either or both may be more expensive and less efficient than other measures.

On a single home site, depending upon the local/regional climatic variations, the optimum energy conservation efficiency is first to reduce building size to minimum necessary areas and volumes;

2nd: seal the structure as tightly as possible and use heat exchangers to create optimum ventilation to eliminate stale air while retaining internal heat/coolness;

3rd,: consider ground source heat pumps (GSHP) to capture the earth's energy for HVAC without any fossil fuel storage or consumption, no combustion vents, no outdoor equipment or other aesthetic issues at substantially lower life cycle costs than split units or airsource heat pumps;

Finally, evaluate final energy demands, especially for electricity consumption, using a peak load shifting program to maintain relatively constant demand levels and consider cost effectiveness of your solar and/or wind options to meet the lowest portion of this constant demand load.

At large scale production, e.g., for an entire subdivision, community, municipality, etc., the cons of solar and wind is the relatively large land area needed for production. If production can be supported on rooftops of existing or new structures, this starts to optimize the use of land resources. By comparison, power generation by nuclear plants produces much greater energy supply per acre than any other option. However, if the nuclear waste storage area requirements are added in, that land use efficiency declines.