Dobresengo te contesto con este gran artículo solar, pero también muy buenas críticas de personas insiders del mismo como estas:You are understanding solar from an outsider perspective researching the pro solar propaganda. I worked in the solar industry for 6-8 years... and I still do some power systems designs for folks.1.) No solar panel factory is powered by solar panels. (when it is... call me, I'll invest.)2.) Your graphs are misleading they show nameplate capacity and don't speak to actual energy generation, a 100W solar panel only produces 100W at laboratory test conditions. In field it may produce a 100W or 0W, depending not only on sunlight but age of equipment (yes solar panels degrade over time), cell damage (hard to detect), and even dirt. Also the power conversion equipment (inverters) fail pretty frequently also means your solar array has a power rating of 0 Watts when this happens.3.) Solar is NOT cheap you only show $/W module cost, what about inverters, copper wire, permits, labor, etc. I used to charge about $1000 per panel full installation. Now that has gone up to at least $1500, these prices are for medium size systems 10 to 40 panels. Each panel makes about $50 of electric per year. Inverters fail in about 6 to 12 years so factor a few kilo bucks in to replace those. I'm not even going to go into battery storage system headaches... Sorry bud, the tech ain't where it needs to be, wish this wasn't the case. The advantage of solar, cost, is not as relevant as one might think given the other attributes of solar.When investors look at a proposed project, the question they want answered is "when do I get my money back?". The size of the investment is only relevant if it is infeasibly large or small.So cost does not matter, but revenue does. When the sun shines it shines for everybody, so every solar generator is in competition with every other one, as the duck curve demonstrates. So the market price of generated electricity crashes. When the sun does not shine, solar generates zero revenue.Since solar only generates income when the price is low, it is unprofitable - the answer to the investors' question is "not for a very long time".To date that uncomfortable fact has been circumvented with "tricks" like power purchase agreements by large consumers who can afford to spend on burnishing their green credentials, and/or taxpayer subsidies. Those subsidies cannot scale to high market penetrations of solar.I strongly recommend Brett Christophers' book "The Price is Wrong", which explains all of this better than I can, and also explains several other aspects of renewable energy generation which are likely to limit its penetration. Great analysis except for two facts:1 - you don't consider degradation of the panels: the solar industry uses an annual degradation factor of 1%, but those of us who model and track these projects know that the actual degradation factor is more realistically 2% per year; your analysis needs to take degradation into account2 - the land area required for these projects is immense: in your single family situation, we need an area of 250 square meters (0.06 acres), which works out to over 10,000 acres required to power the households in metro Atlanta - assuming zero packing distance of panels (an unrealistic assumption). 10,000 acres of rooftops with unobstructed sky view is an immense amount of land to clear and devote to power production (and perhaps warehouse use), just to support the Atlanta metro....From my work, I realize that the only reason solar is currently at all viable is thanks to government incentives - take away the incentives and solar collapses. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/understanding-solar-energyCreo que la solar tiene muchos pros, pero también muchas contras, y yo sigo viendo imposible una transición energética real sin nuclear (a la que no se le ha dedicado ni un 5% de todas las subvenciones han recibido las renovables)s2 amigo.
España