Why don't energy suppliers sell solar energy?

Question

For example, PGW

Answer 1

The general answer that most have supplied before me is right, economics alone dictate the sources of power supplied.
When thinking of solar power, most people think that it is free. Well, the ongoing fuel requirements are free. However, when you look at the initial cost of the installation versus the amount of power generated, it has not been competitive to use solar. In other words, the initial cost of any power plant costs money and that money must be recouped by electrical sales. The cost of any electricity is made up of several parts: the initial cost to build the plant, ongoing fuel costs, maintenance of the power plant.

Another way to think of it would be to personalize the situation. Suppose you could buy a solar car that would never use any fuel at all and met all your performance expectations. That sounds great. And if you could buy that car at less than twice the price of a regular car, the economics would probably make sense. But, if the car cost 5 times as much, you would never save enough money to justify buying the car.

But, the real reason I answered this was to mention what I know some utilities are doing. For example the Tennessee Valley Authority allows customers to pay an additional $4 per 150kwH and call that their Green Power Program. Then, based on the amount of customers that sign up, they try to utilize these funds to supply that much power from renewable resources. They do that by investing in some wind turbines, several solar power sites, and methane collection from landfills. So, it acts like a working arrangement where the utility partners with the customers to help offset the higher costs of the renewable power now available.

BTW, the person who answered that utilities are being controlled by the oil and gas companies doesn't have a clue. While a very few utilities may have some direct tie and interest in oil, most of the utilities I deal with could care less where their energy comes from. They are going to sell the cheapest electricity that can be supplied to them at a sufficient level of reliability to meet the customers demand. Until our requirements change as consumers, the utilities are only going to supply what we are demanding, cheap electricity with high reliability.

Answer 2

1. Feasibility - It would take over 900,000 solar panels, 4' x 4' to generate 1/10th the power of a nuclear power plant, but only when it's sunny.
Do you want to see 4 square miles of solar panels in the view of your home? I didn't think so......

2. Efficiency - See above.

Everybody compalins about power sources but still expect the A/C, heat and lights to come on when they bump the thermostat.

An equilateral A-frame on a flat family housing roof with a $200 12'x16' Dynaglas
polycarbonate south wall might collect 0.9x16(6x620+12cos(30)1000)
= 203.2K Btu of sun and lose 6h(Tg-34)12x16/R1 = 1152Tg - 39.2K on
an average January day, where Tg (F) is the A-frame air temp. If it
collects Q Btu/day of useful heat, Tg = 210.4-Q/1152.

If a north wall reflects 0.9x16(6x620+0.9x12cos(30)1000) = 188.4K Btu
into a polyethylene film Tw (F) water duct on the floor and it loses
6h(Tw-Tg)1.5x12x16 = 1728(Tw-Tg), Q = 188.3K-1728(Tw-(210.4-Q/1152))
= 691(319-Tw). Tw = 100 F makes Q = 152K Btu (45 kWh for PV fans :-)
per day, with Tg = 79 F. How can we distribute this heat?

If ridge R of the A-frame reflects direct sun rays S from the horizon
vertically down onto edge Q of a duct that extends 6' to the south from
base B of the north wall, the ridge needs a 45 degree north wall slope.
Two north slopes might join at J, like this, viewed in a fixed font:

R ---
U .
. 45
(xo,yo) J . . . . <-- S south -->
. |
y . . .
. beta 10.4' = 12'cos(30)
^ . . .
| L. |
| . . .
| .
| 45 . beta alpha
----O----------B--------------Q--------------N--> x

| 4.4' | 6' | (not to scale)

| 10.4' |

With a beta degree tilt at bottom B, reflected ray angle BJQ = beta,
so alpha = 180-2beta. If x=y along line OR, tan(beta) = xo/(xo-4.4),
so xo = 4.4tan(beta)/(tan(beta)-1) = 10.4tan(beta)/(tan(beta)+1), ie
beta = 67.96 degrees, which makes the lower slope L = 7.97' and the
upper slope U = 4.25'. We might make L = 8' and U = 4', with 4'x8'
double-foil polyisocyanurate boards and a low vertical wall at B.

This would reduce the heat losing surface and raise the solar collection
efficiency in times of direct sun, with 2 suns from B to Q, so we might
produce 2 kW of electrical power with 1 kW of standard PV panels under
that 6'x16' of duct. Polyethylene and water and glass have similar
refractive indices, so the ducts might transmit most of the sun to
the PVs. When I put a water-filled duct on a PV panel, the output
current decreased 6%, in a crude experiment. Can we make 3 suns? :-)

A draindown EPDM bladder with an upper constraint (eg welded-wire fence)
from Q to N might collect diffuse sun, with warm water naturally
thermosyphoning up through the BQ duct when available.

Answer 3

I think it's still cheaper to use fossil fuel. Solar energy is still more expensive considering how much it costs to make and maintain the collectors, and the amount of real estate it takes to spread the collectors out.

Answer 4

Probably because the companies are being paid to use oil and gas power by the oil companies.

Answer 5

Lots of them do, but it is a very small percentage of the total power used.

Answer 6

you cant SELL solar energy....who owns the sun?

Answer 7

It currently costs too much. Nobody would buy it.