Funding for solar cells is set to be cut, because barring some new law of physics combined with an as yet undiscovered SUPER efficient base material, passive solar power will never be more than 15-20% efficient.
I use
never in the practical rather than literal sense.
I'll have to check the ABC National w'site, but it was some quite clever boffins who crunched the numbers based on current material science technology and theoretical physics.
Active solar makes far more sense - even on an overcast day you can generate heat & 'leccy at a rate sufficient to be useful to the grid's base-load (apparently).
I know lots of people in cities & burbs who feel all virtuous 'cuz they've ot a panel or two on their roof - but they are all still connected to the grid.
All you have to do is plug in a microwave, fridge or bar-heater and all that juice you spent the week saving will be gone in 10 minutes.
It IS very good for heating water, and every little bit helps I guess, but the cost of subsidizing the equipment for home power generation is out of all proportion to any measurable benefit.
If you're a Greenhouse-Tragic, you'd do far more to cut CO2 emissions by pumping up your tires, running your car on LPG and hanging heavy curtains on the windows.
Unless you live where there is
no power. Then it makes sense.
