Solar vs. Fossil Fuels

Growing speculation over global oil supplies and concern environmental damage caused by fossil fuels in conjunction with anxiousness related to security and storage with nuclear fuel have pushed development and finance of renewable energy alternatives. Today 78% of our electrical energy needs are met by fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Coal mining remains a dangerous and environmentally exploitive exercise as well as a major source of pollution. Natural Gas and Oil production come with their own environmental impacts as witnessed by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the allure of nuclear energy production a safe and secure method of storing spent nuclear fuel rods has yet to be found and much of the dangerous waste remains on-site at nuclear facilities close to high population densities. In addition, nuclear energy results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction, uranium mining, refinement and transport are taken into account. In a recent report by the The National Academies on the unpriced negative consequences of energy production showed, the external effects of coal, natural gas and nuclear electrical production add up to $120 billion in the US alone.⁴ It is clear that solutions must be developed to replace the negative impact of fossil fuel electrical generation.

Geothermal, Hydroelectric and Wind power all offer renewable energy alternatives, but none can supply the capacity solar energy can. The implementation of clean, renewable energy would also reduce the actual terawatt demand for energy as well, potentially as much a 68%⁵. This is largely due to the efficiency of electrification as an energy delivery mechanism over gasoline for instance, (gas-powered cars vs. electric cars). Conservative estimates suggest a minimum of 580 terawatts of potential available solar energy. This exceeds future global energy demand predictions by almost 20 times. Photovoltaic plants (excludes CSP plants) have the lowest industry percentage of downtime for maintenance, a mere 7 days a year compared to 46 days for a coal burning facility. The cost to consumers for coal generated electricity currently averages around $0.10/kWh. Due to the efficiencies and cost of commercial PV modules they remain uncompetitive with this cheap coal-powered electricity, averaging closer to $0.27/kWh.

Quantum’s NGD™ technology implementation could potentially provide enough low-impact deployment options for terawatt scale solar electricity production. NGD™ promises to deliver higher efficiencies (PCE) at a lower cost while using abundant, non-toxic materials. Quantumʼs patent-pending technology could drive consumer solar electrical costs to $0.06 to $0.09/kWh, making it competitive with coal. The main reason coal remains the choice for electrical generation is its competitive advantage. Once solar power is able to break the $0.10/kWh barrier, it will be a viable and clear alternative to other forms fossil fuel electrical generation.

⁴ Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. © National Academy of Sciences; 2010
⁵ “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030″, by Mark Z. Jacobson & Mark A. Elucchi, Scientific American, 2009; www.scientificamerican.com/sustainable-energy