Solar for the soul or for the senses

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

The Sun has mystified mankind for centuries. In days long gone, primitive people worshiped the Sun or a Sun God. But much more recently, in the later 1800s, people were still mystified because by then science had advanced a great deal and physicists had acquired a significant understanding of thermodynamics and energy. They knew that thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and it can only be converted to another form. They also knew how to calculate the heat emitted from burning coal, wood, or anything else.

Astronomers and physicists had also come to the realization that the Sun was billions of years old and appeared to be going strong for a few billion more.

The physics calculations of the time showed that the Sun should be impossible.

The calculations showed that the Sun could not possibly have burned for millions of years, let alone billions, and that it was destined to burn out soon.

But mysteriously, it was doing just fine. The year 1900 arrived, and five years later, some young upstart physicist started to say crazy impossible-sounding things. He made wild claims. His name was Albert Einstein.

He came up with a crazy equation; E= mc2. This said that energy obtained (E) was equal to the mass of anything (m) multiplied by the speed of light squared (c2). This comes out at a huge number. In fact, it tells you that something like an ordinary household brick, if converted to energy, would drive a large ship around the world over 100 times.

The equation applied to nuclear power. It said that you could turn atoms into energy, that is heat and light. This equation appeared to contradict the laws of thermodynamics.

Using that equation showed that the Sun was not burning stuff like coal, it was turning its own atoms into energy. It was a giant nuclear reactor.

Finally, physicists could explain the age of the Sun.

A few years later, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize… he got it for explaining how solar panels worked. That was something he sort of did in his spare time, when he was not figuring out how the Sun stayed alive.

So, all the solar power arriving at the Earth is actually nuclear power, from a giant nuclear reactor.

When the Sun’s rays arrive at the Earth’s surface, it is possible to get about 20% of it to turn into electricity. At lunchtime, the Sun’s rays are about one kilowatt per square meter.

Any energy which makes engineering and financial sense should be used. So, we should use solar power, but its use must be governed by sense and reality, not by fantasy and dreams.

That means real economics employing real engineering.

You only get solar power when the Sun shines. Furthermore, you only get the maximum when the Sun is directly overhead. Before morning teatime and after afternoon teatime, you only get about half because the sunlight is coming in at a steep angle. Therefore, much less falls on the square meter. Try this with a flashlight on the lounge wall.

So, the best thing to do with solar power is to use it where it is appropriate and for an appropriate purpose. What people need to do is to find usage patterns which match the natural solar patterns. Alternatively, use solar in remote locations in which it would be impractical to run electric cables from any other source. For example, power a radio repeater station which is far out in a remote area, or open and close an electric farm gate.

Those are low current requirements yet are most valuable applications.

So let us look at higher current applications. How about pumping water into storage tanks on a farm or industrial site? In such an application it is not necessary to pump all day, so it is fine if the pumps only work when the Sun is shining.

Let me propose another idea, a company manufacturing wooden furniture. Let us assume that it is run using only solar power. In the morning, the workforce comes in and measures up the wood, draws pencil lines. I have to start at some point in the cycle. Then after morning teatime, as the Sun climbs in the sky, they start to use cutting and drilling machines which need electricity. This goes on with shaping and sanding until around afternoon teatime. Then, they stop the machines and start to glue and screw all the prepared parts together. Then, there is varnishing, painting, and adding the metal handles and locks. Meanwhile, they have charged a small battery bank. They go home. The next morning when they arrive at work, the battery will supply electricity for some lighting, computers, and tea and coffee. So the cycle goes.

Unfortunately, politics and fantasy have intruded into solar power to such a degree that people are trying to force solar power to perform functions for which it is not suited. You cannot run an electric train on solar. You can’t drive a steel foundry on solar. You can’t risk open-heart surgery in a theatre run entirely by solar, nor can you run a mine.

The large solar arrays that we are seeing are there because politics is telling you that they will ‘save the planet,’ but in fact, they are quite dangerous to an electricity grid. That is because they can create huge instability into a system, resulting in a crash. That is what happened in Spain recently. Huge solar arrays also create a significant system-management problem. For a system controller, it is obviously far more difficult to try to manage hugely varying amounts than it is to manage a far more continuous, reliable source of supply.

I am all in favor of using solar, but don’t force it to perform functions for which it is clearly not suited. At the end of the day, excuse the pun, it is the consumer who pays for all the mismatches.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.5 18 votes
Article Rating
78 Comments
July 23, 2026 6:26 am

I would agree with this assessment, there’s no point in trying to make a square peg (solar generated electricity) fit a round hole (main grid) as it is counterproductive and to some degree counterintuitive.

Bryan A
Reply to  JohnC
July 23, 2026 6:33 am

Solar is really only good for 2 purposes…
Powering desktop calculators
Recharging batteries that have no midday demand
(Even with off grid applications the solar is used to recharge batteries and the batteries run the household)

Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2026 6:40 am

. . . and those rechargeable batteries soon reach the end of their useful life. Then what?

Anybody had a rechargeable battery that is still functioning fine after, say, ten years of use?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 7:18 am

My oldest LFP battery in my solar household system is 4.5 years old, still going, it will make probably to 10 years mark.
I also have two Lithium Titanate batteries which I built by myself and they are promising 20-30 years of service and 20.000 cycles, so let’s see, currently they are over one year old.
Btw. I have on Bosch battery grass cutter which is like 18 years old and still working without issues on original batteries.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 7:39 am

I had a Mecedes B class diesel for 15 years and when I traded it in it still had the original battery.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Oldseadog
July 23, 2026 8:39 am

I am using an 18 y o battery in my Ford but I disconnect it every time I park and keep it charged. Others have lasted only five. I keep most of my lithium batteries in the refrigerator. Some are very old .
Others last only a few years, especially in my phone which sometimes gets hot. It is highly variable depending on the use and care.

Bryan A
Reply to  Petey Bird
July 23, 2026 10:03 am

When a cell phone battery gets hot either when charging or simply during use it’s time for a replacement. I’ve replaced my cellphone battery twice in 10 years.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2026 3:31 pm

If a battery gets “hot” while being charged, you are charging it too fast.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
July 23, 2026 3:45 pm

When it was new the battery charged just fine without residual heat. But after 5 years same battery, same cable, same plug … Hot battery! Plus the lifetime diminished greatly. Once the battery was replaced the heat went away for about 4 years but eventually stared again and the longevity diminished. So I’m now on my third battery.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
July 23, 2026 6:41 pm

Inductive (wireless) charging generates more heat that wired, in my experience.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 9:26 am

The latest CATL Tener Sodium energy storage system has an estimated lifespan of 25 to 30 years.

https://electrek.co/2026/07/16/catl-sodium-ion-15000-cycle-grid-storage/

Reply to  Vincent
July 23, 2026 10:36 am

Study finds top EVs retain over 95% battery capacity, even after 62,000 miles

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/study-finds-top-evs-retain-over-95-battery-capacity-even-after-62000-miles

Mr.
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 11:16 am

Korean manufacturers dominated the rankings

Concerningly, I couldn’t find any results in this for Chinese-made EV batteries, which, now dominating the world’s imports of cheap EV’s, should have been a front & center focus of such a study?

Could it be that inclusion of the Chinese contingent in the study would have negatively impacted the claimed > 95% residual capacity?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 11:35 am

OK, but my OP above asked about rechargeable battery life in excess of 10 years.

An EV can easily reach 62,000 miles in two years or less. No big deal.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 12:15 pm

What a nice snippet and change of contest. It did not say “top EVs.”

“The results showed that several popular EVs retained more than 95% of their original battery capacity after 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers).”

As an item of note, Korea scored big.

It also stipulated responsible use and other factors that, if not adequate, seriously change the results.

It also did not account for battery discharge in winter due to heaters and the end result batteries freezing, not being able to be recharged and forced expensive replacements.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 1:47 pm

even after 62,000 miles”

You are so funny !!

LOL.. my current petrol car has 300,000km on it and still going strong.

Previous car was a V8 with well over 500,000km on it, and only stopped working because something went wrong with the computer.

leefor
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 9:42 pm

What is the conversion rate of age to miles? 😉

Reply to  Vincent
July 23, 2026 11:31 am

That’s great, but I’m more interested in delivered performance as compared to “estimates’ which have bitten me an uncountable number of times.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
July 23, 2026 3:32 pm

Estimated.
Call back when you have an actual battery, being used in a real world environment, that has lived that long.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 2:50 pm

I changed out the lead acid batteries for the house, (off grid), after 14 years. The batteries still had 50% charge left at a low drain rate OR 30% at a high drain rate.

They can last but you have to look after them.

Reply to  Eng_Ian
July 23, 2026 7:06 pm

Amazing. My deep cycle batteries for my sump pump backup last about 6 years. What is your secret?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 5:07 pm

I have an off grid solar/battery system that powers fridge and freezer. It uses large format Winston LFP cells that are now 14 years old – cycled at least 20% every day. Have discharged to low cut off about 10 times over their life. No cell swelling and cells still hold close to rated charge of 100Ah. They originally performed about 10% above rating.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2026 10:34 am

It’s also good for the people making the solar panels and installing them.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  JohnC
July 24, 2026 9:51 am

Or even a round peg in a square hole.
It goes in but the fit is not good.

Bryan A
July 23, 2026 6:30 am

Ahhh…Asumptions!
1) They can charge a battery bank while using the solar capacity for operating machines.
Nope…They must then have additional dedicated solar panel capacity solely for recharging purposes!
2) They get the necessary sufficient Sunlight each and every day.
Yeah, Right, Storms happen and Solar capacity diminishes even during mid day!
3) The solar input is similar in every season.
Nope…Solar Irradiance diminished greatly in Late Autumn, Winter and Early Spring down to as little as 10%. Can the process still function at 10% capacity or will they need to install 10X the capacity?
Also more northern latitudes above 45°N require more capacity for the same generation as 35°N and above 50°N even more is required in Summer due to solar incidence angle and Winter can drop off to single digit capacity percentage.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2026 7:00 am
  1. Yes. The battery charging as defined in the illustrative example occurs after the power tools are off. The proposed example does not do any analysis of how much battery capacity could be charged and how much capacity would be needed until there was sufficient solar energy for the operational needs.
  2. Yes. The proposed example did not address this.
  3. Yes. The proposed example did not address this.

All of your observations are valid.

However, I do not view the proposed example as a specific, definitive, process, but rather a “let’s think about this” kind of example intended to inspire creativity of how to apply solar appropriately in niche-like applications.

SV is a tool, not a solution, and should be viewed as such. As with any tool, there are applications perfectly suited to the tool, applications where the tool can be used, but inefficiently, and applications where the tool just is not used.

It comes down to “the right tool for the right job” by Montgomery Scott (Star Trek).

Bryan A
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 23, 2026 10:07 am

Really shouldn’t think about #1 without validly considering both #2 and #3 as they are the pertinent factors in designing a solar generating system. It Must function as needed during potential worst case scenarios.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2026 12:17 pm

Agreed.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2026 8:43 am

Most solar generation fantasies are based on a location where the days are the same length all year and there is no weather. Some even have the same solar intensity all day.
Under such circumstances a system could function very well.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Petey Bird
July 24, 2026 9:56 am

This planet is not such a system, is it.

July 23, 2026 6:34 am

Maybe a bit off topic, but that lead-in photo of the HUGE “solar farm” invites this question: What ecosystem might arise after, say, a year of so underneath all those solar panels?

I have to assume that any plant life that relies on photosynthesis disappears, but then what is left to support other life forms? Probably too hot and dry on average to support mushrooms, earthworms, mosquitoes, etc., but maybe fine for ants, beetles, hornets, wasps, and even bats that have the ability to forage for food beyond the edges of the panels that cover the ground.

Possibly leading to the evolution of new life forms because, AFAIK, there have been no previous equivalent habitats anywhere on Earth?

What do you think?

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 8:01 am

A wacky idea that the proponents of solar energy insist will work is “agrivoltaics”. This idea is that you can have your solar panel cake and eat too what grows underneath, or maybe eat what eats what’s underneath. I have seen no working demonstrations of this idea, but what will live in the modest light beneath solar panels will likely not be productive agriculture. It will be very difficult to use, cultivate and harvest, and so must be harvested by grazers. It will end up being weeds most likely. And it won’t be bison eating those weeds, I assure you. Goats and sheep can eat weeds, but the weeds will spread from this new environment.

I am quite familiar with agriculture. One can drive along fence lines in the country and look at the ground beneath the fence line to get an idea of how often the fence catches tumbleweeds. There are places where there appear to have never been tumbleweeds at all. However, put up a wind “farm” and you will have tumbleweeds in that fence line soon — the acreage around turbines, and the new roadways are a new source of weeds.

The unreal picture of that solar “farm” is shocking. This is the trouble with solar. It takes the ground completely.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
July 23, 2026 8:06 am

Great! Thank you.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 10:38 am

Weeds and lots of them will do OK under them as the ground won’t be dark as night.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
July 23, 2026 11:48 am

Hmmm . . . was curious, so I checked out your claim with Google’s AI bot and got this, to me, rather surprising answer (my bold emphasis added):

“Yes, existing weeds continue to grow and metabolize during twilight, but twilight or dark conditions prevent new weed seeds from sprouting.
— Existing plants: Established weeds keep growing in dim light or darkness by using stored energy and doing basic cell functions.
— New seeds: Many weed seeds need a flash of bright daylight to wake up and germinate. Tilling or pulling weeds during bright midday exposes buried seeds to light, causing more weeds to grow. Doing yard work at dusk or twilight avoids giving that light trigger.”
with a link to https://www.reddit.com/r/botany/comments/gqm2p3/what_would_happen_to_plants_if_the_day_night/

Today, I learned something new! Thank you.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 23, 2026 6:51 pm

All the life forms which thrive around the trees which make up forests of different tree densities and species are possible candidates for growing in the areas covered by solar panels. The light is clearly as bright as on days when there is cloud cover naturally. Currently people run domestic animals in some of the same fields.

July 23, 2026 6:35 am

I see we are getting blackout warnings in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP).

Before windmills and solar were added to our grids, there were no blackout warnings.

After windmills and solar were added to our grids, we get blackout warnings every summer and winter.

We have idiots planning our grids.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2026 7:35 am

We have people whose goal is to destroy the West planning our grids.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 23, 2026 10:12 am

Or we have idiots planning our grid by listening to and hactivists who wish to destroy the west.
Not either or but both combined.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2026 10:31 am

How much has electricity demand increased in the SPP since “before windmills and solar were added”? If the only added capacity has been wind and solar, then, yes, the planners are idiots, or directed by mandates put in place by idiots.

The Expulsive
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 24, 2026 6:49 am

They are called politicians, and they don’t know how to plan a grid. What they do is make claims and if elected impose their ideas on the grid (used by people) and the engineers are then forced to compromise the grid to satisfy what the elected promised.

Sparta Nova 4
July 23, 2026 6:52 am

I am not clear if the picture is an actual site or a generated image.
If it is an actual site,, the environmental damage and micro climate impacts are horrific.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 23, 2026 8:11 am

A neighbor installed a 50 ft x 20 ft array. We are at 47°N Lat so the thing is tilted quite a bit. The low edge is about 3 feet from the ground. This is an inland dry region. Ground under the array gets lots of indirect light and some rain and snow blown in. It has a nice growth of native plants with a fence protecting the thing. Having been there for several years, it now has an abundance of fuel waiting for a fire to turn it into rubble.
[A responsible homeowner would mow under it.]
15 miles away, a home has two arrays, perhaps 10ft x 12ft, on poles that rotate during the day to face the sun. That seems a better way.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 23, 2026 10:15 am

Back in 2017, the Tubes Fire which burnt the majority of Northern Santa Rosa (about 2600 homes) started in the tinder under a solar array as it shorted.

MarkW
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 23, 2026 3:38 pm

Sun tracking adds a lot of money to installation and maintenance costs.
It also requires the panels to be mounted further apart so that the panels never shade each other.
In other words, it adds a lot to the cost of your installation for a very small increase in energy provided.

John Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
July 24, 2026 7:56 am

A study about this by Latitude would be interesting.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 23, 2026 6:58 pm

Browsing and grazing animals would thrive if there was available water somewhere they could reach. My cows and goats are always lying or standing in the shade of trees which makes sense as they all lived naturally in wooded areas before domestication.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 24, 2026 12:23 pm

Interesting inputs to the conversation.

The image seems to be much, much larger than 50 ft x 20 ft.

Graeme4
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 23, 2026 9:41 pm

Look at the images of China’s Taihung Mountain solar system.

ferdberple
July 23, 2026 7:28 am

The power tools won’t work on cloudy days. The recharging won’t work on cloudy days. No work no paycheck unless taxpayers subsidize.

Petey Bird
July 23, 2026 8:30 am

No mention of winter or weather in this discussion.
I think you should build this furniture factory and prove the concept.

Reply to  Petey Bird
July 23, 2026 10:33 am

Please build it with your own money.

strativarius
July 23, 2026 8:39 am

Story tip –

Ed Miliband has left behind a squad of his proteges and allies running DESNZ. He’s got two departments for the price of one…

Miatta Fahnbulleh is a personal protege of Miliband’s. She worked as a personal policy adviser to him from 2013 to 2015 and they remained close while she headed up the NEF and worked at other think tanks. She is widely seen in Labour as Miliband’s underling and perhaps more zealous on net zero than him. She was made an MP in 2024 and put straight into DESNZ, before being shuffled out to housing. She is now the Energy Secretary…

Polly Billington was a SpAd to Miliband from 2007 when he was working on party policy and election strategy. She went on to be the media director for Miliband’s leadership campaign. She was made an MP in 2024. Billington is now Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at DESNZ…

Katie White is a former eco-campaigner and civil servant in Miliband’s old department. She worked for Friends of the Earth co-designing Miliband’s Climate Change Act and had a stint at DECC – the department he founded. Before entering parliament she was executive director of advocacy and campaigns at WWF. She said in 2024: “I’ve worked with Ed Miliband both on the Climate Change Act and at the Department for Energy and Climate Change.” She was made an MP in 2024 and appointed Miliband’s PPS – his eyes and ears. White has been promoted from Climate Change minister to Minister of State at DESNZ…

Martin McCluskey is another former adviser to Ed Miliband and ex-political director of Scottish Labour. He was also chairman of the Scottish Fabians. He was made an MP in 2024 and appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in DESNZ as minister for energy consumers in September 2025. He has retained his post…

Baroness Margaret Curran is back as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State after leaving for health reasons last year. Ed Miliband appointed her Shadow Scotland Secretary in 2011 after brining her into his front bench a year before. She is a senior Scottish Labour ally of Miliband’s…

Michael Shanks is another Fabian and was only made an MP in 2023. He was Minister for Energy and as the MP for Rutherglen was a dutiful errand boy for Miliband in Scotland. He’s done his job of trying to sell the net zero destruction of the Scottish oil and gas industry and is thus being kept on as Minister of State in DESNZ…

The one exception might be Blair McDougall, who is another 2024 intake MP. He’s been been appointed a part-time minister shared between DBIST and DESNZ. Previously he was minister in DBT only. Formerly an anti-Scottish independence campaigner, McDougall was an associate at Labour-linked lobbying firm Arden Strategies and also served as SpAd to James Purnell when he was culture minister. Is Purnell keeping an eye on Fahnbulleh’s activities with a part-time spy in the department…

It is striking that the large majority of DESNZ ministers have close ties to Miliband and are so junior. No elected minister in the department has been an MP prior to 2023/24. Suspicious levels of juniority…

The Spectator’s Tim Shipman reports that scorned Miliband’s price for accepting Foreign Secretary and not Chancellor was to install Fahnbulleh in DESNZ. It looks like his penetration of the department goes much further than the head…

https://order-order.com/2026/07/23/ed-milibands-close-allies-installed-as-desnz-ministers/

claysanborn
July 23, 2026 9:03 am

Very good. Spoken like a true engineer.

MarkW
Reply to  claysanborn
July 23, 2026 3:40 pm

True engineers usually try to think through all of the consequences of their ideas and try not to design things that can’t work.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 23, 2026 5:13 pm

Your ‘facts’ are pie in the sky. Capacity is NOT the same as output. Why is that so hard to understand?

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 24, 2026 8:23 am

I understand standby power. Do you understand 30-year warranties?

Iain Reid
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 23, 2026 11:50 pm

Resource Guy,

it is delusional to quote capacity for renewables as they only provide a small amount of that capacity on average.
It does also not mean that it is a good idea to connect that capacity to a grid, it is detrimental, as the article states.

July 23, 2026 9:43 am

John Christy : If it’s not economically sustainable , it’s not sustainable .
Economics , not political force should determine the sustainable niches .

July 23, 2026 10:33 am

It’s amazing that so many people think that solar “farm” shown in the image is a wonderful, beautiful thing. The same people will go bonkers if you decide to cut a tree in your yard. I’ve been told that in Cambridge, Wokeachusetts- if you want to cut a tree in your yard, you need to have 3 arborists document that the tree is dead or dying.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
July 23, 2026 10:39 am

Compared to a coal mine or oil field? Yes.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 10:47 am

You probably meant open pit coal mine? Sure, but how many are there? Not many and usually far from civilization. Sure, oil fields are ugly too but not as ugly in my opinion. Lot’s of things in this world are ugly. We can’t get rid of all if now can we?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 12:15 pm

How strange is it that a country with as many wind turbines and solar cells as Germany should still need coalmines.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 5:21 pm

And of course, wind farms don’t damage the environment at all.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1875454/Germany-wind-farm-Sababurg-forest

Mr.
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 11:24 am

It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Me- I reckon wind & solar “farms” are the best depiction of the term “waste of space” ever named.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 12:23 pm

Compared to a coal mine or oil field 10 years hence? No.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 23, 2026 3:42 pm

Both the coal mine and oil field will be remediated when their life comes to an end.

MarkW
July 23, 2026 3:29 pm

A factory that can only make products for a few hours a day, is a factory that will be out of business in a couple of days.
You are violating your own proposal by attempting to power a factory using solar power, which it clearly is not suitable for.
Solar power has few limited uses, all of which involve places that are too far from the grid to be powered by the grid.

Bill Kotcher
July 23, 2026 3:57 pm

chatgpt, can I use that for a reply?

1. The historical mystery of the Sun

  • For centuries, people wondered how the Sun produced enough energy to shine for such a long time.
  • By the late 1800s, physicists understood thermodynamics and the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.
  • Scientists could calculate energy released from chemical reactions such as burning coal or wood.
  • These processes, however, could not explain how the Sun could shine for billions of years.

Correction:

  • Nineteenth-century scientists did not yet know the Sun was billions of years old.
  • Many scientists estimated the Sun’s age at only tens of millions of years because known energy sources could not explain a longer lifespan.
  • The true age of the Sun (~4.6 billion years) became understood only after discoveries in radioactivity and nuclear physics.

2. Einstein and E=mc2E=mc^2E=mc2

  • Einstein’s equation showed that mass and energy are equivalent.
  • Because the speed of light squared is an extremely large number, a small amount of mass corresponds to a very large amount of energy.
  • The equation explains why nuclear reactions can produce enormous amounts of energy.

Important clarification:

  • E=mc2E=mc^2E=mc2 does not mean that atoms are simply converted entirely into energy.
  • In nuclear reactions, only a small amount of mass is converted into energy; the remaining matter continues to exist in different forms.

3. The Sun as a nuclear energy source

  • The Sun is not powered by burning fuel like coal or wood.
  • It produces energy through nuclear fusion, where hydrogen nuclei combine to form helium.
  • The small difference in mass between the original hydrogen and the final helium is released as energy according to mass-energy equivalence.

Correction:

  • Einstein’s equation alone did not explain how the Sun works.
  • Understanding the Sun required later discoveries in nuclear physics and astrophysics, including the mechanisms of stellar fusion.

4. Einstein’s Nobel Prize and solar technology

  • Einstein received the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect.
  • This work became an important foundation for understanding photovoltaic solar cells.
  • However:
  • Einstein did not invent solar panels.
  • He did not develop modern solar technology.
  • His contribution was explaining the underlying physics of how light can produce electrical effects.

5. Solar power and the Earth

  • The sunlight reaching Earth ultimately comes from nuclear fusion occurring in the Sun.
  • Solar panels convert sunlight into electricity.
  • Modern commercial solar panels typically convert around 20% of incoming sunlight into electricity.
  • The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface is roughly 1 kilowatt per square metre under favourable conditions.

Overall assessmentThe article contains many scientifically correct ideas but sometimes overstates Einstein’s personal role.
Accurate:✔ The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion.
✔ Mass-energy equivalence explains why nuclear reactions release large amounts of energy.
✔ Solar energy ultimately originates from nuclear reactions in the Sun.
✔ Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect contributed to the scientific foundation of solar technology.
Needs correction:✘ E=mc2E=mc^2E=mc2 did not by itself explain how the Sun produces energy.
✘ Einstein did not discover the mechanism of solar fusion.
✘ Einstein did not invent solar panels.
✘ The Sun’s billion-year age was not known in the late 1800s.
Overall conclusion:

Einstein’s E=mc2E=mc^2E=mc2 was a foundational insight showing that mass can be converted into energy, helping explain the enormous energy output of nuclear processes. However, understanding the Sun, nuclear fusion, and solar technology required many additional discoveries by scientists in nuclear physics, astronomy, and engineering. The article is broadly correct in its scientific message but gives Einstein more credit for later developments than is historically accurate.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Bill Kotcher
July 23, 2026 7:12 pm

Straining out gnats and swallowing camels!
This is a quite unnecessary quibbling post and leaves me wondering what audience you think you are addressing.
The mass/energy equivalence plus the photoelectric voltaic phenomenon are both central to the issue of understanding the existence of solar panels and the author of a hypothetical is entitled to emphasise what he chooses when presenting a thought experiment for others to discern.

July 23, 2026 5:19 pm

I have a cost optimised solar/battery system that serves a regular daily demand of 2.5 to 3kWh. It has 3kW of solar panels that follow the roof line rather than being aligned for maximum winter input. The batter is rated at 5kWh. The location is 37S.

So do the sums with cost of capital at 7% over a 20 year life and you will arrive at a unit cost close to 60c/kWh.

The capacity factor for the solar panels averages around 3.8%. This is a real world number and shows why all the academics get it so wrong.

Lignite fired generation in the nearby Latrobe Valley has a unit cost of 2.3c/kWh at transmission level under base load supply conditions.

This is why Australia has become an economic basket case with rapidly falling standard of living and rapidly rising crime of all varieties.

Reply to  RickWill
July 24, 2026 6:11 am

‘So do the sums with cost of capital at 7% over a 20 year life and you will arrive at a unit cost close to 60c/kWh.’

Seems high. Wouldn’t you do better taking energy off of the grid?

Phillip Chalmers
July 23, 2026 6:39 pm

On topic, practical and sensible.
A wider perspective, silicon – sourcing and mining and slave labour

July 23, 2026 7:03 pm

Texas is going great great with solar and grid scale batteries and minimal subsidies and NO carbon credits and other nonsense. With wind/solar, location is everything.
The example of the furniture factory is silly. Is the factory located in Maine or in Texas? Is the locale cloudy or does the sun shine everyday strongly (Texas). If there is a lot of solar on the grid, and if there is not large scale battery storage, electricity prices will be very cheap during the day and so the furniture factory can buy power on the cheap, making investment in solar cells uneconomic.
Bottom line, electricity has to be available on demand 24/7.

Bob
July 23, 2026 7:46 pm

I see no reason to use solar. If someone wants to use solar that is their business but no public money will be used to build, operate or properly dispose of the system. The only mandate for solar is it can’t be connected to the grid in any fashion. Let me know how that turns out.