David Nebenzahl wrote:

Like most detractors of solar energy/proponents of nuclear power, the
argument you make is a total straw man.

Nobody is proposing that we should try to build a solar infrastructure
that could supply the entire *peak demand* for electrical energy.
That's absurd.

The whole idea is to use solar-generated electricity in a *mix* of
environmentally-friendly sources, including wind, geothermal, perhaps
tidal, and good old standbys like cogeneration and the best of all,
conservation (i.e., not using energy unnecessarily). Applying each
technology where it's appropriate and economic. (F'rinstance, how
about covering the thousands of acres of flat, unobstructed rooftops
in any major urban area with photovoltaic panels? That's called
"picking the low-hanging fruit".)

Think of it as a sort of energy multiculturalism, a concept that I'm
sure you'll be quite comfortable with.

(Note lack of smiley faces.)

You're right that just because solar doesn't scale well doesn't mean that it
can't find applications. I'm a big fan of solar-powered calculators.

And you are likewise correct that some roofs are candidates for solar
collectors, although there are probably sufficient sites that are much
cheaper to obtain than commercial rooftops.

My beef with solar is that it doesn't make economic sense.

As of March, 2009, the US Department of Energy estimates the LOWEST cost of
solar electricty generation for commercial applications to be 21¢ per KWH.
And the HIGHEST cost of generation for non-solar to be about five cents.
(Similar numbers for residental applications are 37¢ and 9¢.)
http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarprices.htm

As an aside, I'm comfortable with multiculturalism. Studying different
cultures invites comparisons. Comparisons generate "better-worse" rankings.
Rankings put the notion of "cultural equivalence" down the drain. Comparing
a culture that put a man on the moon and eradicated Polio with a society
that never developed the wheel or a written language is fun.