# Solar Power efficiency boosted 300%.  Game changer?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solar-power-efficiency-boosted-300-game-changer/571852>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 18, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solar-power-efficiency-boosted-300-game-changer/571852 "2011-02-18T21:04:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solar-power-efficiency-boosted-300-game-changer/571852/42 "2011-02-25T19:42:37Z")

</div>

> [@Mtgman](#):
>
> That’s true, but the standard for the question in the OP wasn’t “viable” it was “game changer.” I guess it depends on what the OP meant by “game changer.” If they meant the whole energy usage of the US, then no, this is too small a drop in too large a bucket. The energy needs don’t map cleanly to the electrical grid, as evidenced by the widespread use of non-electric energy in places like the Northeast for heating. If they were just talking about current electrical usage(which will almost certainly change in ways we don’t yet foresee) then it could make a substantial difference, but I wouldn’t consider it a game changer. I can already choose to buy green power from my electric company. To be a real game changer you have to do more than just take on current uses of the electric grid.
> 
> Enjoy,  
> Steven

So if we designed a magical box that cost $100 to build, nothing to maintain, generated no pollution, yet put out 100 megawatts worth of electricity, it wouldn’t be a game changer because it’s only addressing our electrical needs?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solar-power-efficiency-boosted-300-game-changer/571852/43 "2011-02-25T23:22:10Z")

</div>

Magic is always a game changer. Barring magic though, even 90% efficient solar power at very low cost, maintenance, or environmental effect, wouldn’t be enough of a draw to convert many of our non-electric uses of energy to electricity . To change the game you need to be cheap enough and reliable enough to justify retrofitting or replacing older technology. Energy density, reliability, and transmission for solar, without massive advances in battery technology, just don’t stack up to fossil fuels unless one heavily counts pollution and non-renewableness against the fossil fuels.

Enjoy,  
Steven

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solar-power-efficiency-boosted-300-game-changer/571852/44 "2011-02-25T23:33:45Z")

</div>

Non-electric usages for energy (aside from transport obviously) are a small slice of the pie. If we make the big changes to the big slice of the pie, it’s a game changer.

To think of a non-magic item, think of affordable solar generating roads feeding into our grid. Definitely a game changer.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solar-power-efficiency-boosted-300-game-changer/571852.md?page=2)