EDITORIAL
Time to use the resources we have in abundance
The Nation

There is no excuse for Thailand, blessed as it is with sunshine, not to embark on an expansive programme of solar-energy production

BANGKOK: -- The scorching heat and glaring sunlight this summer might cause people to wonder why we rely so little on the sun's energy. Thailand enjoys generous sunlight all year round. Bangkok, even with its smog and pollution, has an average of five hours of sunlight a day. The average number of hours of sunlight per day range from 4.23 in August, in the middle of the rainy season, to 6.09 in March, in the middle of the hot, dry season, according to the United States Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Prices of fossil fuels such as petroleum and natural gas are increasing, coal-fired power plants threaten the health of local communities, and opposition is mounting against environmentally unfriendly alternative sources of energy such as hydropower, which require large tracts of land for dam construction. Nuclear power might be a cost-effective alternative choice in many countries, but there has been increasingly strong opposition to this option in Thailand following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011.

It is time for the government to seriously consider increasing our reliance on renewable energy sources, which are friendlier to the environment and healthier for people.

Thailand has high potential for renewable energy production, including solar and wind power, as well as biofuels. Current technologies for all these alternative sources are already well established here. Investments have been made by both state agencies and private businesses on projects for renewable energy, but the size of investment is still far from allowing them to compete with existing power plants that rely on fossil fuels.

Renewable energy sources - mostly hydropower - account for only 15 per cent of Thailand's total energy generation, with the rest coming from natural gas and coal, according to Chulalongkorn University researchers. As a result, Thailand has been left vulnerable to fluctuations in energy prices from international suppliers for many years. Under the government's Alternative Energy Development Plan, renewable energy is supposed to make up 20 per cent of the country's total energy consumption by 2022.

Thailand is particularly well suited for solar-farm development because it has long peak-sun hours (when the sun creates 1,000 watts of energy over one square metre of land for one hour) and low land costs in many suitable areas. Joint ventures have set up solar farms in some provinces, and the government has provided subsidies for solar-power generation.

It costs much more to invest in solar energy than it does to invest in conventional sources of power generation. However, advancements in technology will help lower the costs, and together with government subsidies, future investments in solar energy should be able to flourish in Thailand.

Attention, however, should not focus on only on solar farms as businesses. Subsidies should also be given to homeowners so that they can afford to install solar-cell panels to generate electricity for domestic use. Local production of solar-cell panels should be subsidised to make them more affordable. For the average homeowner with limited land, solar energy can be a convenient option for alternative energy production compared to other sources, such as wind power or biomass fuel.

Some "green" buildings in Thailand have already installed photovoltaic panels to generate electricity for their own use. Solar energy is being used in remote areas of the country, such as islands or mountain villages, where it is much costlier to pipe in electricity.

However, solar energy has never been part of the mainstream in Thailand. One major reason is that it is still cheaper to buy electricity.

But because it is becoming much costlier to produce power from fossil fuels, it makes sense to encourage more electricity generation from renewable sources. Thailand has the resources needed for such power generation - sunlight, wind and biomass - and the technologies are readily available for the Kingdom to head in that direction. What we need now is greater public awareness and the political will to make it happen.


-- The Nation 2013-05-02

A little bird tells me, that a subsidy for house installation has been in the offing for a few months now.

Another "solar energy lite" article, fodder for the masses without the inconvenient facts. Such as

1/ sunlight energy @1kw/m² but solar panel efficiency for the best and latest <10%

2/ Energy returned ratio to energy to produce for solar panels <10, wind turbines ~20, hydro dam 95+

3/ Capacity factor ~25% ie produces energy <25% of the time. In practice, for solar panel farms in a desert 18%

4/ Power production during peak load periods minimal to zero, so other means required.

5/ Capacity to store energy produced close to zero

6/ Dust coverage reduces efficiency markedly - require frequent washing/cleaning. Solar tracking equipment (to increase efficiency and capacity factor to those above) requires maintenance.

7/ Energy production not variable, so not suitable for load following (energy which demands the highest price from retailers)

In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods.

Agree - Mick. We just did a job for Siemens who trucked the wind farm into Korat. 10 trucks per unit, per windmill. 90 windmills, each blade 200' in length (way oversize) and 150 tonne crane to lift into position. A nine month project costing billions of baht and they put it up in a low wind area inland from the coast and where wind actually is! Needless to say there were some financial reasons Korat was chosen and some people have very fat pockets now. The solar farms will be the same thing, it is all about how much they can take off the top not the necessity of efficiency or logic or in fact, due diligence - just a fad and all hype to cover a scam.

There is a solar farm about 40 km north of Ayutthya on the left hand side of the road heading north, don't know how much it produces but:

As Mick says there are problems with this and others such as wind.

Have a look at :

14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA | Tory Aardvark

toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbin...

17 Nov 2011 ... The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just ...

Another "solar energy lite" article, fodder for the masses without the inconvenient facts. Such as

1/ sunlight energy @1kw/m² but solar panel efficiency for the best and latest <10%

2/ Energy returned ratio to energy to produce for solar panels <10, wind turbines ~20, hydro dam 95+

3/ Capacity factor ~25% ie produces energy <25% of the time. In practice, for solar panel farms in a desert 18%

4/ Power production during peak load periods minimal to zero, so other means required.

5/ Capacity to store energy produced close to zero

6/ Dust coverage reduces efficiency markedly - require frequent washing/cleaning. Solar tracking equipment (to increase efficiency and capacity factor to those above) requires maintenance.

7/ Energy production not variable, so not suitable for load following (energy which demands the highest price from retailers)

In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods.

Some excellent points. I just want to add one - Subsidies.

The article talks about "government subsidies", as if the government has it's own source of money separate from the rest of society.

All Left leaning / Green parties think that the tax payer is there to support their ideologies. That somehow they have the answers to all the worlds problems and the rest of society will just have to keep sending them money to "subsidize" their pet projects.

Just look at Spain - spent vast amounts of money building a "Green" economy where 3 regular jobs were lost to support 1 "green" energy job.

Now they're suffering worse than in the depression.

Let the Greenies influence government and your economy is going down the tube faster than you can say "what global warming?"

"In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods."

I'll take "reduced amounts of fossil fuels burned" over not even TRYING anyday.

So what if the yield is low? That's where innovation comes in.
Image a world where - after building the first computer - we just GAVE UP and said:

"It'll never improve, nor be smaller, nor cheaper - lets just not use computers."

Alternative energies are in their infancy - instead of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" - we LEARN and IMPROVE! We don't just give up, roll over, and die!

"Nuclear power might be a cost-effective alternative choice in many countries,"

Cost-effective?? Really?? Where did they get that idea?

"In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods."

I'll take "reduced amounts of fossil fuels burned" over not even TRYING anyday.

So what if the yield is low? That's where innovation comes in.

Image a world where - after building the first computer - we just GAVE UP and said:

"It'll never improve, nor be smaller, nor cheaper - lets just not use computers."

Alternative energies are in their infancy - instead of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" - we LEARN and IMPROVE! We don't just give up, roll over, and die!

I don't think he is saying that. I think he is only saying that it's not a panacea for the foreseeable future.

Every source of energy has it's costs. Even solar cell production requires very toxic chemicals.

We just can't have a perfect world where birds arent killed by wind turbines, etc. However, we can strive for some sort of balance. No need to be rigidly one way or the other.

It would probably be a good idea to develop some local experienced folks who know how to work with this technology. Then make use of a blend of these where it makes sense.

One thing I would think Thailand could seriously consider is using wave power production. I'm sure it will have it's own problems, and challenges. Probably have some effect on coastlines, fish, etc.

Regardless pursuing a blend of approaches would be more expensive rather than specializing, but it may be money well invested.

"Nuclear power might be a cost-effective alternative choice in many countries,"

Cost-effective?? Really?? Where did they get that idea?

Based on the price per Kwh to produce thats where...

Stuff all this tree huggy cr*p...bring on the nukes..

One thing I would think Thailand could seriously consider is using wave power production. I'm sure it will have it's own problems, and challenges. Probably have some effect on coastlines, fish, etc.

you got that right...its own problems...a lot of the time during the year the GOT is like a bl**dy billiard table....no waves to speak of...

"In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods."

I'll take "reduced amounts of fossil fuels burned" over not even TRYING anyday.

So what if the yield is low? That's where innovation comes in.

Image a world where - after building the first computer - we just GAVE UP and said:

"It'll never improve, nor be smaller, nor cheaper - lets just not use computers."

Alternative energies are in their infancy - instead of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" - we LEARN and IMPROVE! We don't just give up, roll over, and die!

I have no problems at all for expenditure on R&D. What I object to strongly is people with no qualifications or electricity supply experience advocating a power supply option is simply not viable, with no mention of the problems involved (if they even know of them).

The last thread on this subject saw a Greenpeace diagram posted which suggested that a chunk of the Sahara desert could supply solar power for the whole planet. That is beyond simplistic to infantile. The same people find hundreds of reasons to denigrate hydro dams, despite them being the cleanest, most efficient method of generating the most valuable (load following) electricity known to date. The World Dams Report (heavily green influenced) includes a highlighted claim, using absolutely extreme examples, that a hydro dam can produce as much CO₂ as a coal-fired power station, ignoring the fact that it is from river- washed decaying biomass that will otherwise rot in the ocean.

Are solar panels worth using to reduce fossil fuel usage? YES.

Are they a viable way to replace existing power stations. NO.

Edited May 2, 201313 yr by OzMick

Every source of energy has it's costs. Even solar cell production requires very toxic chemicals.

We just can't have a perfect world where birds arent killed by wind turbines, etc. However, we can strive for some sort of balance. No need to be rigidly one way or the other.

It would probably be a good idea to develop some local experienced folks who know how to work with this technology. Then make use of a blend of these where it makes sense.

One thing I would think Thailand could seriously consider is using wave power production. I'm sure it will have it's own problems, and challenges. Probably have some effect on coastlines, fish, etc.

Regardless pursuing a blend of approaches would be more expensive rather than specializing, but it may be money well invested.

Shore based wave generation uses a funnel-shaped barriers to increase wave amplitude at the turbine. The problem is that when big storms hit, massive amounts of energy are directed at the turbine structure, and although the turbine is protected by a shut inlet gate, the actual building is unable to withstand the pounding.

Off shore floating arrangements have been succesful in powering beacons, but AFAIK all larger power producers have failed.

One of the biggest problems is the need to produce electricity at high voltage to reduce the mass of material involved in low voltage/high current generation. High voltage and conductive salt water are a bad mix, and the corrosive qualities add even more problems.

If they want solar to take off - all they need to do is require the generating authority to allow meters to run in reverse for solar panels on rooftops. - so that all the electricity generated is essentially paid back at the highest tariff.

There's some neat electrical connections needed to cut off the supply from the solar panels to the meter when the power's cut off, so that your solar panels don't make the wire live when they're working on it, but that's about it.

Solar has the advantage that you can install it on your roof as a one off cost, and that's it. (OK it's more efficient if you regularly clean the glass, etc. - but it will still work without that). The power is generated at a useful time of day (when air-con is on in people's offices), and if it's spread out over the country (as it would be with rooftop power, rather than large solar plants), if it's cloudy in one area, it will probably be sunny somewhere else.

Agreed, it can never replace the base power generation of big power plants (either nuclear, fossil-fuelled or hydro - which will work as a base load outside of drought periods), but it can be installed on rooftops, in what is essentially, wasted space. (if they're mounted on frames above the tiles, they should reduce the heat buildup in the roof by shading the tiles also).

If they want solar to take off - all they need to do is require the generating authority to allow meters to run in reverse for solar panels on rooftops. - so that all the electricity generated is essentially paid back at the highest tariff.

There's some neat electrical connections needed to cut off the supply from the solar panels to the meter when the power's cut off, so that your solar panels don't make the wire live when they're working on it, but that's about it.

Solar has the advantage that you can install it on your roof as a one off cost, and that's it. (OK it's more efficient if you regularly clean the glass, etc. - but it will still work without that). The power is generated at a useful time of day (when air-con is on in people's offices), and if it's spread out over the country (as it would be with rooftop power, rather than large solar plants), if it's cloudy in one area, it will probably be sunny somewhere else.

Agreed, it can never replace the base power generation of big power plants (either nuclear, fossil-fuelled or hydro - which will work as a base load outside of drought periods), but it can be installed on rooftops, in what is essentially, wasted space. (if they're mounted on frames above the tiles, they should reduce the heat buildup in the roof by shading the tiles also).

The downfall in your argument is that excess solar power should be bought at the highest tariff, when it is replacing base load which is sold at the cheapest wholesale tariff. High prices guaranteed for fixed periods are offered in Australia as a subsidy to those installing, one of the factors which has led to sharp increases in retail electricity prices.

Boy was I wrong. When I saw the headline to this story, the very first thing I thought of was: Those little brown darlings from Issan.. oops. my bad.

Edited May 3, 201313 yr by metisdead
Font

"Nuclear power might be a cost-effective alternative choice in many countries,"

Cost-effective?? Really?? Where did they get that idea?

Based on the price per Kwh to produce thats where...

Stuff all this tree huggy cr*p...bring on the nukes..

The figures I've seen are that nuclear power is heavily subsidised by governments and the price given per Kwh doesn't reflect its true cost.

When you take into account the cost of building nuclear power stations, decommissioning them and finally storing the generated nuclear waste for thousands of years until it's safe, it's actually the most expensive form of energy.

"Nuclear power might be a cost-effective alternative choice in many countries,"

Cost-effective?? Really?? Where did they get that idea?

Based on the price per Kwh to produce thats where...

Stuff all this tree huggy cr*p...bring on the nukes..

The figures I've seen are that nuclear power is heavily subsidised by governments and the price given per Kwh doesn't reflect its true cost.

When you take into account the cost of building nuclear power stations, decommissioning them and finally storing the generated nuclear waste for thousands of years until it's safe, it's actually the most expensive form of energy.

Can you say that in French? France derives >75% of its electricity from nuclear power stations. The US leads the world in capacity at >100TW capacity (and these are typically base load stations, used almost continuously) but this represents only 19% of their usage.

Another "solar energy lite" article, fodder for the masses without the inconvenient facts. Such as

1/ sunlight energy @1kw/m² but solar panel efficiency for the best and latest <10%

2/ Energy returned ratio to energy to produce for solar panels <10, wind turbines ~20, hydro dam 95+

3/ Capacity factor ~25% ie produces energy <25% of the time. In practice, for solar panel farms in a desert 18%

4/ Power production during peak load periods minimal to zero, so other means required.

5/ Capacity to store energy produced close to zero

6/ Dust coverage reduces efficiency markedly - require frequent washing/cleaning. Solar tracking equipment (to increase efficiency and capacity factor to those above) requires maintenance.

7/ Energy production not variable, so not suitable for load following (energy which demands the highest price from retailers)

In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods.

Yes, and when the power outages occur in mid-day heat, the solar people will have their AC still cranking, and still be helping mother earth.

Sounds like a pretty piss poor excuse to not invest in helping future generations. Some oil-gas freaks must be paying some R&D good cash too.

If they want solar to take off - all they need to do is require the generating authority to allow meters to run in reverse for solar panels on rooftops. - so that all the electricity generated is essentially paid back at the highest tariff.

There's some neat electrical connections needed to cut off the supply from the solar panels to the meter when the power's cut off, so that your solar panels don't make the wire live when they're working on it, but that's about it.

Solar has the advantage that you can install it on your roof as a one off cost, and that's it. (OK it's more efficient if you regularly clean the glass, etc. - but it will still work without that). The power is generated at a useful time of day (when air-con is on in people's offices), and if it's spread out over the country (as it would be with rooftop power, rather than large solar plants), if it's cloudy in one area, it will probably be sunny somewhere else.

Agreed, it can never replace the base power generation of big power plants (either nuclear, fossil-fuelled or hydro - which will work as a base load outside of drought periods), but it can be installed on rooftops, in what is essentially, wasted space. (if they're mounted on frames above the tiles, they should reduce the heat buildup in the roof by shading the tiles also).

The downfall in your argument is that excess solar power should be bought at the highest tariff, when it is replacing base load which is sold at the cheapest wholesale tariff. High prices guaranteed for fixed periods are offered in Australia as a subsidy to those installing, one of the factors which has led to sharp increases in retail electricity prices.

Indeed, I saw the calculations on the solar farm investments for Thailand. Very very nice roi.

If they want solar to take off - all they need to do is require the generating authority to allow meters to run in reverse for solar panels on rooftops. - so that all the electricity generated is essentially paid back at the highest tariff.

There's some neat electrical connections needed to cut off the supply from the solar panels to the meter when the power's cut off, so that your solar panels don't make the wire live when they're working on it, but that's about it.

Solar has the advantage that you can install it on your roof as a one off cost, and that's it. (OK it's more efficient if you regularly clean the glass, etc. - but it will still work without that). The power is generated at a useful time of day (when air-con is on in people's offices), and if it's spread out over the country (as it would be with rooftop power, rather than large solar plants), if it's cloudy in one area, it will probably be sunny somewhere else.

Agreed, it can never replace the base power generation of big power plants (either nuclear, fossil-fuelled or hydro - which will work as a base load outside of drought periods), but it can be installed on rooftops, in what is essentially, wasted space. (if they're mounted on frames above the tiles, they should reduce the heat buildup in the roof by shading the tiles also).

Grid-Tie Solar power will make your meter run backwards..

Another "solar energy lite" article, fodder for the masses without the inconvenient facts. Such as

1/ sunlight energy @1kw/m² but solar panel efficiency for the best and latest <10%

2/ Energy returned ratio to energy to produce for solar panels <10, wind turbines ~20, hydro dam 95+

3/ Capacity factor ~25% ie produces energy <25% of the time. In practice, for solar panel farms in a desert 18%

4/ Power production during peak load periods minimal to zero, so other means required.

5/ Capacity to store energy produced close to zero

6/ Dust coverage reduces efficiency markedly - require frequent washing/cleaning. Solar tracking equipment (to increase efficiency and capacity factor to those above) requires maintenance.

7/ Energy production not variable, so not suitable for load following (energy which demands the highest price from retailers)

In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods.

Yes, and when the power outages occur in mid-day heat, the solar people will have their AC still cranking, and still be helping mother earth.

Sounds like a pretty piss poor excuse to not invest in helping future generations. Some oil-gas freaks must be paying some R&D good cash too.

If you read my posts #13 and #16, I have no problem with funding R&D, or for those who wish to install solar for their own use. I do have a problem with the rest of the community subsidising them with direct subsidies on panels and purchase of excess at unwarranted high prices. "Mother earth" is quite capable of looking after herself, but if you wish to assist, you could start by turning off your AC.

If they want solar to take off - all they need to do is require the generating authority to allow meters to run in reverse for solar panels on rooftops. - so that all the electricity generated is essentially paid back at the highest tariff.

There's some neat electrical connections needed to cut off the supply from the solar panels to the meter when the power's cut off, so that your solar panels don't make the wire live when they're working on it, but that's about it.

Solar has the advantage that you can install it on your roof as a one off cost, and that's it. (OK it's more efficient if you regularly clean the glass, etc. - but it will still work without that). The power is generated at a useful time of day (when air-con is on in people's offices), and if it's spread out over the country (as it would be with rooftop power, rather than large solar plants), if it's cloudy in one area, it will probably be sunny somewhere else.

Agreed, it can never replace the base power generation of big power plants (either nuclear, fossil-fuelled or hydro - which will work as a base load outside of drought periods), but it can be installed on rooftops, in what is essentially, wasted space. (if they're mounted on frames above the tiles, they should reduce the heat buildup in the roof by shading the tiles also).

Grid-Tie Solar power will make your meter run backwards..

From the little I know of power meters, I doubt this very much. Even if it did, it would also be illegal unless you have arranged a sale contract with your electricity supplier, and then it would be metered separately at the agreed rate.

A post containing an inflammatory comment has been removed.

If they want solar to take off - all they need to do is require the generating authority to allow meters to run in reverse for solar panels on rooftops. - so that all the electricity generated is essentially paid back at the highest tariff.

There's some neat electrical connections needed to cut off the supply from the solar panels to the meter when the power's cut off, so that your solar panels don't make the wire live when they're working on it, but that's about it.

Solar has the advantage that you can install it on your roof as a one off cost, and that's it. (OK it's more efficient if you regularly clean the glass, etc. - but it will still work without that). The power is generated at a useful time of day (when air-con is on in people's offices), and if it's spread out over the country (as it would be with rooftop power, rather than large solar plants), if it's cloudy in one area, it will probably be sunny somewhere else.

Agreed, it can never replace the base power generation of big power plants (either nuclear, fossil-fuelled or hydro - which will work as a base load outside of drought periods), but it can be installed on rooftops, in what is essentially, wasted space. (if they're mounted on frames above the tiles, they should reduce the heat buildup in the roof by shading the tiles also).

Grid-Tie Solar power will make your meter run backwards..

From the little I know of power meters, I doubt this very much. Even if it did, it would also be illegal unless you have arranged a sale contract with your electricity supplier, and then it would be metered separately at the agreed rate.

It depends how it's done. In California, the meter will usually start going backwards for instance (have seen that on TV), but those tend to be special meters because they allow for the electricity coming from the house as well as going to the house.

I also don't know if it goes backwards at the same rate per kilowatt that it goes forwards.

"In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods."

I'll take "reduced amounts of fossil fuels burned" over not even TRYING anyday.

So what if the yield is low? That's where innovation comes in.

Image a world where - after building the first computer - we just GAVE UP and said:

"It'll never improve, nor be smaller, nor cheaper - lets just not use computers."

Alternative energies are in their infancy - instead of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" - we LEARN and IMPROVE! We don't just give up, roll over, and die!

A voice of reason. These nay sayers would have been saying no way will it work when the auto industry was in it's infancy.

I was surprised that Geo Thermal was not mentioned.

I believe that there is a way to store excess energy from sun panels but it would depend on the amount of sun and the ability of the panels to convert sun light into energy. Also the capability of batteries to store it. They are doing very good now with the batteries for electric auto's now It may be in it's infancy but it has made massive strides. There are homes in the states being built now with alternative energy sources. Still not cheap but doable and we will learn more.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of educated people who think science has nothing new to learn they already know it all.

I'm genuinely shocked that anyone would contemplate putting up wind turbines in Thailand. Thailand is not a windy country. Sunny yes, windy no.

The harsh fact is that none of the renewable energy technologies even come close to matching the cost of generating from fossil fuels. However, it's also worth developing them because it's an undeniable fact that fossil fuels will run out one day.

"In short, the expensive energy produced will reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned, but will not reduce the need for fossil fuel power supply at peak load periods."

I'll take "reduced amounts of fossil fuels burned" over not even TRYING anyday.

So what if the yield is low? That's where innovation comes in.

Image a world where - after building the first computer - we just GAVE UP and said:

"It'll never improve, nor be smaller, nor cheaper - lets just not use computers."

Alternative energies are in their infancy - instead of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" - we LEARN and IMPROVE! We don't just give up, roll over, and die!

A voice of reason. These nay sayers would have been saying no way will it work when the auto industry was in it's infancy.

I was surprised that Geo Thermal was not mentioned.

I believe that there is a way to store excess energy from sun panels but it would depend on the amount of sun and the ability of the panels to convert sun light into energy. Also the capability of batteries to store it. They are doing very good now with the batteries for electric auto's now It may be in it's infancy but it has made massive strides. There are homes in the states being built now with alternative energy sources. Still not cheap but doable and we will learn more.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of educated people who think science has nothing new to learn they already know it all.

It would be a good start if you knew something about the current science. The ONLY viable method of storing the huge amounts of energy required is pumping water up hill, and in the few places where this possible, the energy that could be stored is a tiny fraction of that required.

Grid-Tie Solar power will make your meter run backwards..

From the little I know of power meters, I doubt this very much. Even if it did, it would also be illegal unless you have arranged a sale contract with your electricity supplier, and then it would be metered separately at the agreed rate.

Yup, both the electromechanical (disk type) and electronic meters will happily run backwards if your generation exceeds your demand, they run forwards again at night when demand exceeds your generation.

For small generation systems (a few 00 Watts) there's no issue as you are still a nett consumer, the problems start when you actually generate more than you use at which point someone will suspect you're trying to fraud your meter.

MEA/PEA do apparently have feed-in tariffs and proper bi-directional meters, all one has to do is persuade your local office that these things exist.