For decades, solar proponents have predicted that we would soon get 20% to 100% of our energy from solar sources — biomass, hydro, wind, solar-thermal, photovoltaics and others.

The dreamy-eyed predictions all failed because they were based on emotional urges and political agendas rather than honest assessments. The gurus were numerous, but solar energy is a topic of science, where votes don’t count, even when they come from high-profile lawyers, political appointees, and leaders of environmental organizations.

The Solar Fraud explains the realities of solar energy, especially how much one can expect from solar sources

Average Customer Review: ( 20 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

The book has its shortcomings. The author is so eager to disprove the viability of solar power, he tends to give some topics too cursory a treatment. After presenting data that there is enough roof top area to support all the photovoltaic power panels needed to power the US, he then argues that there will be a problem distributing the power to, say, apartments, and he summarily pronounces that 90% of roof area is covered by trees. Since we now have a grid system that redistributes power, that argument does not seem credible. Reference to aerial photos easily disproves that most roofs are covered by trees. He also fails to take into account the roof areas of commercial and industrial buildings.

His technology forecasting is sometimes weak. There are limits to the efficiency of solar panels, but the 10% efficiency he favors in calculations is dated. Current technology cells for house power is around 15%, expensive cells for spacecraft are 25%, and the very best lab experiments prove 32% is possible. The arguments that semiconductor scaling will not reduce costs of solar cells are true, but there are plenty of examples of process technology and economies of scale that would enable estimates of future production costs.

Similarly, the author correctly estimates that the solar panels needed to generate enough power for the whole US would take an area of around 100 mi. x 100 mi., but he then stops, apparently beliving that the costs would obviously be ridiculous. It would be interesting to take that further, keeping in mind that the costs of putting in place the present power grid have been borne successfully, as have other massive projects like the interstate highway system.

Criticisms notwithstanding, the book has a wealth of facts that cannot be dismissed or walked around. The author has set the stage for a rational discussion based upon scientific and engineering principles not wishful thinking or hand waving. That is refreshing indeed.

38 of 41 found the following review helpful:

True facts and and an obvious distaste for hypeJul 09, 2002
By James E Healy
The Solar Fraud was an excellent book for me to read early on in my interest in solar energy. Clearly, solar energy system will never supply all our energy needs. This book outlines the potential energy to be gained through solar energy systems and describes all of the limiting factors/efficiencies that impact/control solar energy systems. This book was a necessary balance to the other books I read that are outright advocates of solar energy. I found the energy supply figures per square meter especially informative. Mr. Hayden correctly points out that wind, solar, and hydro all deliver low energy per meter, but neglects to point out that the same area can be used to gather wind and photovoltaic energy, and even collect direct solar heat.

The author is clear in stating that under today's market conditions, most solar energy systems don't make sense if you are already connected to the grid. For those who aren't connected, Mr. Hayden admits that these system often make sense to install.

Mr. Hayden only partially addresses life-cycle cost analysis of petroleum based energy. While a recent pretroleum institute study stated that there is no case where the US spends defense dollars solely to defend oil extraction industry around the world, I beg to differ. We are clearly spending a load of money in the middle east and south america to defend oil production facilities (and soon enough the trans-afghan pipeline will be complete and will need to be defended). Were these costs included in the price of oil/gas, we would see much higher oil and gas prices.

The author notes that there are, for arguement purposes, 100 million homes in the US. He notes that if all of these homes had 150 square meters roofs and were all covered with photovoltaic panels, they would not supply the energy needs of the nation. True enough, but this is not to say that a home cannot supply all its energy needs through home supplied power. It can. An medium sized energy efficient home can be supplied with all its power needs for the price of an mid-range SUV.

One of the bottom line messages I took away from this book is that the best dollar to spend as an investment in energy is on increasing the energy efficiency of my home: insulation, compact flourescent lights, low E windows, programmable thermostats, efficient appliances. After spending this money, investment in energy production systems(windwill, photovoltaic, etc) only makes sense over very long periods of time (20+ years). This is too long for a return on investment for most of us. There are other reasons to invest in these systems besides ROI. Chief among them is having a power system that should be immune to rolling black outs, power outages, etc. For those people who experience frequent blackouts or power outages in their grid connections, these systems may make sense.

27 of 29 found the following review helpful:

Good science, bad attitudeJul 25, 2003
By Haresh Kamath
First, a disclaimer: I'm a researcher in the alternative energy field, including renewable energy technologies. I�m here to review this book, not solar energy.

The purpose of the book is to educate the general public about what the author sees as fraud in the way renewable energy is portrayed by its proponents. The author, a physicist, argues that most of the media commentary about these technologies is not based on sound knowledge of scientific principles. He then methodically attacks the most common arguments for major renewable energy technologies, backing up his arguments with theoretical calculations as well as data from the field.

Other than some offhand remarks about nuclear power, the author offers no alternatives to renewable energy sources. This seems odd until you realize that the author is not attacking renewables per se, but the admittedly overbearing hype over them.

Unfortunately, this approach leads to a more serious problem: a hostile, sneering style that often reads more like a series of angry exchanges in an online message board than a dispassionate rebuttal. The author endlessly quotes renewable energy advocates and follows with his own sarcastic rejoinders, reminiscent of the snide comments with which renewables proponents attack nuclear power or clean coal technologies. The vitriol gets old and doesn�t help the credibility of the arguments.

The saving grace is the excellent set of calculations that the author presents for the technical limitations for renewable technologies. The science and math are fundamentally sound. While there are grounds for some quibbles over some of the numbers, for the most part it appears that the author has done his homework. The book presents a reasonably accurate depiction of the state of renewable technologies at the time it was written. It�s an good resource in that it describes some of the practical limits on these technologies at present, as well as theoretical limits and practical avenues for future research.

Bottom line: The book is a good reference for researchers and those interested in renewables, but a tiresome read unless you like a lot of sneering.

23 of 28 found the following review helpful:

Well worth a readOct 03, 2002

This is a very good book.
The author makes a few economic points, but the bulk of his argument rests on physics. Hayden explains clearly and thoroughly all the methods of generating power from renewable sources, including hydropower and PV. (As he notes, all these sources are ultimately fueled by the sun.) He explains the physical limitations of each source in basic science that the reader can verify in any elementary college physics textbook. He addresses important issues such as energy storage and transmission, giving a complete picture of what is needed to keep our industrial nation running. He also discusses quality of electric power, which is sadly often omitted from discussions of renewables, despite the fact that our computers need an extremely clean signal in order to run! All this is an extremely useful addition to anyone concerned about our future sources of energy. This information is quite verifiable, and far less controversial than, say, The Skeptical Environmentalist, to which this book has been loosely compared.
Hayden also draws attention to some of the misrepresentation frequently used in discussions of renewables. In particular, he notes that the figure given for a wind farm is usually its nameplate power, the maximum amount of power it can generate if the windspeed is ideal, rather than its average power. And the power output of a wind farm is highly variable, in contrast to conventional and nuclear plants. As he notes, the average journalist doesn't dig deep enough into these things.
The author also makes the interesting argument that environmentalists themselves will be in opposition to these renewables. I'm sure there will be exceptions to that, but like Hayden, I find it difficult to imagine the Sierra Club seriously favoring paving over many, many square miles of nature with PV cells. Anyway, this is just an interesting irony that the author is apparently fond of, and not central to his argument.
The tone of this book will undoubtedly put off some of the people who are in most urgent need of understanding the facts in it. Hayden is outraged, as a taxpayer, at some of the outlays we have made that benefit only a very few of us. I share that outrage but wish he had been more neutral.
So what then do we do? The negative reviewers below complain that Hayden has a "lack of context." For my part, with my own degree in physics, I don't see any "context" that would affect the basic arguments in this book. The basic laws of thermodynamics are completely indifferent to global warming, voter awareness, and the human race in general. If you take it for granted that fossil fuels will run out (or become far too expensive to dig up) and/or that global warming is a real, human-caused phenomenon, we are left only with solar... and nuclear. Every single one of the negative reviewers below has apparently dismissed nuclear power without a mention, quite as if it weren't already providing us with a significant amount of reliable, sheik-free power. These reviewers apparently vilify Hayden for "giving us no hope." I find that an interesting irony in itself.

11 of 14 found the following review helpful:

Worthwhile but over the topAug 15, 2002
By S. Robertson
This is a book along the lines of The Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg: facts and figures drawn from government sources that, at least in the author's view, refute envirnomentalist claims. But while Lomborg takes the tone of an open-minded observer believing what the numbers tell him, Hayden is a polemicist using the numbers to convince you of his own strongly-held beliefs. Some may enjoy this approach. But whether it is useful in advancing the debate -- particularly when people tend to read such a book, or not, depending upon whether they already agree with its premise, or not (a problem Lomborg apparently tried to avoid) -- is debatable.

What is not really debatable is that the book is not well edited: it could have been better organized, the graphs are generally not well done, and in several places its points could have been more clearly made. The publisher's editorial staff did not serve the author well here (unless the two are the same; I am not familiar with Vales Lake and a quick check does not reveal that it has published anything else).

That said, the book is nevertheless worth reading for those interested in the subject. Lomborg's much better book is also much longer and does not address these specific issues in detail. Hayden's argument, though dyspeptic, is convincing. Those who disagree will need to do better than to write "reviews" ranting that they did not read the book and that the world will end in 2050.

See all 20 customer reviews on Amazon.com