9 ms·

How Solar Power Could Slay the Fossil Fuel Empire (2014)

65 points by kafkaesq 11y ago

Shivetya 11y ago
Solar doesn't replace base line generation unless you can get the power where its needed and as you are not generating power from panels over the majority of a day it means you must get it from someone who is generating it
- grhino 11y ago
  Or generate and store excess energy during the day. I think the current challenge is that current energy storage solutions do not scale to the size of power plants?
  - jsudhams 11y ago
    Even the day storing may not be option, my home town chennai got a record rain in last one month with almost no sun for most of the days. Also the only thing that helped people are fossil fuel which is Candle and LPG stoves. The regular coal based thermal power was not there due to shutdown of plant as well as tranmission lines. LPG stove made people stay on first and second floor for two weeks with no need to come down.
  - Paul13 11y ago
    I know I sound sarcastic but Tony Seba might find a solution by the year 2030: how to store energy to cover the needs of a city like New York(a city that never sleeps). He has been right on the spot regarding his previous predictions, right?
CodingGuy 11y ago
This will be the only chance for our climate/planet as I don't count on our leaders to agree on a strict climate protocol.
Paul13 11y ago
Really? Everyone knows with a little bit of research that The Climate Summits are a bunch of ridiculous hoaxes. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years: http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/ http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/, so enough with this scaremongering. And everyone who has studied electrical engineering for real, knows that you are always going to need base stations running on fossil fuel or nuclear energy because solar/wind power is unpredictable. The ones who benefit out of this is the companies you do the huge installations and then increase the prices on utility bills because "practically+scientifically" alternative powers sources are not cost efficient. Especially the wind power is useless, if you don't have base stations running on coal/nuclear energy to cover for energy variations. But in the end, the serfs buy it thinking the climate will be saved while the corporations just get richer. Get some reality checks here: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-pledges/ http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-wi... Lastly, even Germany who had pledged to stop burning coal, votes not to do it: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-pledges/ http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-wi... and pays Denmark to disable wind turbines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-wind-power-surplus-spurs-cash-for-neighbor-to-switch-off http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-win... Conclusion: Solar/Wind energy exist only through subsidies:utility bills increases->your tax money getting burned.
- pixl97 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event Good luck with all your coal plants.
paulsutter 11y ago
I'm an advocate for solar. I just want to see an honest analysis of the whole question, what does a clean global grid look like? Anyone seen such a thing? If we really switched over to solar power, we'd need storage to handle : - daily load variations (example, CA ISO "duck graph"[1]) - seasonal load variations (example, Seattle has 16 hours of sunlight in summer, and 8 in winter. It's overcast for weeks at a time in winter). - unusual events, from extended weather patterns to volcanic eruptions. Five nines (99.999%) is 5 minutes/year of downtime. What does it cost to guarantee at least that, given the variations in sun (or wind) and the fact that the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on, anytime, regardless of the weather? Tony Seba's big handwave is that the "god parity" happens in 2020 where photovoltaic is cheaper than transmission costs, so even if fossil fuel cost zero, it would cost more than rooftop PV. Ta-da! Ok, for what percent of the population does that give you how many nines? What's the complete story that handles conditions in Seattle, London, and really most of Europe? Tony also likes to refer to Molten Salt Solar as "baseload". Bullshit that's just short-term load following. Useful, yes! Complete solution, no. Or can it be extended? Where can I find an honest analysis? Yeah I've heard the other handwaves: flow batteries! existing pumped water storage! add wind to the portfolio! supeconducting transmission from deserts! LiIon manufacuturing learning curve! etc... But we need numbers, not enthusiasm. [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-over-duck-chart-and-distributed-solar-powercrying-fowl-or-crying-wolf-open-season-on-the-utilitys-solar-duck-chart/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-over-...
- chrisatumd 11y ago
  I found an excellent book talking about realistic sustainable solutions. It is from 2008/2009 and so solar costs are already dramatically less, but is still a great read. http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  "the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on" Why? A small addition to that could probably take us long way: Any need worth the cost. If the price matches the supply I'm sure people will get quite creative in reducing the demand enough to make the problem go away.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Business guys look at line graphs and think that trends continue forever. The reality is, everything has a limit. No technology can improve indefinitely as technology is bounded by the limits of the physical world (see Moore's law). Only an industry scientist has the perspective to make an accurate prediction. Will solar technology improve to a point where it can beat the energy density of fossil fueles? Or is it physically impossible? Any qualified people willing to supply an opinion? Personally my intuition says that we will go to solar, but at great cost. We will be forced to switch due to rising oil costs and even after the switch the energy supply will be so diminished that we will no longer be treating energy as frivolously as we do today.
- Mvandenbergh 11y ago
  The theoretical maximum efficiency of a single junction silicon cell (Shockley–Queisser limit) is 33.7%. As a means of electricity production, it's already better than fossil fuels in large parts of the world but fossil fuels are storable and that makes all the difference.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    The Shockley-Queisser limit should not be treated as the pillars of Hercules. Multi-junction and next generation systems hold great promise.
    - Mvandenbergh 11y ago
      Absolutely, but will any of those systems reach comparable cost per kW any time soon?
      - selimthegrim 11y ago
        Does it matter when only a fraction of levelized cost is the cell?
at-fates-hands 11y ago
I've been following solar for around a decade now and have yet to consider it because of it's long ROI. Sure, the technology has gotten more efficient as pointed out in the article, but a consumer's up front costs have yet to come down. I checked again last year about installing an array on my roof. My original outlay would be in the 30-40K range with an ROI of over ten years. If you want solar to take over the world and be a viable alternative to low income families, this isn't going to cut it. Also, does the author know there's a limited amount of lithium in the world while his projections are pretty rosy for electric, the facts don't seem to align with his assumptions: William Tahil, the founder of Meridian International Research, a technology consultancy in Martainville, France, has argued that there simply isn’t enough economically recoverable lithium on the planet to support the auto industry’s ambitious plans. Tahil estimated that only 4.4 million tons of the world’s lithium resources can be extracted without prohibitive cost, a supply he believes will be quickly exhausted if lithium-ion batteries become a staple of next-generation cars. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html So why people are focusing on lithium to herald in the new electric car revolution, we should probably already be looking beyond electric cars as a viable long term solution.
- grandinj 11y ago
  There is plenty of lithium. This is just an updated version of the Malthusian idiocy. http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/ http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_re...
  - ksec 11y ago
    Where does it said there are pretty?? We know there are enough oil or petrol that could last 100s to 1000s of years. And there are known Lithium reserve that could last us 100s years even if we keep the current pace of development. The problem with both is extraction cost. How can we effectively extract it that provide a profits at this current price. It wasn't until recently US mastered the technique of flasking oil we have more then what we need.
- yourapostasy 11y ago
bavcyc 11y ago
Interesting article. I can't remember who said it, but humans tend to over-estimate change in the long term, and under-estimate change in the short term. It will be interesting to see what changes do occur in this time frame.
- yourapostasy 11y ago
  That is Amara's Law [1]. The paraphrase given by Cringely that is commonly quoted (to my knowledge, Amara himself never gave as concise a quote as the paraphrase) is: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara
olivermarks 11y ago
it's worth noting that various large vc firms lost their shirts around this period last year betting big on solar...this article may have been part of the pr push for all that
lintiness 11y ago
oil's below $40/brl and ng is around $2. the solar / renewable drive "began" with prices of both at 3*+ multiples of where they are today. the problem addressed has diminished which should affect investment / development and stall future transition.

65 points by kafkaesq 11y ago

Solar doesn't replace base line generation unless you can get the power where its needed and as you are not generating power from panels over the majority of a day it means you must get it from someone who is generating it

grhino 11y ago
Or generate and store excess energy during the day. I think the current challenge is that current energy storage solutions do not scale to the size of power plants?
- jsudhams 11y ago
  Even the day storing may not be option, my home town chennai got a record rain in last one month with almost no sun for most of the days. Also the only thing that helped people are fossil fuel which is Candle and LPG stoves. The regular coal based thermal power was not there due to shutdown of plant as well as tranmission lines. LPG stove made people stay on first and second floor for two weeks with no need to come down.
- Paul13 11y ago
  I know I sound sarcastic but Tony Seba might find a solution by the year 2030: how to store energy to cover the needs of a city like New York(a city that never sleeps). He has been right on the spot regarding his previous predictions, right?

CodingGuy 11y ago

This will be the only chance for our climate/planet as I don't count on our leaders to agree on a strict climate protocol.

Paul13 11y ago

Really? Everyone knows with a little bit of research that The Climate Summits are a bunch of ridiculous hoaxes. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years: http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/ http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/, so enough with this scaremongering. And everyone who has studied electrical engineering for real, knows that you are always going to need base stations running on fossil fuel or nuclear energy because solar/wind power is unpredictable. The ones who benefit out of this is the companies you do the huge installations and then increase the prices on utility bills because "practically+scientifically" alternative powers sources are not cost efficient. Especially the wind power is useless, if you don't have base stations running on coal/nuclear energy to cover for energy variations. But in the end, the serfs buy it thinking the climate will be saved while the corporations just get richer. Get some reality checks here: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-pledges/ http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-wi... Lastly, even Germany who had pledged to stop burning coal, votes not to do it: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-pledges/ http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-wi... and pays Denmark to disable wind turbines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-wind-power-surplus-spurs-cash-for-neighbor-to-switch-off http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-win... Conclusion: Solar/Wind energy exist only through subsidies:utility bills increases->your tax money getting burned.

pixl97 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event Good luck with all your coal plants.

paulsutter 11y ago

I'm an advocate for solar. I just want to see an honest analysis of the whole question, what does a clean global grid look like? Anyone seen such a thing? If we really switched over to solar power, we'd need storage to handle : - daily load variations (example, CA ISO "duck graph"[1]) - seasonal load variations (example, Seattle has 16 hours of sunlight in summer, and 8 in winter. It's overcast for weeks at a time in winter). - unusual events, from extended weather patterns to volcanic eruptions. Five nines (99.999%) is 5 minutes/year of downtime. What does it cost to guarantee at least that, given the variations in sun (or wind) and the fact that the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on, anytime, regardless of the weather? Tony Seba's big handwave is that the "god parity" happens in 2020 where photovoltaic is cheaper than transmission costs, so even if fossil fuel cost zero, it would cost more than rooftop PV. Ta-da! Ok, for what percent of the population does that give you how many nines? What's the complete story that handles conditions in Seattle, London, and really most of Europe? Tony also likes to refer to Molten Salt Solar as "baseload". Bullshit that's just short-term load following. Useful, yes! Complete solution, no. Or can it be extended? Where can I find an honest analysis? Yeah I've heard the other handwaves: flow batteries! existing pumped water storage! add wind to the portfolio! supeconducting transmission from deserts! LiIon manufacuturing learning curve! etc... But we need numbers, not enthusiasm. [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-over-duck-chart-and-distributed-solar-powercrying-fowl-or-crying-wolf-open-season-on-the-utilitys-solar-duck-chart/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-over-...

chrisatumd 11y ago
I found an excellent book talking about realistic sustainable solutions. It is from 2008/2009 and so solar costs are already dramatically less, but is still a great read. http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
"the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on" Why? A small addition to that could probably take us long way: Any need worth the cost. If the price matches the supply I'm sure people will get quite creative in reducing the demand enough to make the problem go away.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Business guys look at line graphs and think that trends continue forever. The reality is, everything has a limit. No technology can improve indefinitely as technology is bounded by the limits of the physical world (see Moore's law). Only an industry scientist has the perspective to make an accurate prediction. Will solar technology improve to a point where it can beat the energy density of fossil fueles? Or is it physically impossible? Any qualified people willing to supply an opinion? Personally my intuition says that we will go to solar, but at great cost. We will be forced to switch due to rising oil costs and even after the switch the energy supply will be so diminished that we will no longer be treating energy as frivolously as we do today.

Mvandenbergh 11y ago
The theoretical maximum efficiency of a single junction silicon cell (Shockley–Queisser limit) is 33.7%. As a means of electricity production, it's already better than fossil fuels in large parts of the world but fossil fuels are storable and that makes all the difference.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  The Shockley-Queisser limit should not be treated as the pillars of Hercules. Multi-junction and next generation systems hold great promise.
  - Mvandenbergh 11y ago
    Absolutely, but will any of those systems reach comparable cost per kW any time soon?
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      Does it matter when only a fraction of levelized cost is the cell?

at-fates-hands 11y ago

I've been following solar for around a decade now and have yet to consider it because of it's long ROI. Sure, the technology has gotten more efficient as pointed out in the article, but a consumer's up front costs have yet to come down. I checked again last year about installing an array on my roof. My original outlay would be in the 30-40K range with an ROI of over ten years. If you want solar to take over the world and be a viable alternative to low income families, this isn't going to cut it. Also, does the author know there's a limited amount of lithium in the world while his projections are pretty rosy for electric, the facts don't seem to align with his assumptions: William Tahil, the founder of Meridian International Research, a technology consultancy in Martainville, France, has argued that there simply isn’t enough economically recoverable lithium on the planet to support the auto industry’s ambitious plans. Tahil estimated that only 4.4 million tons of the world’s lithium resources can be extracted without prohibitive cost, a supply he believes will be quickly exhausted if lithium-ion batteries become a staple of next-generation cars. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html So why people are focusing on lithium to herald in the new electric car revolution, we should probably already be looking beyond electric cars as a viable long term solution.

grandinj 11y ago
There is plenty of lithium. This is just an updated version of the Malthusian idiocy. http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/ http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_re...
- ksec 11y ago
  Where does it said there are pretty?? We know there are enough oil or petrol that could last 100s to 1000s of years. And there are known Lithium reserve that could last us 100s years even if we keep the current pace of development. The problem with both is extraction cost. How can we effectively extract it that provide a profits at this current price. It wasn't until recently US mastered the technique of flasking oil we have more then what we need.
yourapostasy 11y ago

bavcyc 11y ago

Interesting article. I can't remember who said it, but humans tend to over-estimate change in the long term, and under-estimate change in the short term. It will be interesting to see what changes do occur in this time frame.

yourapostasy 11y ago
That is Amara's Law [1]. The paraphrase given by Cringely that is commonly quoted (to my knowledge, Amara himself never gave as concise a quote as the paraphrase) is: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara

olivermarks 11y ago

it's worth noting that various large vc firms lost their shirts around this period last year betting big on solar...this article may have been part of the pr push for all that

lintiness 11y ago

oil's below $40/brl and ng is around $2. the solar / renewable drive "began" with prices of both at 3*+ multiples of where they are today. the problem addressed has diminished which should affect investment / development and stall future transition.