5 ms·

I haven't seen many market studies but those that I saw were... not very predictive beyond rolling dice and generic drawing exponential curves. I think we migh

I haven't seen many market studies but those that I saw were... not very predictive beyond rolling dice and generic drawing exponential curves. I think we might have reached the point where push comes to shove and solar is making its breaktrough. You can't really predict when that will happen. The best we can do is "when problem X is solved" or "price point Y is reached" then it will go off and "once it does it will reach XX% market share in a short time." Afterwards it is easy to pinpoint the exact time where it went off. But beforehand. Hard. Probably impossible. Many technologies die without gaining wide adoption. The question I'm asking is not how fast solar will reach some percentage but where will it level off? 20%, 50%, 80% of total electricity generation? Will it replace fossil fuel or will it add to that? The total primary energy market is huge compared to just electricity. Will solar replace much of the primary energy consumption, too?

agumonkey 9y ago
maybe it will depend on different PV materials too. I read perovskite are the new hotness
- static_noise 9y ago
  There is always the new hotness. The researchers and research money needs to go somewhere. Until it reaches silicon levels of efficiency and durability it won't become a serious contender. Silicon has reached the point where it is 'good enough' to go further and further. Usually 'good enough' wins versus 'perfect but not quite ready'. We may see with great interest where the perovskites start to level out in efficiency. If they really come close to silicon and stability is solved the market might shift very quickly. Keep a close eye to the NREL chart. EDIT: 22.7% for Perovskits vs. 26.6% for Silicon. It's getting hotter as CIGS and CdTe are beaten: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png
  - igravious 9y ago
    That has to be the most detailed (yet still legible) and informative graph I have seen in a very long time. Thanks. I had never heard of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory https://www.nrel.gov/ https://www.nrel.gov/ before. This is the EU effort: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy Not sure how comparable it is to the US effort. Presumably other areas of the world have their own centres of research.
afarrell 9y ago
> where will it level off? That is going to depend on what energy-storage technology its paired with to handle when demand outstrips supply. Currently, that role is played by natural gas turbines, which are quick to turn on.
- Retric 9y ago
  Solar could provide around half of our electricity without grid storage. Assuming you turn everything else off in the day time and shift demand a lit east / west to better fit the demand curve. Considering it's currently the cheapest source that seems like a reasonable ballpark prediction IMO.
- hwillis 9y ago
  No, storage is near irrelevant already. Math for one square meter of solar paneling: that's 186 W of solar cells[1], about $192 installed[2], including land cost, taxes, etc etc etc. A residential system will cost about 3x as much. Over most of the US, that panel will generate an average of 1 kWh per day (5.5 kWh insolation times 18.6% efficiency). To a rough approximation you'll need to store about 30% of that power overnight- 300 Wh. Lets call that $120/kWh for the batteries- that's a reasonable large-scale current cost. Say it lasts 5000 cycles, same as the Tesla powerwall- 13.7 years. In reality that could last way, way longer at a slightly higher capacity, but say you just replace it until the panels run out. That's $192 for the panels and $108 for the batteries, warrantied for at least 41 years. That gives you a cost of 2.0 cents per kWh. Even if you quadruple the cost of batteries, solar is still stupid cheap. It just needs financing. [1]: http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/ http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-tes... [2]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf
  - candiodari 9y ago
    > solar is still stupid cheap. Addendum: and getting cheaper. > It just needs financing. I would just like to make the point that this is actually the greatest pain point now. Solar is not getting financed exactly because it is stupid cheap and getting cheaper. Think about it: will you be investing in something that's already stupid cheap (with bad margins, and heavy international government competition making it cheaper), and getting cheaper ? That would be a VERY bad investment decision. So what's happening is "the datacenter investment". Solar power plants are mainly being built and financed by the customers of their electricity, who use it to disconnect from the grid (to some extent). Nobody's investing in it, because it's not necessary.
Gibbon1 9y ago
The point I like to make is a lot of countries don't have any vested interest in fossil fuels for power generation/transportation. In fact needing to pay for oil and gas requires them to exchange local resources for USD. One can totally see a rush for the exits as the cost of solar continues to fall. While less developed countries will skip oil and gas for newer development.

agumonkey 9y ago

maybe it will depend on different PV materials too. I read perovskite are the new hotness

static_noise 9y ago
There is always the new hotness. The researchers and research money needs to go somewhere. Until it reaches silicon levels of efficiency and durability it won't become a serious contender. Silicon has reached the point where it is 'good enough' to go further and further. Usually 'good enough' wins versus 'perfect but not quite ready'. We may see with great interest where the perovskites start to level out in efficiency. If they really come close to silicon and stability is solved the market might shift very quickly. Keep a close eye to the NREL chart. EDIT: 22.7% for Perovskits vs. 26.6% for Silicon. It's getting hotter as CIGS and CdTe are beaten: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png
- igravious 9y ago
  That has to be the most detailed (yet still legible) and informative graph I have seen in a very long time. Thanks. I had never heard of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory https://www.nrel.gov/ https://www.nrel.gov/ before. This is the EU effort: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy Not sure how comparable it is to the US effort. Presumably other areas of the world have their own centres of research.

afarrell 9y ago

> where will it level off? That is going to depend on what energy-storage technology its paired with to handle when demand outstrips supply. Currently, that role is played by natural gas turbines, which are quick to turn on.

Retric 9y ago
Solar could provide around half of our electricity without grid storage. Assuming you turn everything else off in the day time and shift demand a lit east / west to better fit the demand curve. Considering it's currently the cheapest source that seems like a reasonable ballpark prediction IMO.
hwillis 9y ago
No, storage is near irrelevant already. Math for one square meter of solar paneling: that's 186 W of solar cells[1], about $192 installed[2], including land cost, taxes, etc etc etc. A residential system will cost about 3x as much. Over most of the US, that panel will generate an average of 1 kWh per day (5.5 kWh insolation times 18.6% efficiency). To a rough approximation you'll need to store about 30% of that power overnight- 300 Wh. Lets call that $120/kWh for the batteries- that's a reasonable large-scale current cost. Say it lasts 5000 cycles, same as the Tesla powerwall- 13.7 years. In reality that could last way, way longer at a slightly higher capacity, but say you just replace it until the panels run out. That's $192 for the panels and $108 for the batteries, warrantied for at least 41 years. That gives you a cost of 2.0 cents per kWh. Even if you quadruple the cost of batteries, solar is still stupid cheap. It just needs financing. [1]: http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/ http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-tes... [2]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf
- candiodari 9y ago
  > solar is still stupid cheap. Addendum: and getting cheaper. > It just needs financing. I would just like to make the point that this is actually the greatest pain point now. Solar is not getting financed exactly because it is stupid cheap and getting cheaper. Think about it: will you be investing in something that's already stupid cheap (with bad margins, and heavy international government competition making it cheaper), and getting cheaper ? That would be a VERY bad investment decision. So what's happening is "the datacenter investment". Solar power plants are mainly being built and financed by the customers of their electricity, who use it to disconnect from the grid (to some extent). Nobody's investing in it, because it's not necessary.

Gibbon1 9y ago

The point I like to make is a lot of countries don't have any vested interest in fossil fuels for power generation/transportation. In fact needing to pay for oil and gas requires them to exchange local resources for USD. One can totally see a rush for the exits as the cost of solar continues to fall. While less developed countries will skip oil and gas for newer development.