5 ms·

I wonder if/when solar will catch up with or surpass wind? Part of the reason wind got so big in the past decade is cost - it's significantly cheaper now than f

by beat 7y ago

I wonder if/when solar will catch up with or surpass wind? Part of the reason wind got so big in the past decade is cost - it's significantly cheaper now than fossil or nuclear. But solar costs are dropping even more rapidly than wind, and storage tech is improving (storage being more necessary for solar than wind).

IAmEveryone 7y ago
This[0] says just about now, and you're right that solar has been improving faster than wind (which is probably a function of one being semiconductor technology and the other being generators, where the low-hanging fruits have been harvested a long time ago). Of course there may well be local factors that may still make wind the better choice, and a mixture helps to even out production. So wind turbines aren't going to go out of fashion any time soon. Unlike coal. [0]: https://blog.aee.net/the-numbers-are-in-and-renewables-are-winning-on-price-alone https://blog.aee.net/the-numbers-are-in-and-renewables-are-w...
- beat 7y ago
  Something I expect to see is a lot more highly localized solar installations - namely parking lots. While I don't think it's financially viable at the home level, I think it'd be great at the office or business level, where there's often large outdoor parking lots. A quick solar panel installation (maybe with some local storage) could power the building. It's the sort of thing where the long-term cost factors are so appealing it might become standard with new construction, and certainly appeals to manufacturers to make easy-install products specifically for this market.
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Something I hope to see a lot less of is parking lots. Eliminate street-level parking in cities, and density could double (in US cities smaller than, say, Chicago). Average distances could be cut in half, making public transport or even biking or walking possible for far more trips than today. "We only need cars because others have cars" isn't entirely true, or there would have never been cars in the first place. But it's not entirely untrue, either.
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
> solar costs are dropping even more rapidly than wind Source? Both depend heavily on location. Most "great" locations for solar are not where most people live (e.g. Sahara desert). I am not sure what you are claiming is correct. Also, solar + wind are very complementary, and a mixed production helps reduce energy storage costs.
- beat 7y ago
  The cost for solar dropping rapidly is all over the internet. I'm not going to source it, look it up. What matters here is it doesn't need to be a "great" location in terms of efficiency in order to be a great location in terms of cost. All that matters is that whomever builds it can save more than they spend. Hence the attractiveness of parking-lot solar. Location is probably not ideal. But if the cost/kwh is low enough, it can still save a building millions of dollars over its lifespan. There are already case studies of early parking-lot solar efforts generating cost savings. Engineering efficiency is extremely overrated.

by beat 7y ago

IAmEveryone 7y ago

This[0] says just about now, and you're right that solar has been improving faster than wind (which is probably a function of one being semiconductor technology and the other being generators, where the low-hanging fruits have been harvested a long time ago). Of course there may well be local factors that may still make wind the better choice, and a mixture helps to even out production. So wind turbines aren't going to go out of fashion any time soon. Unlike coal. [0]: https://blog.aee.net/the-numbers-are-in-and-renewables-are-winning-on-price-alone https://blog.aee.net/the-numbers-are-in-and-renewables-are-w...

beat 7y ago
Something I expect to see is a lot more highly localized solar installations - namely parking lots. While I don't think it's financially viable at the home level, I think it'd be great at the office or business level, where there's often large outdoor parking lots. A quick solar panel installation (maybe with some local storage) could power the building. It's the sort of thing where the long-term cost factors are so appealing it might become standard with new construction, and certainly appeals to manufacturers to make easy-install products specifically for this market.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Something I hope to see a lot less of is parking lots. Eliminate street-level parking in cities, and density could double (in US cities smaller than, say, Chicago). Average distances could be cut in half, making public transport or even biking or walking possible for far more trips than today. "We only need cars because others have cars" isn't entirely true, or there would have never been cars in the first place. But it's not entirely untrue, either.

simonebrunozzi 7y ago

> solar costs are dropping even more rapidly than wind Source? Both depend heavily on location. Most "great" locations for solar are not where most people live (e.g. Sahara desert). I am not sure what you are claiming is correct. Also, solar + wind are very complementary, and a mixed production helps reduce energy storage costs.

beat 7y ago
The cost for solar dropping rapidly is all over the internet. I'm not going to source it, look it up. What matters here is it doesn't need to be a "great" location in terms of efficiency in order to be a great location in terms of cost. All that matters is that whomever builds it can save more than they spend. Hence the attractiveness of parking-lot solar. Location is probably not ideal. But if the cost/kwh is low enough, it can still save a building millions of dollars over its lifespan. There are already case studies of early parking-lot solar efforts generating cost savings. Engineering efficiency is extremely overrated.