3 ms·

Current PV factories can only provide about 15% of the total energy need if they run at maximum capacity over the next 40 years. (Maybe much less if panels nee

by baking 7y ago

Current PV factories can only provide about 15% of the total energy need if they run at maximum capacity over the next 40 years. (Maybe much less if panels need to be replaced every 20-30 years.) Since the existing factories are losing money, how can you increase the number of factories by a factor of seven or more and still get absurdly cheap PV cells? New factories will only be built if they can justify the capital expense. Yes PV cells will also get more efficient, but the problem of building all the factories to produce them and installing the low energy density solar farms, then storing the energy for daily and seasonal cycles and transmitting it to the population centers is a hugely wasteful process. Who is to say it is more practical than fusion. Spending a few billion to explore more economical ways to generate energy using one of the few methods that nature permits us seems like a drop in the bucket. If some optimists want to try it, good for them. Edit: Most of the expanded PV factory production will be best utilized for industrial processes, further limiting the amount of PV available to replace baseload. https://kavli.berkeley.edu/kavli-ensi-retreat-solar-energy-fuel-generation https://kavli.berkeley.edu/kavli-ensi-retreat-solar-energy-f...

pfdietz 7y ago
In an industry with a strong learning curve -- and solar has a strong one, better than wind -- it makes sense to take near term loses to accumulate experience. Applying your same argument, one could conclude nuclear has no chance, since there is limited capacity to make nuclear power plants, and those making them have been losing large amounts of money. And unlike solar, there are not good experience effects there. Combustion turbines have also shown economic trouble lately. GE's troubles stem in part from betting on that just before demand started collapsing. Who says solar will be more practical than fusion, you ask? Extrapolating historical learning curves, the levelized cost of solar will drop to $0.01/kWh or so by the time the world transitions to mostly solar, especially in the sunniest areas. This is vastly lower than the projected cost of energy from fusion. If you say fusion will show experience effects too, then I'll note that fusion is most like fission, and fission (as I mentioned above) has not shown such effects, probably due to the inherent complexity and long construction time scales. An ultimate low cost for solar will excuse many sins of variability and seasonality, allowing wasteful overinstallation and inefficient long term storage.
- baking 7y ago
  Learn from history. Nuclear power with all its cost overruns and other issues claimed 15% of the US electric market in 15 years. Where is solar after 40 years? The difference is building factories to produce cells which are made into modules that need to be installed in a sunny location, connected to the grid, and then incorporated into a 24/365 electric demand cycle, versus building a plant that can produce 100% of its power on day one. Part of using the learning curve is knowing where you are on the curve. And remember that it is log-log so you need to keep doubling production to keep getting those cost reductions (if you don't bottom out against reality.) High-temperature superconductors are presumably on the starting point of their learning curve. Increased demands for magnets for fusion research and other applications along with power transmission devices can potentially drive scale and efficiency factors for the production of REBCO tape to drive down the cost measured in $ per A/m.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    No, you learn history. Where is solar? A factor of 200 cheaper than it was then. Nuclear has NEVER shown that kind of cost improvement. Its costs have stubbornly refused to fall. That alone marks it as a doomed technology. The only question was when the improving technologies would pass it. They have now done so. You should pay attention to what the people with the money are doing with their money. They are, by and large, not building nukes, they are funding renewables. This is not because they are fools or cranks or green fanatics; it's because investment in nuclear just doesn't pencil out. It's been judged in the market and found wanting. BTW, if you look at the cost figures for ARC, even if the magnets were totally free the thing would still be far outside the range of economic competitiveness.

by baking 7y ago

pfdietz 7y ago

In an industry with a strong learning curve -- and solar has a strong one, better than wind -- it makes sense to take near term loses to accumulate experience. Applying your same argument, one could conclude nuclear has no chance, since there is limited capacity to make nuclear power plants, and those making them have been losing large amounts of money. And unlike solar, there are not good experience effects there. Combustion turbines have also shown economic trouble lately. GE's troubles stem in part from betting on that just before demand started collapsing. Who says solar will be more practical than fusion, you ask? Extrapolating historical learning curves, the levelized cost of solar will drop to $0.01/kWh or so by the time the world transitions to mostly solar, especially in the sunniest areas. This is vastly lower than the projected cost of energy from fusion. If you say fusion will show experience effects too, then I'll note that fusion is most like fission, and fission (as I mentioned above) has not shown such effects, probably due to the inherent complexity and long construction time scales. An ultimate low cost for solar will excuse many sins of variability and seasonality, allowing wasteful overinstallation and inefficient long term storage.

baking 7y ago
Learn from history. Nuclear power with all its cost overruns and other issues claimed 15% of the US electric market in 15 years. Where is solar after 40 years? The difference is building factories to produce cells which are made into modules that need to be installed in a sunny location, connected to the grid, and then incorporated into a 24/365 electric demand cycle, versus building a plant that can produce 100% of its power on day one. Part of using the learning curve is knowing where you are on the curve. And remember that it is log-log so you need to keep doubling production to keep getting those cost reductions (if you don't bottom out against reality.) High-temperature superconductors are presumably on the starting point of their learning curve. Increased demands for magnets for fusion research and other applications along with power transmission devices can potentially drive scale and efficiency factors for the production of REBCO tape to drive down the cost measured in $ per A/m.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  No, you learn history. Where is solar? A factor of 200 cheaper than it was then. Nuclear has NEVER shown that kind of cost improvement. Its costs have stubbornly refused to fall. That alone marks it as a doomed technology. The only question was when the improving technologies would pass it. They have now done so. You should pay attention to what the people with the money are doing with their money. They are, by and large, not building nukes, they are funding renewables. This is not because they are fools or cranks or green fanatics; it's because investment in nuclear just doesn't pencil out. It's been judged in the market and found wanting. BTW, if you look at the cost figures for ARC, even if the magnets were totally free the thing would still be far outside the range of economic competitiveness.