4 ms·

But it's hard to store energy and to transmit it across long distances. This is the fundamental problem with solar and wind. You can put one of China's new thor

by temphn 15y ago

But it's hard to store energy and to transmit it across long distances. This is the fundamental problem with solar and wind. You can put one of China's new thorium [1] or pebble bed [2] reactors anywhere on the face of the earth, and the wattage per surface area ratio relative to solar will be a great deal less. Solar will likely be some part of the answer but it's always going to be niche relative to oil, coal, nuclear, and (where the region allows it) geothermal/hydroelectric. The question that only experts in the space could answer is whether the $1.25 price per Watt is due to a real decrease in the price of fundamental components/manufacturing processes or whether it is due to subsidies of some kind. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_prit... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/global/25chinaside.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/global/25chinasid...

marze 15y ago
Not hard to transmit solar electric fifty feet, from the rooftop to the iPad charger, pretty much a solved problem. The OP graph showed solar prices falling faster than linear on a log scale. Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plant construction costs are now two to three times what they were a few years ago. Not sure where your confidence solar will be a niche player comes from when the pricing trends favor solar so dramatically.
- brc 15y ago
  Solar will always remain niche because it can't do baseload power. Sure, there's been some success with solar thermal providing power for 24 hours, but during bad weather there's no chance it's going to do that for a week at a time. Anything that can't do baseload power has to have baseload power backup, which is a large cost of duplicating power. Which is why very few people will every totally rely on solar power if they can get a grid connection. There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and residential power usage peaks after dark. In short, other types of large-scale generation will always outdo solar because it just cannot reliably provide power around the clock. A bicycle is cheaper than a car by an order of magnitude, but can't carry passengers or luggage, can't go long distance, and isn't weatherproof. That's why nearly everyone with a bike also has a car, even despite the massive cost advantages to cycling.
  - marze 15y ago
    So the question is, is it possible to imagine a system that uses a majority solar? And does it appear to have the potential to be economically competitive? First, however, residential usage does not peak after dark. Peaks occur on sunny hot days when A/C usage is maximum. And since in the US the electric grid already exists and no one is proposing dismantling it, that simplifies the problem. Ten years in the future, iPad-level power consumption will rule for computing machinery at home (iPad == 2.5 watts). LED lights will be common. Solar panels will be the cheapest form of electricity, if current trends hold. Even on a cloudy day, solar PV generates significant power, so about the night? Batteries, either connecting a city's worth of hybrid cars, dedicated battery packs, pumped water storage, compressed air storage, are all options. Others are to run natural gas generators at night, or wind or hydro or geothermal, all grid connected. None of these are particularly difficult to imagine, and combined with efficient lighting and other expected improvements in efficiency could easily be expected to cover residential night time load.
    - brc 15y ago
      The majority of power usage in homes is heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration and appliances. Lighting is already falling down the list of energy usage because of more efficient lighting solutions that are already widespread. It is a total red herring to discuss the power usage of computing devices, because they already constitute a tiny minority of power consumption. Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude. These are all true but they do not factor cost into the equation. With any of these additions, solar will still be far more expensive than baseload grid power, and for most will still not negate the need for a grid connection. All these technologies will be fantastic for remote areas to obtain a higher standard of living, but essentially have zero chance of displacing baseload grid power as the majority of power usage in urban areas. The only way they will win out in the long run is with punitive taxation of large-scale power generation, which is essentially a political dead end for all those who try it. It's great to be enthusiastic about solar power, I personally like solar technology and will buy when it makes sense to do so on it's own merit. But there are limitations that are very difficult to overcome.

by temphn 15y ago

marze 15y ago

Not hard to transmit solar electric fifty feet, from the rooftop to the iPad charger, pretty much a solved problem. The OP graph showed solar prices falling faster than linear on a log scale. Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plant construction costs are now two to three times what they were a few years ago. Not sure where your confidence solar will be a niche player comes from when the pricing trends favor solar so dramatically.

brc 15y ago
Solar will always remain niche because it can't do baseload power. Sure, there's been some success with solar thermal providing power for 24 hours, but during bad weather there's no chance it's going to do that for a week at a time. Anything that can't do baseload power has to have baseload power backup, which is a large cost of duplicating power. Which is why very few people will every totally rely on solar power if they can get a grid connection. There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and residential power usage peaks after dark. In short, other types of large-scale generation will always outdo solar because it just cannot reliably provide power around the clock. A bicycle is cheaper than a car by an order of magnitude, but can't carry passengers or luggage, can't go long distance, and isn't weatherproof. That's why nearly everyone with a bike also has a car, even despite the massive cost advantages to cycling.
- marze 15y ago
  So the question is, is it possible to imagine a system that uses a majority solar? And does it appear to have the potential to be economically competitive? First, however, residential usage does not peak after dark. Peaks occur on sunny hot days when A/C usage is maximum. And since in the US the electric grid already exists and no one is proposing dismantling it, that simplifies the problem. Ten years in the future, iPad-level power consumption will rule for computing machinery at home (iPad == 2.5 watts). LED lights will be common. Solar panels will be the cheapest form of electricity, if current trends hold. Even on a cloudy day, solar PV generates significant power, so about the night? Batteries, either connecting a city's worth of hybrid cars, dedicated battery packs, pumped water storage, compressed air storage, are all options. Others are to run natural gas generators at night, or wind or hydro or geothermal, all grid connected. None of these are particularly difficult to imagine, and combined with efficient lighting and other expected improvements in efficiency could easily be expected to cover residential night time load.
  - brc 15y ago
    The majority of power usage in homes is heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration and appliances. Lighting is already falling down the list of energy usage because of more efficient lighting solutions that are already widespread. It is a total red herring to discuss the power usage of computing devices, because they already constitute a tiny minority of power consumption. Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude. These are all true but they do not factor cost into the equation. With any of these additions, solar will still be far more expensive than baseload grid power, and for most will still not negate the need for a grid connection. All these technologies will be fantastic for remote areas to obtain a higher standard of living, but essentially have zero chance of displacing baseload grid power as the majority of power usage in urban areas. The only way they will win out in the long run is with punitive taxation of large-scale power generation, which is essentially a political dead end for all those who try it. It's great to be enthusiastic about solar power, I personally like solar technology and will buy when it makes sense to do so on it's own merit. But there are limitations that are very difficult to overcome.