3 ms·

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 fa

by 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.
    - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
      > Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude. At current prices. Grid-scale batteries are expensive now because each is a unique specialty product. If we built sodium-sulfur batteries in the same volume as we build gasoline storage tanks, the price would decrease dramatically. Efficiency gains also matter, because net system efficiency is a geometric process. Consider a 20% efficient solar cell and a 20% efficient battery: the system efficiency is a ghastly 4%. And that's not counting power conversion and transmission. If the solar cell and battery were boosted to 40% efficiencies (physically possible), then the system efficiency would rise to 16%, a factor of 4 increase. That's halfway through the order of magnitude price problem you give. Then there's heating and cooling efficiency. American buildings and refrigerators tend to have horrible insulation. In many localities, merely using proper insulation closes the rest of the price gap.
      - maxerickson 15y ago
- Tsagadai 15y ago
  No one has ever suggested throwing out all other power generations in favour of only one renewable method. Power storage is relatively easy too, even on huge scales. Look at the way compressed air can be stored in caves or pumping water into hydro dams for some large scale examples of power storage that exist right now. Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already. Also gas , biomass and geothermal work perfectly well at night (when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power).
  - brc 15y ago
    >No one has ever suggested throwing out all other power generations in favour of only one renewable method And I didn't either. I just said Solar will always remain niche because of the inherent characteristics of it. You can't make the sun shine 24 hours a day, day in, day out and create baseload power. You can add capacity and use storage, but you'll never be able to make it competitive as you do so, because your efficiency drops as you do. You can be passionate about solar, but you can't ignore the facts. >Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already. Agreed. Hydro is a fantastic power source and should be expanded because it brings water supplies and electricity, two of the building blocks of civilisation. And this has nothing to do with solar. >when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power Large industrial users like aluminium smelting will run whenever the power is cheapest. If that means smelting at night, they will. Worker overtime is a fraction of the savings they will make through cheaper power Aluminium is literally congealed electricity. Again, nothing to do with solar, but I thought I would add it. Bottom line ; solar will always remain niche, it will have an important part to play in sunny regions where it correlates well with power usage for cooling, but it will never displace baseload power generation by other means.
    - Tsagadai 15y ago
      My point was that it can take up most of the load in the day and then other methods can take the load at night. Niche does not mean unimportant. Solar could easily produce about 90% of power for some regions (remember, electricity is a valuable export commodity) and other methods will take up the load at night. That is where we are going and that is what the article is about. Once the price gets down low enough solar will become the first choice and other choices will just support it, much like coal or natural gas is that choice at the moment. Economics is a very powerful force.
- nl 15y ago
  Can't do baseload power is something of a myth, too. There are a reasonable number of pump-hydro systems in use now, and they work reliably and efficiently. In the US, 2.5% of baseload power is pump-hydro. Most of this is probably powered by hydro electricity, but solar is working well in many places too.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day Sure it does; we just need to blanket the planet in superconductors, and. . . .

by marze 15y ago

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.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    > Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude. At current prices. Grid-scale batteries are expensive now because each is a unique specialty product. If we built sodium-sulfur batteries in the same volume as we build gasoline storage tanks, the price would decrease dramatically. Efficiency gains also matter, because net system efficiency is a geometric process. Consider a 20% efficient solar cell and a 20% efficient battery: the system efficiency is a ghastly 4%. And that's not counting power conversion and transmission. If the solar cell and battery were boosted to 40% efficiencies (physically possible), then the system efficiency would rise to 16%, a factor of 4 increase. That's halfway through the order of magnitude price problem you give. Then there's heating and cooling efficiency. American buildings and refrigerators tend to have horrible insulation. In many localities, merely using proper insulation closes the rest of the price gap.
    - maxerickson 15y ago
Tsagadai 15y ago
No one has ever suggested throwing out all other power generations in favour of only one renewable method. Power storage is relatively easy too, even on huge scales. Look at the way compressed air can be stored in caves or pumping water into hydro dams for some large scale examples of power storage that exist right now. Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already. Also gas , biomass and geothermal work perfectly well at night (when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power).
- brc 15y ago
  >No one has ever suggested throwing out all other power generations in favour of only one renewable method And I didn't either. I just said Solar will always remain niche because of the inherent characteristics of it. You can't make the sun shine 24 hours a day, day in, day out and create baseload power. You can add capacity and use storage, but you'll never be able to make it competitive as you do so, because your efficiency drops as you do. You can be passionate about solar, but you can't ignore the facts. >Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already. Agreed. Hydro is a fantastic power source and should be expanded because it brings water supplies and electricity, two of the building blocks of civilisation. And this has nothing to do with solar. >when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power Large industrial users like aluminium smelting will run whenever the power is cheapest. If that means smelting at night, they will. Worker overtime is a fraction of the savings they will make through cheaper power Aluminium is literally congealed electricity. Again, nothing to do with solar, but I thought I would add it. Bottom line ; solar will always remain niche, it will have an important part to play in sunny regions where it correlates well with power usage for cooling, but it will never displace baseload power generation by other means.
  - Tsagadai 15y ago
    My point was that it can take up most of the load in the day and then other methods can take the load at night. Niche does not mean unimportant. Solar could easily produce about 90% of power for some regions (remember, electricity is a valuable export commodity) and other methods will take up the load at night. That is where we are going and that is what the article is about. Once the price gets down low enough solar will become the first choice and other choices will just support it, much like coal or natural gas is that choice at the moment. Economics is a very powerful force.
nl 15y ago
Can't do baseload power is something of a myth, too. There are a reasonable number of pump-hydro systems in use now, and they work reliably and efficiently. In the US, 2.5% of baseload power is pump-hydro. Most of this is probably powered by hydro electricity, but solar is working well in many places too.
jodrellblank 15y ago
There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day Sure it does; we just need to blanket the planet in superconductors, and. . . .