4 ms·

Solar Energy Prices: This Is What A Disruptive Technology Looks Like

8 points by brianmcconnell 13y ago

senthilnayagam 13y ago
Is there a algorithm or standard method for doing "inflation adjusted terms"?
- brianmcconnell 13y ago
  The data I got from the EIA is inflation adjusted using the consumer price index.
IgniteTheSun 13y ago
Even more so: http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/ http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/
gus_massa 13y ago
I don't understand why the oil price is so flat. Between the lower and higher point the difference is like one "mouse-cursor" in my computer. The graph is logarithmic, and the difference between the 200 and 300 marks is approximately one "mouse-cursor". So we have a 3/2 variation in the oil price. But, for example, in this graph http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1970.gif http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1970.gif (taken from: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm ) the minimum price is ~$15 and the peak prices are ~$75 or ~$95, so the variation is at least 5/1.
- brianmcconnell 13y ago
  I used annual averages from the EIA. This smooths out short term variations (I am looking at a 30-40 year trend). Also be sure whatever price history you're using is adjusted for inflation. That said, even with short term price fluctuations, the decrease in solar energy costs (100:1) trumps the variation in conventional energy commodities (5:1). The point of the article is the long-term "moore's law" trend and how that will play out over the next 10-20 years.
mtowle 13y ago
If something can be said for Mr McConnell's methodology here, it's that he fully disclosed his assumptions, making it easy to identify the faulty one that sent his analysis hurtling 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Why are you measuring the efficiency of energy sources in dollars, Mr McConnell? No, I don't mean to say Euros or Yen would have been better -- rather, that the reason you find yourself writing about the efficiency of energy sources in the first place is that their efficiency and availability has changed in recent decades and will change even more in decades to come, yes? Which will in turn affect how you and your readers think about your energy costs, correct? Ah. But it will also affect how energy providers think about their energy costs, won't it? If one of those lines on your graph goes spiraling up or down, it will affect the other lines, won't it? And it won't affect them equally. Solar panels can be as cheap as they want while oil is cheap. Will they still be cheap when oil is expensive? When the cost of transport for the many materials that go into their manufacture skyrockets? There exists a better measure of energy efficiency than dollars per gigawatt. It's called gigawatts per gigawatt. Input-output ratio. By that measure, as everybody knows, oil kicks everything else's ass. Whereas solar power won't be even be net-positive until 2020 according to Popsci, which, adjusting for Popsci's track record on predictions, projects to around 2075-2100. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-n... Yes, you read that title right. Only as of this month did new panels stop having a net-negative energy efficiency. If that's your idea of disruptive, well, I advise you to quit reheating your Domino's with hydrogen fuel cells.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The paper from that article is pay-walled, but there is an author talk here: http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/431 http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/431 It isn't about the energy returns of panels finally hitting 1 (he actually puts it at about 10 for end to end systems). It is about comparing the growth of the solar panel manufacturing industry and the installed base and doing some analysis of that. One of the conclusions is that installed panels are currently providing more energy than is being used to manufacture new ones. The 2020 number is when all the energy ever used to make solar panels will have been paid back (the talk (and I imagine the paper) makes that claim too, not just PopSci).

senthilnayagam 13y ago

Is there a algorithm or standard method for doing "inflation adjusted terms"?

brianmcconnell 13y ago
The data I got from the EIA is inflation adjusted using the consumer price index.

IgniteTheSun 13y ago

Even more so: http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/ http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/

gus_massa 13y ago

I don't understand why the oil price is so flat. Between the lower and higher point the difference is like one "mouse-cursor" in my computer. The graph is logarithmic, and the difference between the 200 and 300 marks is approximately one "mouse-cursor". So we have a 3/2 variation in the oil price. But, for example, in this graph http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1970.gif http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1970.gif (taken from: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm ) the minimum price is ~$15 and the peak prices are ~$75 or ~$95, so the variation is at least 5/1.

brianmcconnell 13y ago
I used annual averages from the EIA. This smooths out short term variations (I am looking at a 30-40 year trend). Also be sure whatever price history you're using is adjusted for inflation. That said, even with short term price fluctuations, the decrease in solar energy costs (100:1) trumps the variation in conventional energy commodities (5:1). The point of the article is the long-term "moore's law" trend and how that will play out over the next 10-20 years.

mtowle 13y ago

If something can be said for Mr McConnell's methodology here, it's that he fully disclosed his assumptions, making it easy to identify the faulty one that sent his analysis hurtling 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Why are you measuring the efficiency of energy sources in dollars, Mr McConnell? No, I don't mean to say Euros or Yen would have been better -- rather, that the reason you find yourself writing about the efficiency of energy sources in the first place is that their efficiency and availability has changed in recent decades and will change even more in decades to come, yes? Which will in turn affect how you and your readers think about your energy costs, correct? Ah. But it will also affect how energy providers think about their energy costs, won't it? If one of those lines on your graph goes spiraling up or down, it will affect the other lines, won't it? And it won't affect them equally. Solar panels can be as cheap as they want while oil is cheap. Will they still be cheap when oil is expensive? When the cost of transport for the many materials that go into their manufacture skyrockets? There exists a better measure of energy efficiency than dollars per gigawatt. It's called gigawatts per gigawatt. Input-output ratio. By that measure, as everybody knows, oil kicks everything else's ass. Whereas solar power won't be even be net-positive until 2020 according to Popsci, which, adjusting for Popsci's track record on predictions, projects to around 2075-2100. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-n... Yes, you read that title right. Only as of this month did new panels stop having a net-negative energy efficiency. If that's your idea of disruptive, well, I advise you to quit reheating your Domino's with hydrogen fuel cells.

maxerickson 13y ago
The paper from that article is pay-walled, but there is an author talk here: http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/431 http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/431 It isn't about the energy returns of panels finally hitting 1 (he actually puts it at about 10 for end to end systems). It is about comparing the growth of the solar panel manufacturing industry and the installed base and doing some analysis of that. One of the conclusions is that installed panels are currently providing more energy than is being used to manufacture new ones. The 2020 number is when all the energy ever used to make solar panels will have been paid back (the talk (and I imagine the paper) makes that claim too, not just PopSci).