13 ms·

We're remarkably close. Solar is already cheaper than oil and more geographically available. It's just not temporary as available -- that's the energy storage p

We're remarkably close. Solar is already cheaper than oil and more geographically available. It's just not temporary as available -- that's the energy storage problem, and that's what we're working on. It is very difficult in many respects however. The biggest problem is that public funds, bonds, and internet companies attract most of the financing. Our best strategy to avoid this is to work with group for whom it would be strategic, and also for people who are already rich (e.g. Bill Gates, Peter Thiel) and thus are able to weather the development period and take on more long term projects.

netcan 12y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret statements like this, at least not without acquiring a good business understanding of these energy businesses. A lot of funding has gone into green energy in various forms over the last 10 years, in lot of countries. None if it seems to have the kind of cascading effect that I would expect from the kind of runaway success I often hear claimed. If solar and/or wind is so great, why aren't high energy activities moving near those places or developing their own renewable power source? Where are the solar desalination plants or mineral processing facilities?
- molsongolden 12y ago
  The technology needs/needed to progress to a point where the price of implementation would be low enough to appeal to businesses. As the parent comment notes, the issue is now mostly one of availability. The sun doesn't shine 24/7, the wind doesn't blow 24/7, etc... so large scale power storage is needed to smooth the energy grid provided by renewable sources. We need to be able to harness the sun/wind when it is available, pack away the energy, then trickle it out on demand. We just aren't there yet but we're getting close.
  - netcan 12y ago
    There are some of activities where cost per joule could trump everything else. If you want to desalinate sea water you don't need to store energy. You just need to store desalinated water. If you want to desalinate water in Saudi Arabia, you can forecast weather 10 years in advance. If the underlying economics were there now, and the cost per energy (which is remarkably hard to reliably estimate, but that's an said) really was that much better there would be implementations in places with an established market for desalinated water.
    - Retric 12y ago
      Your assuming it's cost effective to turn off your desalination plant for 1/2 the day. It's not. Further, oil is a tiny fraction of total electrical power. It just used for vary expensive peaking power. Or in a small number of countries that heavily subsidize oil. Consider those little gas generators people buy cost ~1$ / kwh. At utility scale it can be worth ~40c/w to cover the tip of the peak of power demand to prevent brownouts, but base load power is far cheaper and your base load power is still operating during peak demand reducing average costs.
      - netcan 12y ago
        This is where it starts to get to the point where I don't understand the economy of energy enough to really judge. My understanding is that with some desalination methods, energy costs represent over 50% of total cost which suggests that irregular production shouldn't be too much of a problem if energy costs are that different. I don't really know though.
        Retric 12y ago
        Let's say you could generate your water for 100$. With 50$ from building the plant and 50$ from energy. Now, if you operate it half the time you need to build 2 power-plants at 50$ a pop = 100$ so if you pay even 1cent for energy your worse off.
        netcan 12y ago
        That's assuming energy is the only marginal/variable cost. But, I guess we are playing with contrived examples either way. Anyway, if inconsistency is an inherent cost of solar it needs to be treated as such in comparisons. Even if storage gets "solved" it won't be free. There will be energy costs to it and other costs. To have consistent capacity of X, you will need a peak capacity of several times X. If peak grid usage is completely covered by solar, there will be wasted capacity at the coal plants at this times.
        12y ago
molsongolden 12y ago
Any thoughts on Aquion saltwater batteries? They've raised funding from Gates, DoE, etc... and seem to be market ready. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquion_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquion_Energy
mcone 12y ago
> Solar is already cheaper than oil This is highly unlikely, based on my research. It's all a question of ROI. If it took one barrel of oil to extract another barrel of oil out of the ground, would we still be extracting oil? The answer is no, but for some reason we don't apply the same logic to solar power. Solar is strongly subsidized here in the United States, so there is currently a financial incentive for homeowners to install solar panels on their roof. But if it takes x years to generate enough electricity to pay off the solar panels, and the solar panels only last on average x*2 years, there could be a problem with the ROI. And we haven't even started talking about the energy storage problem yet. So unless you can provide some references, I find it very difficult to believe that solar is cheaper than oil at this point in time. Edit: Removed the erroneous part about solar panels only lasting on average 12 years.
- Retric 12y ago
  Panels have a 20+ year lifespan. Putting solar panels on roofs is dumb. Panels run about 1/3 the cost of home installations. Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. PS: Solar is cheap enough it's changing the cost of energy over the day. Subsides actually prevent it from being cost effective because they lower the cost of electricity reducing the value of solar power. aka producing 5% of a countries power with solar can be vary cost effective producing 100% is not and subsidies push adoption past the point of profitability.
  - mcone 12y ago
    > Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. I guess it all depends on your definition of "far cheaper." The DOE reported this year [1] that the price of electricity generated by utility scale photovoltaic power plants is higher than every other plant type, except offshore wind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#E...
    - Retric 12y ago
      ~1/2 the cost of rooftop solar = far cheaper. Also from your chart PV = 130 which is between Conventional Combustion Turbine = 128 and IGCC with CCS = 147.4. But that's "U.S. Average Levelized" so some solar is well below that number. In the end it's a complex subject where for example building solar power plants reduces the value of solar power. Edit: Further down the page you find the minimum cost for PV solar = 101.4 which is below the max cost of Conventional Coal = 114.4 or Advanced Nuclear = 102.0 and close to the average cost of coal 95.6. So there is quite a bit of overlap.
Shivetya 12y ago
Solar close? That wonderful new plant Ivanpah cannot even remotely deliver what it was project too, http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/ http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-... So how is Solar close when such a major undertaking such as that one isn't working out? Better yet, not only did they get a loan from the DOE they want the public to pay for the loan by trying to use one program to pay for another.
FiatLuxDave 12y ago
I've been following what Lightsail is doing for a while. Would you say the problems you face are more technical or deal-making in nature? In other words, is it more an issue of getting high enough efficiency in the energy recovery, or an issue of getting the technology into use? Or is it cost (since low enough cost makes deal-making easy)? Apologies if I am asking for too much information.
- DaniFong 12y ago
  Equity raising challenges > Technical Challenges > Selling the system
S_A_P 12y ago
My father in laws ranch is surrounded by wind farms. I asked him why they were suddenly cropping up all around his land, and he told me 2 reasons: 1) TAX BREAKS AND/OR 2) Huge government subsidies The folks that lease these things get huge tax breaks for allowing them on their land, and there is massive government incentives out to build these things. That would signal to me that they are not yet economically viable. When people start building them on prospect(similar to wildcatting an oil well) then I will believe the economics work out. Until then, its a bad business to be in.
- jshen 12y ago
  There are huge subsidies for fossil fuels. Does that mean they are not viable?
  - hodder 12y ago
    I'd be interested in an outline of these subsidies (in the US) if you have a source.
    - jshen 12y ago
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_State...
      - SilasX 12y ago
        Of the top three purported oil subsidies in the link: 1) Foreign tax credit: everyone gets that to avoid double taxation. 3) Deduction of exploration costs: deduction of expenses is typical and again something everyone does when you're being taxed on profits. This is better understood as "the tax code explicitly recognizes this as an expense, just as it does for hiring workers or warehousing unsold inventory". Would you mind articulating what you think the oil subsidies are? The alternative fuels subsidy (2) seems like a legit case but only gets you 14 of the 370 billion claimed. (I get that there are environmental costs but that's not what people have in mind with the vague "oil subsidies" I keep hearing about.)

netcan 12y ago

I'm not sure how to interpret statements like this, at least not without acquiring a good business understanding of these energy businesses. A lot of funding has gone into green energy in various forms over the last 10 years, in lot of countries. None if it seems to have the kind of cascading effect that I would expect from the kind of runaway success I often hear claimed. If solar and/or wind is so great, why aren't high energy activities moving near those places or developing their own renewable power source? Where are the solar desalination plants or mineral processing facilities?

molsongolden 12y ago
The technology needs/needed to progress to a point where the price of implementation would be low enough to appeal to businesses. As the parent comment notes, the issue is now mostly one of availability. The sun doesn't shine 24/7, the wind doesn't blow 24/7, etc... so large scale power storage is needed to smooth the energy grid provided by renewable sources. We need to be able to harness the sun/wind when it is available, pack away the energy, then trickle it out on demand. We just aren't there yet but we're getting close.
- netcan 12y ago
  There are some of activities where cost per joule could trump everything else. If you want to desalinate sea water you don't need to store energy. You just need to store desalinated water. If you want to desalinate water in Saudi Arabia, you can forecast weather 10 years in advance. If the underlying economics were there now, and the cost per energy (which is remarkably hard to reliably estimate, but that's an said) really was that much better there would be implementations in places with an established market for desalinated water.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Your assuming it's cost effective to turn off your desalination plant for 1/2 the day. It's not. Further, oil is a tiny fraction of total electrical power. It just used for vary expensive peaking power. Or in a small number of countries that heavily subsidize oil. Consider those little gas generators people buy cost ~1$ / kwh. At utility scale it can be worth ~40c/w to cover the tip of the peak of power demand to prevent brownouts, but base load power is far cheaper and your base load power is still operating during peak demand reducing average costs.
    - netcan 12y ago
      This is where it starts to get to the point where I don't understand the economy of energy enough to really judge. My understanding is that with some desalination methods, energy costs represent over 50% of total cost which suggests that irregular production shouldn't be too much of a problem if energy costs are that different. I don't really know though.
      - Retric 12y ago
        Let's say you could generate your water for 100$. With 50$ from building the plant and 50$ from energy. Now, if you operate it half the time you need to build 2 power-plants at 50$ a pop = 100$ so if you pay even 1cent for energy your worse off.
        netcan 12y ago
        That's assuming energy is the only marginal/variable cost. But, I guess we are playing with contrived examples either way. Anyway, if inconsistency is an inherent cost of solar it needs to be treated as such in comparisons. Even if storage gets "solved" it won't be free. There will be energy costs to it and other costs. To have consistent capacity of X, you will need a peak capacity of several times X. If peak grid usage is completely covered by solar, there will be wasted capacity at the coal plants at this times.
        12y ago

molsongolden 12y ago

Any thoughts on Aquion saltwater batteries? They've raised funding from Gates, DoE, etc... and seem to be market ready. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquion_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquion_Energy

mcone 12y ago

> Solar is already cheaper than oil This is highly unlikely, based on my research. It's all a question of ROI. If it took one barrel of oil to extract another barrel of oil out of the ground, would we still be extracting oil? The answer is no, but for some reason we don't apply the same logic to solar power. Solar is strongly subsidized here in the United States, so there is currently a financial incentive for homeowners to install solar panels on their roof. But if it takes x years to generate enough electricity to pay off the solar panels, and the solar panels only last on average x*2 years, there could be a problem with the ROI. And we haven't even started talking about the energy storage problem yet. So unless you can provide some references, I find it very difficult to believe that solar is cheaper than oil at this point in time. Edit: Removed the erroneous part about solar panels only lasting on average 12 years.

Retric 12y ago
Panels have a 20+ year lifespan. Putting solar panels on roofs is dumb. Panels run about 1/3 the cost of home installations. Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. PS: Solar is cheap enough it's changing the cost of energy over the day. Subsides actually prevent it from being cost effective because they lower the cost of electricity reducing the value of solar power. aka producing 5% of a countries power with solar can be vary cost effective producing 100% is not and subsidies push adoption past the point of profitability.
- mcone 12y ago
  > Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. I guess it all depends on your definition of "far cheaper." The DOE reported this year [1] that the price of electricity generated by utility scale photovoltaic power plants is higher than every other plant type, except offshore wind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#E...
  - Retric 12y ago
    ~1/2 the cost of rooftop solar = far cheaper. Also from your chart PV = 130 which is between Conventional Combustion Turbine = 128 and IGCC with CCS = 147.4. But that's "U.S. Average Levelized" so some solar is well below that number. In the end it's a complex subject where for example building solar power plants reduces the value of solar power. Edit: Further down the page you find the minimum cost for PV solar = 101.4 which is below the max cost of Conventional Coal = 114.4 or Advanced Nuclear = 102.0 and close to the average cost of coal 95.6. So there is quite a bit of overlap.

Shivetya 12y ago

Solar close? That wonderful new plant Ivanpah cannot even remotely deliver what it was project too, http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/ http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-... So how is Solar close when such a major undertaking such as that one isn't working out? Better yet, not only did they get a loan from the DOE they want the public to pay for the loan by trying to use one program to pay for another.

FiatLuxDave 12y ago

I've been following what Lightsail is doing for a while. Would you say the problems you face are more technical or deal-making in nature? In other words, is it more an issue of getting high enough efficiency in the energy recovery, or an issue of getting the technology into use? Or is it cost (since low enough cost makes deal-making easy)? Apologies if I am asking for too much information.

DaniFong 12y ago
Equity raising challenges > Technical Challenges > Selling the system

S_A_P 12y ago

My father in laws ranch is surrounded by wind farms. I asked him why they were suddenly cropping up all around his land, and he told me 2 reasons: 1) TAX BREAKS AND/OR 2) Huge government subsidies The folks that lease these things get huge tax breaks for allowing them on their land, and there is massive government incentives out to build these things. That would signal to me that they are not yet economically viable. When people start building them on prospect(similar to wildcatting an oil well) then I will believe the economics work out. Until then, its a bad business to be in.

jshen 12y ago
There are huge subsidies for fossil fuels. Does that mean they are not viable?
- hodder 12y ago
  I'd be interested in an outline of these subsidies (in the US) if you have a source.
  - jshen 12y ago
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_State...
    - SilasX 12y ago
      Of the top three purported oil subsidies in the link: 1) Foreign tax credit: everyone gets that to avoid double taxation. 3) Deduction of exploration costs: deduction of expenses is typical and again something everyone does when you're being taxed on profits. This is better understood as "the tax code explicitly recognizes this as an expense, just as it does for hiring workers or warehousing unsold inventory". Would you mind articulating what you think the oil subsidies are? The alternative fuels subsidy (2) seems like a legit case but only gets you 14 of the 370 billion claimed. (I get that there are environmental costs but that's not what people have in mind with the vague "oil subsidies" I keep hearing about.)