Sparko, John Reece: solar power not good enough! I: psss!

[Truthseeker]

Um, given the high levels of regulation and expense, it's not surprising that conventional energy plants aren't being built in large numbers - the question is how much capacity is handled by solar as opposed to conventional?

It's early days yet. Wikipedia has an article "Solar power by country" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
It says energy from solar power could now cover 0.85% of electricity demand. I do expect the percentage to increase year by year until it comes close to oh maybe 80%.

[Teallaura]

My point is that 'new installations' really tell us nothing about solar in relation to other forms of energy.

Personally, I'm all for solar - but realistically, it's no where near commercial viability and it has some huge hurdles to overcome before that's a real possibility.

[John Reece]

Calling a Bluff

Has anyone factored in all the costs of subsidizing ― with taxpayer money ― solar energy?

From Bishop Hill (emphasis added):

The FT is reporting some new research by investment bank Lazard, which claims that in some parts of the US wind and solar are now cost-competitive with gas fired power.

Costs have fallen and efficiency has risen for solar panels and wind turbines, the investment bank found, to the point that in areas of strong wind or sunshine they can provide electricity more cheaply than fossil fuel plants.

I asked Ed Crooks, the author of the article, whether this wasn't just levelised costs rearing their ugly head again. He confirmed that it is, but argues that the impact of intermittency is low.

There are many imponderables in the calculations here - intermittency affects revenues as well as costs, so the focus on costs is only half of the equation. Moreover, are we talking about gas peaking plant (OCGT) or about CCGT? And how are the externalities imposed on gas fired plant by intermittent renewables factored in?

Crooks is going to a meeting with Lazard later today. I've suggested he ask them if subsidies, feed-in tariffs and so on can be done away with.

That should throw some light on the matter.

[Sparko]

It's early days yet. Wikipedia has an article "Solar power by country" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
It says energy from solar power could now cover 0.85% of electricity demand. I do expect the percentage to increase year by year until it comes close to oh maybe 80%.

Perhaps one day if someone invents a way to make it about 1,000 times more efficient. But as it stands, there is just no way.

Hydroelectric has the best chance as a nonpolluting and renewable source of electricity and is a proven technology. Even wind farming is better than solar as it stands now. Geothermal is another technology that might be promising.

[Truthseeker]

Scale, scale, scale, scale, SCALE:



This is just for replacing gasoline used in cars. For electricity necessary to run a city (to say nothing of the Internet, a power hog that's gotten way larger since this post was made) think a lot bigger.

I googled using those keywords: "solar Apple Google Microsoft". Why don't you also? If you're still convinced you're right, go explain those companies' stupidity to them.

[Truthseeker]

That article is very vague.

The headline says

U.S. Residential Solar Just Beat Commercial Installations For The First Time

Which sounds merely like more Residential Solar installations were made that commercial solar installations. That is just quantity. Numbers. Not power capacity. It also doesn't mention other sources of power.

But then the article says:
"The first quarter of 2014 was another big one for the U.S. solar industry, with 74 percent of all new electric generating capacity across the country coming from solar power. The 1,330 megawatts of solar photovoltaics (PV) installed last quarter bring the total in the U.S. up to 14.8 gigawatts of installed capacity "

1. Now it is talking about NEW electrical installations. Again, numbers. You can pop on a solar panel installation in a few days, compared to the months or years it takes to get approval and build a traditional power plant, so numbers don't mean anything.

2. Capacity: 1,330MW of new residential solar power compared to 148,000MW of installed solar power generation (which I am sure includes commercial installations). That is not 74% of the total US power generating capacity. That is less than 1% of even solar power generated.

According to the government:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annua...epa_01_02.html

in 2012 the total US power sold to customers was 3,694,650,000 MW Hours. 1330MW isn't even a blip on that.

The article likes to play loose and fast with numbers and statistics to make it sound all promising. It is like spitting in the ocean and calling it high tide.

Why do you assume this is the best solar PV technology can achieve? No more progress in the future? Or progress so slow that solar PV energy will remain a tiny part of the energy picture for many decades? The news is an important milestone. There will be more important milestones in the future.

[lilpixieofterror]

I wonder how much of the OP you did really read.

Enough to know that you haven't read all the pros and cons of solar power.

That's sorta like saying turbines like in airplane jets aint efficient in converting chemical energy into thrust. Cost is an important consideration, and solar has really gotten much better as compared to past costs. And it will be much better in the future.

And efficiency brings cost down. Why gas engines tend to rule compared to electric is related to efficiency too. Gas is easy to store, doesn't weigh a lot, and you can get quite a bit of energy out of it. Even with improvements in batteries, they are still quite heavy, not very efficient at storing energy, and can take quite awhile to charge (this isn't including the fact that they are hazardous waste).

Well, yes. For years and possibly decades. But I won't be surprised if you become amazed.

I doubt that the technology is going to improve enough to make solar or wind power the sole source of power for the planet. Take a look at the percentages of power they provide. Maybe 2% of our energy needs come from those source. Not enough to provide for the US energy needs (no matter what people say).

[Truthseeker]

And efficiency brings cost down. Why gas engines tend to rule compared to electric is related to efficiency too. Gas is easy to store, doesn't weigh a lot, and you can get quite a bit of energy out of it. Even with improvements in batteries, they are still quite heavy, not very efficient at storing energy, and can take quite awhile to charge (this isn't including the fact that they are hazardous waste).

You're not making much sense.

I doubt that the technology is going to improve enough to make solar or wind power the sole source of power for the planet. Take a look at the percentages of power they provide. Maybe 2% of our energy needs come from those source. Not enough to provide for the US energy needs (no matter what people say).

I think you're being shortsighted, looking at essentially what is today and not seeing tremendous progress in the future that is somewhat comparable to past years. Why be so pessimistic?

[One Bad Pig]

You're not making much sense.

On the contrary, Crystal is being quite sensible.

I think you're being shortsighted, looking at essentially what is today and not seeing tremendous progress in the future that is somewhat comparable to past years. Why be so pessimistic?

Is it possible that solar/wind power will make tremendous progress? Remotely. There is only so much power one can extract from those sources; progress will have to be improvements in capturing it more efficiently. If they become major sources of power, it will have been because other sources of power got much more expensive.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're not making much sense.

That is because you don't know enough about what is going on to judge. The bottom line is that in order for something, such as solar or wind power, to become a good source of energy. You need a viable way to store the energy away because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Even though batteries have become better, they are not capable of providing for your energy needs for anything beyond small electronic devices. My phone, tablet, laptop, or gameboy doesn't have enough power to work for longer than a few hours before they need recharged. Granted, they are not as bad as they were just a decade ago and are getting better. They are still a long way from providing a decent source to store away excess power for the time the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Something that is critical to making solar and wind power a viable source of energy. Fossil fuels, don't have these current limits. Sure, batteries will likely get better and might even get to the point where they can make solar and wind power a more viable source of energy, but that is many years away still and likely would require another few leaps in battery tech. (I could also add that the current ion-lithium batteries are actually quite hazardous and pose problems with hazardous waste).

I think you're being shortsighted, looking at essentially what is today and not seeing tremendous progress in the future that is somewhat comparable to past years. Why be so pessimistic?

I'm not being short sighted at all. They could provide some help to the power grid, during peak power usage, but they need much improvement to become a source of energy to meet our needs. Looking at the reality isn't being pessimistic at all, it is seeing the reality before us, so we could look for better solutions.

Edited to add:

I know that solar energy can provide you a lot of power. My father in law is a bit of a mad scientist and built himself a solar cooker using the plastic screen from a broken flat screen TV. You can actually use this to make a pretty powerful cooker that could cook a hot dog in 20 seconds flat. It is powerful enough to turn a coke can into a smoldering mess in seconds or even melt brass. Quite a powerful device, but it still is limited to when the sun is shining or has to be adjusted to keep the optimal angle to keep it working. So I do know a bit about solar energy TS. It can work, but it has critical limits that needs to be addressed.

[Teallaura]

...
I think you're being shortsighted, looking at essentially what is today and not seeing tremendous progress in the future that is somewhat comparable to past years. Why be so pessimistic?

Why do you assume that conventional tech won't also make advances, especially since it has been making them for years? As long as solar's advances fail to outpace conventional solar won't achieve the same commercial viability.

That said, solar has already made strides where it does have advantages - the niche markets that need offgrid capability. I think that is where solar will come into its own, not as a replacement for conventional energy sources, at least not in the near future.

[Teallaura]

FYI, Lil, battery capacity is much improved over ten years ago and offgrid installations do depend on batteries now so yeah, they 'can' manage an offgrid installation, they just can't manage long term (days of rainy weather, for example).

[Jedidiah]

Even at 100% efficiency solar power is not practical unless you are willing to cover huge area of our planet with solar panels. Solar panels in orbit and transmitted power might be of some theoretical use.

[lilpixieofterror]

FYI, Lil, battery capacity is much improved over ten years ago and offgrid installations do depend on batteries now so yeah, they 'can' manage an offgrid installation, they just can't manage long term (days of rainy weather, for example).

For awhile they can, but it needs to be sustainable for a long term. How long can they run until they degrade to the point where they need to be replaced? How do we deal with the hazardous waste they create? Can their power output supply industrial capacity as well as residential capacity too? These are all keys that do need to be addressed too.

BTW here is an article about the largest of these battery storage systems currently in use and this caught my attention:

"Although the BESS is initially configured with four battery strings, it can expand to six strings to provide 40 MW for 15 minutes. The facility may accommodate up to eight battery strings, that would let GVEA boost output or prolong the useful life of the system beyond its planned 20 years."

And for a solar or wind system to be nation wide, we'd need some battery storage system that could put out that sort of output for 12 or more hours.

[Teallaura]

For awhile they can, but it needs to be sustainable for a long term. How long can they run until they degrade to the point where they need to be replaced? How do we deal with the hazardous waste they create? Can their power output supply industrial capacity as well as residential capacity too? These are all keys that do need to be addressed too.

Sure, but it's mistaken to say they can't do it at all. Off grid applications, including homes, do use them successfully and the tech has greatly improved.

In some respects, the tech has caught up to conventional but only in the niches where cords are bad things (tools, for example). It's not to where you can run a house on it without compromise, however.

As to waste issues, yes they must be addressed but that's gonna happen anyway - too many applications need long battery life and the demand for it will grow. From that the massive batteries will also improve and will have to be disposed of. It's already happening so it's not a compelling argument here.