Solar Power Outlook Per Moore's Law

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-2011-03-15

[DarrinS]

It's all about energy density.


That's why we will never abandon oil and nuclear.

[boutons_deux]

Reminds me of George Carlin's routine on why he worships the sun. :)

[MannyIsGod]

It's all about energy density.


That's why we will never abandon oil and nuclear.

:lol

You're clueless. It is impossible for Nuclear or Oil to power this whole world. Solar can be placed on roofs, can be mobile, and can take up localized production with space already allocated.

And according to these projections, its going to do so fairly cheaply fairly soon.

[coyotes_geek]

:tu Good read.

[CosmicCowboy]

Good read. I have always said that solar, both passive and active is a great LOCAL solution. It's a terrible grid solution, however. Unfortunately politicians always focus on grid solutions because thats where the money is.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, in the case of solar, it looks like the cost is halving every 10 years. Not comparable. Compare that to cost per megabyte instead of chip densities, and he comparisons are even farther apart.

[Wild Cobra]

Good read. I have always said that solar, both passive and active is a great LOCAL solution. It's a terrible grid solution, however. Unfortunately politicians always focus on grid solutions because thats where the money is.
I wonder if they get kickbacks from the power companies?

[CosmicCowboy]

I wonder if they get kickbacks from the power companies?

The issue is really about fostering dependence. A self sufficient family unit both in energy and food is damned hard to control.

[Wild Cobra]

The issue is really about fostering dependence. A self sufficient family unit both in energy and food is damned hard to control.
I agree, and it's also why congress wont approve ideas like HR-1.

Too many authoritarians in congress.

[RandomGuy]

Well, in the case of solar, it looks like the cost is halving every 10 years. Not comparable. Compare that to cost per megabyte instead of chip densities, and [the] comparisons are even farther apart.

That assumes that past rates will remain the same.

I think that there is a very good chance that the increased amount of research will drive the trend to accelerate sharply.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-2.jpg


And indeed, it follows a nearly straight line on a log scale. Some years the price changes more than others. Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells. While in the earlier part of this decade prices flattened for a few years, the sharp decline in 2009 made up fo
r that and put the price reduction back on track. Data from 2010 (not included above) shows at least a 30 percent further price reduction, putting solar prices ahead of this trend.

If we look at this another way, in terms of the amount of power we can get for $100, we see a continual rise on a log scale.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-3.jpg

What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over 50 cents.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-5.jpg


Indications are that the projections above are actually too conservative. First Solar corporation has announced internal production costs (though not consumer prices) of 75 cents per watt, and expects to hit 50 cents per watt in production cost in 2016. If they hit their estimates, they’ll be beating the trend above by a considerable margin.

[Wild Cobra]

That's still a long ways away. I still say let the marketplace develop solar when it's cost effective for them.

[RandomGuy]

In thumbing around for this, I found an interesting website that shows current estimated costs per energy type:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

With a new "gee whiz" technology listed:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cold_Energy_LLC

[MannyIsGod]

WC is like a retarded parrot who hears nothing but stupid catch phrases and doesn't bother with context.

[DarrinS]

:lol

You're clueless. It is impossible for Nuclear or Oil to power this whole world. Solar can be placed on roofs, can be mobile, and can take up localized production with space already allocated.

And according to these projections, its going to do so fairly cheaply fairly soon.


Do you not know what density means?

[Wild Cobra]

WC is like a retarded parrot who hears nothing but stupid catch phrases and doesn't bother with context.

Why do you libtards not understand the right way to fund things? Now if you want to donate money to such things, then start a foundation, and collect money from like minded individuals, and support your ideals. Just stop expecting the entire nation of tax payers to willingly spend tax dollars on your cause. Our nation is outspending revenues, so such pet project financing needs to cease.

[MannyIsGod]

Why do you libtards not understand the right way to fund things? Now if you want to donate money to such things, then start a foundation, and collect money from like minded individuals, and support your ideals. Just stop expecting the entire nation of tax payers to willingly spend tax dollars on your cause. Our nation is outspending revenues, so such pet project financing needs to cease.

Squawk Squawk Squawk.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you not know what density means?

I know that density doesn't matter for the reasons I posted above.

[Agloco]

It's all about energy density.


That's why we will never abandon oil and nuclear.

Isn't that the aim of the article though? To show that the energy density of solar is coming to rival that of fossil fuels?

Energy companies really don't care about the medium they're peddling. They just want to have a controlling share of that market, whatever might be producing the energy.

[Wild Cobra]

Energy companies really don't care about the medium they're peddling. They just want to have a controlling share of that market, whatever might be producing the energy.
This is true, and when someone in industry see it as viable to be the one to try solar investments, they will, without subsidies.

Subsidies amounts to politicians picking winners and losers.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you libtards not understand the right way to fund things? Now if you want to donate money to such things, then start a foundation, and collect money from like minded individuals, and support your ideals. Just stop expecting the entire nation of tax payers to willingly spend tax dollars on your cause. Our nation is outspending revenues, so such pet project financing needs to cease.


Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation

Your knee-jerk dislike of environmental advocates and seeming suspicion of green energy has led you to equate what is quite arguably some of the most important R & D that an advanced civilization can undertake with that of multi-million dollar bridges serving a few hundred people.

That would seem to me to easily qualify as "perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation"

From a simple cost/benefit perspective, the potential overall collective return on investment is enormous.

We will fund a lot of losers, but in all the crowd, we will discover paradigm-changing technologies.

Cutting vital funding in response to short-term budget crisis, especially given the scope of the funding versus the scope of the overall crisis, is like a farmer eating his seed corn.

It seems to me to be downright un-American to sacrifice funding for hard science in response to temporary problems.

[LnGrrrR]

Good read. I have always said that solar, both passive and active is a great LOCAL solution. It's a terrible grid solution, however. Unfortunately politicians always focus on grid solutions because thats where the money is.

The military housing on base here has solar panels. Makes sense in Hawaii.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do you libtards not understand the right way to fund things? Now if you want to donate money to such things, then start a foundation, and collect money from like minded individuals, and support your ideals. Just stop expecting the entire nation of tax payers to willingly spend tax dollars on your cause. Our nation is outspending revenues, so such pet project financing needs to cease.

Don't we spend gov't money offsetting the "true" cost of gasoline? I remember hearing that somewhere.

[Wild Cobra]

The military housing on base here has solar panels. Makes sense in Hawaii.
Yes, the closer you get to the equator, the more energy you have per square meter.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't we spend gov't money offsetting the "true" cost of gasoline? I remember hearing that somewhere.
If so, we shouldn't.

[RandomGuy]

Do you not know what density means?




:lmao

[RandomGuy]

This is true, and when someone in industry see it as viable to be the one to try solar investments, they will, without subsidies.

Subsidies amounts to politicians picking winners and losers.

I don't see how blanket research grants "pick" winners and losers.

If you qualify for the grant, you qualify for the grant.

The market picks the winners and losers.


Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Hmmm. That's funny. I did a search in this thread for "grant" and all I found was you using it, Professor Lambeau. I believe WC stated "subsidies"

What was that? Cognitive bias? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm. That's funny. I did a search in this thread for "grant" and all I found was you using it, Professor Lambeau. I believe WC stated "subsidies"

What was that? Cognitive bias? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.

He pulls shit like that all the time.

[TDMVPDPOY]

solar power and wind power is the way to go unless they want to build hydro power dams on rivers, i think thats enough of energy to power the world....

u can have like panels on ur roof eating the sun during the day while windmills the size of a regular fan on ur roof running on wind to power energy during the day and night....excess storage of energy can be sold back to the grid

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Tbh I don't think grants and subsidies are the same. Yes, he's right in saying what he said about grants but he's the one that brought up grants.

Back to studying cognitive bias. :reading

[MannyIsGod]

You may want to take a break and study subsidies. A grant is a form of one.

[DMX7]

Hopefully, we're not talking about Stephen Moore's law. If so, Solar Power is going nowhere fast.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm. That's funny. I did a search in this thread for "grant" and all I found was you using it, Professor Lambeau. I believe WC stated "subsidies"

What was that? Cognitive bias? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.


??

and that matters because...?

Are you trying the Chewbacca defense here or what?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You may want to take a break and study subsidies. A grant is a form of one.

I'm sure Dr Lambeau will break it down for us. Maybe they're not talking about the same thing?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure Dr Lambeau will break it down for us. Maybe they're not talking about the same thing?

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the way WC uses the word in question and how he won't admit that obvious subsidy are just that before jumping into the debate on his side.

Did your search for grants turn up any of that? No?

Damn.

[RandomGuy]

Tbh I don't think grants and subsidies are the same. Yes, he's right in saying what he said about grants but he's the one that brought up grants.

Back to studying cognitive bias. :reading

Grants for research by private start-ups and direct subsidies both take the form of direct cash transfers.

The fact that WC's ill-formed contention that "politicians pick winners and losers" when the government decides to support things is a rather weak one, and easily refuted.

If someone brings up an idea, you are essentially saying it is invalid to try and bring up something that idea fails to account for.

"No fair, you brought up something new to shoot down the idea I support".

GMAFB.

:whine

[RandomGuy]

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the way WC uses the word in question and how he won't admit that obvious subsidy are just that before jumping into the debate on his side.

Did your search for grants turn up any of that? No?

Damn.

VLE and WC both know they are on the same side. Whether or not VLE's rather clumsy attempt to support WC makes sense is irrelevant.

What's funny is that I am a hoity-toity "know it all", and I would think VLE would say that WC is not, probably not having seen many AGW threads... heh.

[Wild Cobra]

This is laughable. Yes, grants are similar, but a different beast. In most cases, I want them done away with too.

RG..

You are pathetic at times. Too often, you change the goalpost to suit your needs, and assume it changes the game. It just makes you look dumb.

[DMX7]

WC has been brainwashed. No purpose in arguing with him. He can't change his position until the republican party tells him to. That's what happens when you become politically brainwashed and you're no longer capable of drawing conclusions for yourself. He just has to spew the conservative elitist talking points. It's all he can do now.

Yes, I spar around with him every once and a while, but it's only for my amusement.

[RandomGuy]

This is laughable. Yes, grants are similar, but a different beast. In most cases, I want them done away with too.

RG..

You are pathetic at times. Too often, you change the goalpost to suit your needs, and assume it changes the game. It just makes you look dumb.

How have I "changed the goalpost" here? Be specific.

[Wild Cobra]

How have I "changed the goalpost" here? Be specific.

The simple fact I have been focusing on the likes of subsidies and tax credits. Grants are different in that each one awarded has a review process, or at least is suppose to. They are specified amounts and specified criteria must also be met. I'm OK with some grants, but very few of them as well. I don't see a need for them in the energy industry, except for the small inventor with a big, valid idea, to be able to compete with the big guys. Subsidies to move commercial aspects for political reasons. Hell no.

Universities often get government and private grants.

[RandomGuy]

How have I "changed the goalpost" here? Be specific.

The simple fact I have been focusing on the likes of subsidies and tax credits. Grants are different in that each one awarded has a review process, or at least is suppose to. They are specified amounts and specified criteria must also be met. I'm OK with some grants, but very few of them as well. I don't see a need for them in the energy industry, except for the small inventor with a big, valid idea, to be able to compete with the big guys. Subsidies to move commercial aspects for political reasons. Hell no.

Universities often get government and private grants.

So it isn't about changing the standard of acceptable evidence to support an assertion, and more about a semantic argument about the definition of "subsidy".

This is a rather important distinction, as "moving the goalposts" involves intellectual dishonesty, and simply disagreeing about the definition of a word does not inherently do so.

Please explain how encouraging the development of cheaper energy is a purely "political" motive.

[DarrinS]

Energy Density is Key

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/energy-density-is-key/




When it comes to power, density is the key. Energy density. The reason that solar power, wind power, and ethanol are so expensive is that they are derived from very diffuse energy sources. It takes a lot of energy collectors such as solar cells, wind turbines, or corn stalks covering many square miles of land to produce the same amount of power that traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants can on just a few acres.

Each of these alternative energy sources is based on mature technology. Agriculture and fermentation have their roots in prehistory, windmills date back at least to 65 B.C., the photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839. Yet nowhere in the world are these technologies serving as primary energy sources without significant government subsidies. While incremental improvements can be expected, what is needed for them to become viable is an order of magnitude increase in productivity. As old and as well-researched as the technologies are, such improvements are possible but unlikely. As significant future energy sources these technologies are dead ends, which is why the government, and not the private sector, is funding them.

Industry is more than willing to risk research dollars on technologies that show real promise, but it is not willing to flush shareholder money down a rat hole. Politicians, however, operate from different incentives. When a crisis, real or imagined, makes headlines, they want voters to see them doing “something” about it, and they must move quickly because election cycles and constituent attention spans are short. Funding long-term research in promising technologies is not sufficient to meet politicians’ needs. Solar panels, wind turbines, and ethanol refineries are all current technology, and can be erected quickly with fanfare and photo-ops. By the time these alternative power sources prove to be financial and, possibly, environmental busts, the politicians will have been reelected and voters’ attention will have shifted to the next crisis.
Another benefit of subsidizing “shovel ready” solutions is that existing technologies have existing supporters who can provide campaign funds. Such supporters, however, constitute a well-financed “status quo” that will make government funding, once started, difficult to end. For example, even though corn-based ethanol has driven up food and fuel prices, increased auto emissions, raised atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (by causing additional acreage to be tilled), and possibly resulted in net energy losses, the government is still subsidizing the industry and still requiring that the fuel be added to gasoline.

Wind energy, for its part, has been “just a few years away” from being economically competitive with conventional power for at least the last 25 years, and this will not change any time soon. The Energy Information Agency predicts that in 2016 wind power will still be 49% to 77% more expensive than electricity from either coal or natural gas. Furthermore, because wind turbines work only when the wind blows, wind farms cannot replace conventional plants. Backup power from conventional sources, usually gas turbines, must be ready to come on line the moment the wind fails. Despite these fundamental problems, subsidies continue to flow thanks to an entrenched lobby.

By contrast, consider the significant oil industry investments in researching biofuels made from algae. Unlike ethanol, biofuels are chemically similar to fuel made from petroleum and, like petroleum-based fuels, have a significantly higher energy content than does ethanol. Biofuels can also be handled by current fuel distribution systems and can be burned in today’s vehicles.

Algae can be grown in brackish water on desert land and, with today’s technology, can produce over 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre each year. This compares favorably with the approximately 250 gallons of ethanol that can be produced from an acre of corn – a ratio of 8 to 1. Accounting for the differences in BTU content, the ratio jumps to over 12 to 1. It may even be possible to boost productivity to 100,000 gallons per acre per year, raising algae’s potential to over 600 times that of corn-based ethanol!

Biofuels are carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide released when they are burned is first extracted from the atmosphere by the algae. Unlike burning petroleum-based fuels, then, burning biofuels will not result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

With algae’s vast potential, it is easy to understand why private industry is interested, and why no government subsidies are needed to encourage investment. Moreover, if algae-based fuels do not prove viable, the companies now researching them will have no “status quo” problems with ending their investments and shifting scarce resources to more promising technologies – where “promise” is measured in density.

[MannyIsGod]

Its ok Darrin. Reading is hard.

[RandomGuy]

Energy Density is Key

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/energy-density-is-key/

While incremental improvements can be expected, what is needed for them to become viable is an order of magnitude increase in productivity. As old and as well-researched as the technologies are, such improvements are possible but unlikely.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-2.jpg


And indeed, it follows a nearly straight line on a log scale. Some years the price changes more than others. Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells. While in the earlier part of this decade prices flattened for a few years, the sharp decline in 2009 made up fo
r that and put the price reduction back on track. Data from 2010 (not included above) shows at least a 30 percent further price reduction, putting solar prices ahead of this trend.

If we look at this another way, in terms of the amount of power we can get for $100, we see a continual rise on a log scale.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-3.jpg

What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over 50 cents.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-5.jpg


Indications are that the projections above are actually too conservative. First Solar corporation has announced internal production costs (though not consumer prices) of 75 cents per watt, and expects to hit 50 cents per watt in production cost in 2016. If they hit their estimates, they’ll be beating the trend above by a considerable margin.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

Solar PV 15-30 cents per KwH

Gas/Coal 3-5 cents


An order of magnitude would make solar at 1.5-3.0 cents per KwH.

Based on past rates of efficiency increase in solar, this will be acheived in approximately 20 years, quite possibly sooner.

Wind, it should be noted, is at about 4-6 cents now.

By your own source's admission that would make investing in the technology now make a lot of sense.

Thank you.

p.s. "old and well-researched" :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, Darrin continually posted shit the OP directly tackled. But like I said, reading is hard.

[DarrinS]

Yeah, Darrin continually posted shit the OP directly tackled. But like I said, reading is hard.



The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.

[DarrinS]

Germany uses the most PV in the world.


Power generation from PV in Germany is less than 1%.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Really?

And yet, we use reservoirs all over the world in order to catch rain water in order to have water. Where do you think ground water comes from, Darrin?

Rain is the ultimate source of drinking water and there are so many places that rely on it directly and you use THAT as your example?

You can't make this shit up. :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Germany uses the most PV in the world.


Power generation from PV in Germany is less than 1%.

Timeframe fail. Let me know in 20 years if this is still the case.

[DarrinS]

:lol

Really?

And yet, we use reservoirs all over the world in order to catch rain water in order to have water. Where do you think ground water comes from, Darrin?

Rain is the ultimate source of drinking water and there are so many places that rely on it directly and you use THAT as your example?

You can't make this shit up. :lmao


God, you're thick as a brick.

Yes, we have natural ways of collecting this very dispersed resource (e.g. the Edwards aquifer).

Is there such a natural system for collecting solar? Nope.


Thanks for playing.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

There's not a natural way of collecting solar?

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Both wind and oil energy are effectively natural ways of collecting solar. Where do you think the energy from Biodesiel comes from?

And last time I checked, a reservoir isn't natural if it requires the construction of a dam.

:lmao @ thanks for playing.

[MannyIsGod]

Plants make magic energy. They don't naturally collect solar.

[MannyIsGod]

Virtually all the water humans drink is from rainwater and Darrin chooses to use rain as the example of a resource we can't use.

Oh shit.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

That's still a long ways away. I still say let the marketplace develop solar when it's cost effective for them.If the same thinking had been applied to nuclear power, the number of nuclear power plants in the US would be zero.

[boutons_deux]

Except for geothermal, ALL energy sources are solar.

[RandomGuy]

The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.


"I read it on the internet, it must be true, it says right there "energy density", can't you get that?"

...

"um, no, he didn't really give any supporting data"

...

"no, he didn't really say why he thinks the recent research in the field is the end of the line when it comes to research, or even show a familiarity with what it currently being done"

.. but dammit, Energy Density!

Dont' you see?

Translation:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1581

[DarrinS]

Translation:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1581



classy

[RandomGuy]

The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.

Because, as we all know, cost and efficiency are *totally* irrelevant when it comes to investment decisions about energy.

One should also ignore depletion factors, and double up on sources of energy that will experience price spikes long before they reach final depletion.

That makes perfect sense.

:lmao

[DarrinS]

Germany's market share of PV
http://www.solarserver.com/uploads/pics/top_ten-Navigant.gif


Energy production in Germany
(PV only 0.1% less than energy production from waste :lol )
http://www.euronuclear.org/images/clip_image002_0006.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1581

Keep saying "density" maybe that will make the argument more valid than it was the first time it was debunked with like, actual attempts at showing costs.

[ChumpDumper]

Rain?

Really?

[DarrinS]

Rain?

Really?


For those that couldn't understand it, I posted some graphs.

Enjoy.

[RandomGuy]

Germany's market share of PV
http://www.solarserver.com/uploads/pics/top_ten-Navigant.gif


Energy production in Germany
(PV only 0.1% less than energy production from waste :lol )
http://www.euronuclear.org/images/clip_image002_0006.jpg

You do know that Germany is at roughly the same latititude as mid-Canada, right?

It lies on roughly the same latitude as the southernmost parts of Hudson bay.

Shocker, I know, that different places might have different capacities for different types of renewables.

Maybe you will make fun of Switzerland for not having a lot of tide-generated electricity next?

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

For those that couldn't understand it, I posted some graphs.

Enjoy.No, I rather enjoyed your attempt to run with that analogy.

[coyotes_geek]

The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.

:wow

Must not have been paying attention in earth science when they talked about the hydrologic cycle.

[DarrinS]

:wow

Must not have been paying attention in earth science when they talked about the hydrologic cycle.


I'm sorry you guys are having such a difficult time with that analogy.

[RandomGuy]

classy

I stopped having respect for you about the time you couldn't bring yourself to admit that the deaths of women and children in the war on terror was a bad thing, even if it was not intentional.

The fact that your arguments tend to be comically bad in general doesn't help.

Enjoy.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry you guys are having such a difficult time with that analogy.What is a dense source of drinking water?

[coyotes_geek]

I'm sorry you guys are having such a difficult time with that analogy.

I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time figuring out that whatever comes out of your tap used to be rain.

[DarrinS]

What is a dense source of drinking water?


A reservoir, a lake, an aquifer.


The issue was about it being dispersed

you stupid

fucking

ignorant

a-holes.

[Drachen]

A reservoir, a lake, an aquifer.


The issue was about it being dispersed

you stupid

fucking

ignorant

a-holes.

Aren't these rain collection devices?

(well, all except the a-holes)

[ChumpDumper]

A reservoir, a lake, an aquifer.


The issue was about it being dispersed

you stupid

fucking

ignorant

a-holes.But rain is water.

Rain isn't a collection method of water

[ChumpDumper]

I mean maybe you'd have a point if someone came up and said his plan was to store water in clouds and collect it by holding his mouth open when it rains.

[RandomGuy]

Timeframe fail. Let me know in 20 years if this is still the case [that Germany only gets 1% of its power from PV solar].

That is a very good point.

http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php

If you look at the top 50 PV plants globally, all but two were constructed in the last 3 years.

I would guess that as they start retiring their nukes, in the wake of the Fukishima disaster, that 1% will likely climb, as will the wind and natural gas generated segment, although the last makes them rather more dependent on Russia than they would like.

[ChumpDumper]

Still trying to figure out why Darrin thinks there is no natural way to collect solar power. Freaking standing outside is collecting solar power. Of course the issue is how to do it at a production and cost close to that of traditional sources of electrical power. Of course that is being addressed in the articles Darrin still seems to have not read.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry you guys are having such a difficult time with that analogy.

Rainwater can easily be collected on a rooftop, in a fashion similar to solar power collection, and "concentrated" into a holding tank.

The analogy doesn't quite work all to well, simply because liquid water is in the same phase when it is collected as when it is used.

Electricity, as you are probably familiar is not. Often it is stored in a chemical battery or similar, going from one form of energy, electrical, to chemical, and then back again, with a lot of loss along the way.

We have had a lot of conversations concerning PV, thermal and so forth, so you are doubtless familiar with these issues by now.

[DarrinS]

Still trying to figure out why Darrin thinks there is no natural way to collect solar power. Freaking standing outside is collecting solar power. Of course the issue is how to do it at a production and cost close to that of traditional sources of electrical power. Of course that is being addressed in the articles Darrin still seems to have not read.


Maybe with all these advances in the technology, Germany can get up to 3% of its power from PV.

[RandomGuy]

Still trying to figure out why Darrin thinks there is no natural way to collect solar power. Freaking standing outside is collecting solar power. Of course the issue is how to do it at a production and cost close to that of traditional sources of electrical power. Of course that is being addressed in the articles Darrin still seems to have not read.

The thing is that I don't think he understands his own argument when he dismisses "efficiency".

For PV "efficiency" = Density.

When the author starts commenting that efficiency gains are driving the costs down, he is directly saying that the ability to capture sunlight, i.e. density of power per dollar, is going up.
PV generally is rated in a "cost per area". You calculate the amount of electricity you need, then the generating capacity, then can figure out how much you need.

Efficiency gains usually produce more wattage per unit of area, although you can also simply drive the costs down as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe with all these advances in the technology, Germany can get up to 3% of its power from PV.Tell me Darrin, could you always post on the internets from work?

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe with all these advances in the technology, Germany can get up to 3% of its power from PV.

Oh I don't know. That will happen only around the time German's get 100% of their water from rain.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe with all these advances in the technology, Germany can get up to 3% of its power from PV.

Still hanging your hat on that? Even after it has been noted that Germany because of its geography, will never really be able to get a high % of energy from solar?

Talk about density... :lmao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany


Since the passage of the Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources in 1997, Germany and the other states of the European Union have been working towards a target of 12% renewable electricity by 2010. Germany passed this target early in 2007 when the renewable energy share in electricity consumption in Germany reached 14%.[4] In September 2010 the German government announced the following new aggressive energy targets:[5]

Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050
Energy efficiency - Cutting the national electrical consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050
------------------

Because I am more honest than you are:

Criticism

A 2009 study from RWI Essen of the effects of the Renewable Energy Sources Act concluded that:


using photovoltaics in emission reduction is 53 times more expensive than the European Union Emission Trading Scheme's market price, while wind power is 4 times more expensive, thereby discouraging other industries from finding more cost-effective methods of reducing emissions;
although renewable energy subsidies increase retail electricity rates by 3%, they reduce the profits of German electrical utilities by an average of 8%, making them less competitive with other European utilities;
although employment has increased in the renewable energy industry, other sectors of the German economy are less able to hire workers due to higher electricity costs;
despite lavish subsidies, Germany's photovoltaic industry is losing its market share to other countries, particularly China and Japan;
it stifles renewable energy innovation by arbitrarily awarding subsidies to different technologies, instead of according to their cost-effectiveness.[25]

[ChumpDumper]

How come Saudi Arabia doesn't have as many hydroelectric dams as the US?

I mean besides the fact that they are Muslims.

[ChumpDumper]

double post

[RandomGuy]

PV in both Germany and Spain has proven to be less than economically viable, simply because their subsidy schemes were found to be fairly inefficient.

The main thing that really kills efficiency as far as the system goes:


Due to their backup energy requirements, it turns out that any increased energy
security possibly afforded by installing large PV and wind capacity is undermined by
reliance on fuel sources – principally gas – that must be imported to meet domestic
demand. That much of this gas is imported from unreliable suppliers calls energy
security claims further into question

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

If you want to criticise something, why not use arguments that are a bit less vague and hand-wavy?

[RandomGuy]

Fuck. Now I am doing Darrin's job for him. Again.

I have to stop doing shit for lazy people.

[Wild Cobra]

So it isn't about changing the standard of acceptable evidence to support an assertion, and more about a semantic argument about the definition of "subsidy".

This is a rather important distinction, as "moving the goalposts" involves intellectual dishonesty, and simply disagreeing about the definition of a word does not inherently do so.

Please explain how encouraging the development of cheaper energy is a purely "political" motive.
Let me stop the sidetracking with the goalpost for now except to say I didn't address them till your post. As for your first paragraph, I'm a bit too drunk now to focus on it.

I have no problem with promoting cheaper energy. However, when it all becomes speculative and political... who do we have to trust to make the right decision with tax payer dollars? It comes back to the energy experts. If they see a cheaper alternative in the near future, they would be fools not to invest in it. As long as we have a business model that waits for government intervention, I solidly believe the growth is hampered, because they are waiting for the politicians to act. If we gave them a resounding message that the government is not going to fund their growth, then they will once again turn to what made America great. The ingenuity of hundreds of liked minded individuals, being the first to develop a big money maker.

[Wild Cobra]

The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.
I wonder how many rain forests will have to be cut down to help the worlds need of solar energy?

[Agloco]

The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.

I'm not certain that you really understand the concept you're trying to peddle here. Think it through.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not certain that you really understand the concept you're trying to peddle here. Think it through.
Darrin, I do think you're a little off here. Rain is a dense source of drinking water, at least where I live.

Now I agree that solar is not a -good- source for large scale/dense power. The exceptions I can see are in desert regions. I see it as a nice supplemental for individual building and household energy when using no more space than the rooftops.

[Winehole23]

Yes, grants are similar, but a different beast. In most cases, I want them done away with too.

While there is rarely a large sector in our economy that doesn’t tend to get some form of corporate welfare, nuclear power is unique in that it benefits from almost every scheme ever designed by the government to directly or indirectly subsidize an industry.

Nuclear power receives direct subsidies, loan guarantees, special tax breaks, government insurance, the government promise to assume the huge potential liability if anything goes wrong, and state-based corporate assistance. From a 2008 CBO study on Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/toc.htm):
If just a few nuclear plants qualified for the incentives, the most substantial one—the production tax credit—would lead to sizable reductions in those plants’ corporate income tax liability during the first several years of operation. Nuclear projects eligible for federal loan guarantees, which cover up to 80 percent of construction costs, would benefit from reductions in financing costs. The preferential tax treatment of decommissioning funds—funds that utilities are required to set aside to cover the cost of safely shutting down and securing a nuclear plant at the end of its useful life—would provide far less financial incentive because the discounted present value of the cost of decommissioning is small.
[...]
The largest incentives available under EPAct are a production tax credit and a loan guarantee program. The tax credit provides up to $18 in tax relief per megawatt hour of electricity produced at qualifying power plants during the first eight years of operation. (For comparison, the average wholesale price of electricity in 2005 was about $50 per megawatt, on average.)

These loan guarantees are massive subsidies for investors, which turn a bad investment into a “good one” by socializing almost all of the likely losses.

The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee program—a guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plant’s construction costs, which implies that investors’ equity would cover the remaining 20 percent—would most likely reduce the levelized cost of new nuclear capacity by about 10 percent.
[...]
The loan guarantee program could encourage investors to choose relatively risky projects over more certain alternatives because they would be responsible for only about 20 percent of a project’s costs but would receive 100 percent of the returns that exceeded costs.

And to make these guarantees to protect the investors, Congress has put the taxpayers at a “very high” risk of losing money. According to a 2003 CBO analysis (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4206&type=0) of a nuclear loan program:

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high–well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Liability caps

While nuclear accidents are rare, as we see in Japan, the potential damage from an accident could be enormous. However, Congress has made it so power companies can sleep easy knowing that above a certain cost the government will cover their damages for them. From the 2008 CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/toc.htm):

In practice, Price-Anderson subsidizes utilities by reducing their cost of carrying liability insurance. Instead of purchasing full coverage, operators of nuclear power plants are required to obtain coverage only up to the liability limit, which is currently set at about $10 billion per accident. The value of the subsidy is the difference between the premium for full coverage and the premium for $10 billion in coverage.

Beyond this, the government has taken ownership of all nuclear waste from the private companies, which in theory are a liability that can cause problems for thousands of years.


State level corporate welfare

In addition to the federal government, many states also provide corporate welfare for nuclear power:

In several of those states, additional incentives that could further reduce the cost of nuclear power are under consideration. Those provisions include allowing higher rates of return for nuclear power than for other technologies, allowing utilities to recover some construction costs before plants begin operations, and tax incentives.

Nuclear power isn’t viable without lemon socialism

The high investment costs, the long building time, the length of time it takes to see a return on investment, the price uncertainty of electricity and the very large potential liability simply don’t make nuclear power anywhere near economically viable. To make it an “investment” that private companies are willing to undertake requires huge government handouts and legislation privatizing the profits while socializing the losses.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/03/16/nuclear-powers-existence-dependent-on-multiple-forms-of-corporate-welfare/

[Wild Cobra]

WH, I'm not disagreeing. I say remove all the subsidies, and if a particular energy source is viable for profit, let the corporations build them.

[johnsmith]

Fuck. Now I am doing Darrin's job for him. Again.

I have to stop doing shit for lazy people.

Maybe you should try to apply the same effort to your career as you do here on spurstalk.........that way you will make more money and won't be so mad at the evil CEO's.

[ElNono]

Darrin is correct, IMO. Density is an issue. Even if the cost of solar panels plummet and it's efficiency improve (at the rate it has), there's only so much space you have to place them. You also have to add that it's not just panels or wind generators that you've to deal with, but since they're temporal generators (that is, they go through lapses where they don't actually generate electricity, ie:no sun, no wind) you also have to add the cost of energy storage.

I think these systems are great for secondary power generation augmenting primary power generator types. I don't think they'll get to fill the role of primary power generators though.

[ChumpDumper]

Well sure, with what we see as current and near future tech, that's what most people have in mind. I don't see that as a reason to try to dismiss it out of hand.

[DMX7]

Well this is a typical strawman argument: It doesn't solve all our energy needs, so there's no need to invest in it.

And the rain analogy is as creative and as ignorant as irreducible complexity.

[DarrinS]

Darrin is correct, IMO. Density is an issue. Even if the cost of solar panels plummet and it's efficiency improve (at the rate it has), there's only so much space you have to place them. You also have to add that it's not just panels or wind generators that you've to deal with, but since they're temporal generators (that is, they go through lapses where they don't actually generate electricity, ie:no sun, no wind) you also have to add the cost of energy storage.

I think these systems are great for secondary power generation augmenting primary power generator types. I don't think they'll get to fill the role of primary power generators though.


Someone gets it. Rain may be a bad analogy, but that's only because the land already acts to naturally collect and funnel it into reservoirs. As I've pointed out, even in the country that invests the most in PV, it only supplements more conventional sources, and only at a very small percentage.


It would be nice if we could more easily capture energy from that giant hydrogen fusion reactor, eight light-minutes away.

[RandomGuy]

Darrin is correct, IMO. Density is an issue. Even if the cost of solar panels plummet and it's efficiency improve (at the rate it has), there's only so much space you have to place them. You also have to add that it's not just panels or wind generators that you've to deal with, but since they're temporal generators (that is, they go through lapses where they don't actually generate electricity, ie:no sun, no wind) you also have to add the cost of energy storage.

I think these systems are great for secondary power generation augmenting primary power generator types. I don't think they'll get to fill the role of primary power generators though.

I do agree with this. It won't fill a primary power need, although I don't think even the most rabid solar power junkie would say that. I've never seen anyone on the solar power sites ever make that claim.

I think it is best applied, as noted to sunny desert environments. Texas would be will suited to that as PV would produce the most power during the summer peak loads when people are running their A/C the most.

[RandomGuy]

Someone gets it. Rain may be a bad analogy, but that's only because the land already acts to naturally collect and funnel it into reservoirs. As I've pointed out, even in the country that invests the most in PV, it only supplements more conventional sources, and only at a very small percentage.


It would be nice if we could more easily capture energy from that giant hydrogen fusion reactor, eight light-minutes away.

One of the more fascinating ideas along that line is to use a fleet of robotic asteroid miners to haul asteriods (extremely high metal content) to solar planel factories in orbit (la Grange point) to build giant power stations, some tens of miles across and beaming the power back to earth.

24/7 power generation from PV panels over a massive area would produce a LOT of power.

[Wild Cobra]

One of the more fascinating ideas along that line is to use a fleet of robotic asteroid miners to haul asteriods (extremely high metal content) to solar planel factories in orbit (la Grange point) to build giant power stations, some tens of miles across and beaming the power back to earth.

24/7 power generation from PV panels over a massive area would produce a LOT of power.
Yes, but just how costly and efficient is it then to get the power to us?

Do you know how far away that orbit is?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, but just how costly and efficient is it then to get the power to us?

Do you know how far away that orbit is?

The orbital factories are at the La Grange point, not the power station.

(edit)

More information on the specifics is wandering around this fairly old website:

http://www.permanent.com/

[boutons_deux]

Solar voltaic does have the disadvantage of a non-SV backup.

But non-SV plants have backups of more non-SV systems for load shedding/sharing.

Solar thermal's backup is built into the design: radiation collectors heat a liquid that heats reservoirs of salts that are used to boil water and drive generators. The big advantage is that the stored energy can be large enough to drive the generators through in dips and absences of solar energy.

"Heat storage

Heat storage allows a solar thermal plant to produce electricity at night and on overcast days. This allows the use of solar power for baseload generation as well as peak power generation, with the potential of displacing both coal and natural gas fired power plants. Additionally, the utilization of the generator is higher which reduces cost.

Heat is transferred to a thermal storage medium in an insulated reservoir during the day, and withdrawn for power generation at night. Thermal storage media include pressurized steam, concrete, a variety of phase change materials, and molten salts such as sodium and potassium nitrate.[58][59]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/bigsolar/

From San Antonio to San Diego, aka the Southwestern desert, is pretty much barrenness that is perfect for large-scale solar thermal plants.

[Agloco]

The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a primarysource of energy

This would have helped the discussion a bit.

We still don't know the limits of efficiency though. I see this train of thought every day in medical imaging applications. We'll never be able to detect this or that....... then viola! A new technology or technique arrives which allows for better resolution, counting efficiency, etc.

As it stands today solar is relegated to a secondary role. As others have pointed out however, its a poor excuse for dismissing it altogether.

[MannyIsGod]

One of the best things about Solar is minimized transmission distance. A building with a roof full of panels isn't going to lose the majority of that energy in sending it somewhere else. Furthermore, this is also why density isn't nearly as big an issue as its made out: Roofs. We have a lot of the space to use already. Its not like we need to build plants.

The future in solar is in localized generation not centralized generation like we have now.

[boutons_deux]

"viola"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola

[Agloco]

"viola"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola

My Italian is a bit rusty.....I meant it as in a break from the normal rules.

[RandomGuy]

Solar voltaic does have the disadvantage of a non-SV backup.

But non-SV plants have backups of more non-SV systems for load shedding/sharing.

Solar thermal's backup is built into the design: radiation collectors heat a liquid that heats reservoirs of salts that are used to boil water and drive generators. The big advantage is that the stored energy can be large enough to drive the generators through in dips and absences of solar energy.

"Heat storage

Heat storage allows a solar thermal plant to produce electricity at night and on overcast days. This allows the use of solar power for baseload generation as well as peak power generation, with the potential of displacing both coal and natural gas fired power plants. Additionally, the utilization of the generator is higher which reduces cost.

Heat is transferred to a thermal storage medium in an insulated reservoir during the day, and withdrawn for power generation at night. Thermal storage media include pressurized steam, concrete, a variety of phase change materials, and molten salts such as sodium and potassium nitrate.[58][59]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/bigsolar/

From San Antonio to San Diego, aka the Southwestern desert, is pretty much barrenness that is perfect for large-scale solar thermal plants.

I think this is a pretty promising technology, all things considered.

[boutons_deux]

My Italian is a bit rusty.....I meant it as in a break from the normal rules.

Voila is French :lol

[RandomGuy]

One of the best things about Solar is minimized transmission distance. A building with a roof full of panels isn't going to lose the majority of that energy in sending it somewhere else. Furthermore, this is also why density isn't nearly as big an issue as its made out: Roofs. We have a lot of the space to use already. Its not like we need to build plants.

The future in solar is in localized generation not centralized generation like we have now.

Pretty much. Given that 25% of electrical power is lost in transmission, that gives you a built in "boost" from making power closer to where it is needed.

Again, texas and the southwest would be just about the perfect place for such schemes.

Wind generators are starting to provide a lot of electricity for isolated communities in Alaska along similar lines. Watch a few episodes of some of those reality TV shows based in Alaska where they visit such places.

[Wild Cobra]

The orbital factories are at the La Grange point, not the power station.

(edit)

More information on the specifics is wandering around this fairly old website:

http://www.permanent.com/
OK, I read that too fast. That's been a scientific dream for years. when I first saw the concept in the 70's, they talked about using solar for powering aluminum reduction plants on the moon, then using linear accelerators to put it in orbit for building foundry stations at a lagrangian point. The concept was for mining and lunar resources. The foundry itself would be in orbit for zero G to make alloys that cannot be made in gravity. This is actually a real nice idea for the future.

Still... beaming the power has issues. We have discussed this before. To do such projects, we would want terrawatts, or at least multiple gigawatts. Now do some power densities per square meter with various sizes of receiver stations. Also remember the inefficiencies involved.

If we use a 100 square kilometer receiver station, that is 100,000,000 sq meters. the power density would be 10,000 watts per square meter for receiving 1 terrawatt. Also consider things like the Fresnel effect, transmitter side lobes, etc. In an atmosphere, there is also scattering. How far away from a receiver station would all life have to be to be safe?

Now we can consider a pair of power cables. How much voltage would they need to have and at what current. then to super-cool it... We are a long ways away from building such structures.

[coyotes_geek]

One of the best things about Solar is minimized transmission distance. A building with a roof full of panels isn't going to lose the majority of that energy in sending it somewhere else. Furthermore, this is also why density isn't nearly as big an issue as its made out: Roofs. We have a lot of the space to use already. Its not like we need to build plants.

The future in solar is in localized generation not centralized generation like we have now.

Yep. As solar efficiencies go up and costs come down, the timeframe in which it will take an average homeowner to break even on an investment in rooftop solar will come down. There's going to be a tipping point in there somewhere and once we hit that I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of investments in solar energy will be being made by individuals on their own property instead of by utilities on major facilities.

[Agloco]

Voila is French :lol

It's also Italian. I explained as much when I gave you the definition. I have no idea what it means in French.

[TeyshaBlue]

Voila is French :lol

I thought it was a stringed instrument like the violin.:lol

[boutons_deux]

It's also Italian. I explained as much when I gave you the definition. I have no idea what it means in French.

no, it's used even in France-hating America, maybe in Italy, etc, but it's origin is French

voila
1739, from Fr., imperative of voir "to see" + la "there."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=voila

[Agloco]

no, it's used even in France-hating America, maybe in Italy, etc, but it's origin is French

voila
1739, from Fr., imperative of voir "to see" + la "there."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=voila

:tu

Ok.

[ElNono]

Voila is certainly French... C'est la vie...