Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On 23 April 2014 at 18:10, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: I am leaving the post unaltered below for context. See this graphic, which says that module cost is already at approximately grid parity: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/04/15/opinion/041514krugman1/041514krugman1-blog480.png Real engineers seem to disagree with the idea of renewables - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers -gabin -- They pay me to think... As long as I keep my mouth shut.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM, gabin kattukaran gkattuka...@gmail.com wrote: I am leaving the post unaltered below for context. See this graphic, which says that module cost is already at approximately grid parity: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/04/15/opinion/041514krugman1/041514krugman1-blog480.png Real engineers seem to disagree with the idea of renewables - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers Just to be clear, they are disagreeing on the idea of renewables reversing global warming, not on them delivering energy needs. Equally worrying, but a different issue than the original one in this thread. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
I am leaving the post unaltered below for context. See this graphic, which says that module cost is already at approximately grid parity: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/04/15/opinion/041514krugman1/041514krugman1-blog480.png On 02/04/14 02-Apr-2014;8:05 am, Udhay Shankar N wrote: On 17-Jun-13 10:37 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: More on the dropping cost of PV panels: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen as normal. Some more data (the entire piece is worth viewing at the URL below dues to embedded graphics, but I will highlight 2 key parts): http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/the_disruptive_potential_of_solar_power?cid=ResourceRev-eml-alt-mkq-mck-oth-1404 The price US residential consumers pay to install rooftop solar PV (photovoltaic) systems has plummeted from nearly $7 per watt peak of best-in-class system capacity in 2008 to $4 or less in 2013.1 Most of this decline has been the result of steep reductions in upstream (or “hard”) costs, chiefly equipment. Module costs, for example, fell by nearly 30 percent a year between 2008 and 2013, while cumulative installations soared from 1.7 gigawatts in 2009 to an estimated 11 gigawatts by the end of 2013, according to GTM Research. While module costs should continue to fall, even bigger opportunities lurk in the downstream (or “soft”) costs associated with installation and service. Financing, customer acquisition, regulatory incentives, and approvals collectively represent about half the expense of installing residential systems in the United States. Our research suggests that as they become cheaper, the overall costs to consumers are poised to fall to $2.30 by 2015 and to $1.60 by 2020. __ Since the solar installation often puts money in the homeowner’s pocket from day one, it is a relationship that can generate goodwill. But, most important, since solar panels are long-lived assets, often with power-purchase agreements lasting 15 or 20 years, the relationship also should be enduring. That combination may make solar installers natural focal points for the provision of many products and services, from security systems to mortgages to data storage, thermostats, smoke detectors, energy-information services, and other in-home products. As a result, companies in a wide range of industries may benefit from innovative partnerships built on the deep customer relationships that solar players are likely to own. Tesla Motors already has a relationship with SolarCity, for example, to develop battery storage coupled with solar. It is easy to imagine future relationships between many other complementary players. These possibilities suggest a broader point: the solar story is no longer just about technology and regulation. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On 17-Jun-13 10:37 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: More on the dropping cost of PV panels: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen as normal. Some more data (the entire piece is worth viewing at the URL below dues to embedded graphics, but I will highlight 2 key parts): http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/the_disruptive_potential_of_solar_power?cid=ResourceRev-eml-alt-mkq-mck-oth-1404 The price US residential consumers pay to install rooftop solar PV (photovoltaic) systems has plummeted from nearly $7 per watt peak of best-in-class system capacity in 2008 to $4 or less in 2013.1 Most of this decline has been the result of steep reductions in upstream (or “hard”) costs, chiefly equipment. Module costs, for example, fell by nearly 30 percent a year between 2008 and 2013, while cumulative installations soared from 1.7 gigawatts in 2009 to an estimated 11 gigawatts by the end of 2013, according to GTM Research. While module costs should continue to fall, even bigger opportunities lurk in the downstream (or “soft”) costs associated with installation and service. Financing, customer acquisition, regulatory incentives, and approvals collectively represent about half the expense of installing residential systems in the United States. Our research suggests that as they become cheaper, the overall costs to consumers are poised to fall to $2.30 by 2015 and to $1.60 by 2020. __ Since the solar installation often puts money in the homeowner’s pocket from day one, it is a relationship that can generate goodwill. But, most important, since solar panels are long-lived assets, often with power-purchase agreements lasting 15 or 20 years, the relationship also should be enduring. That combination may make solar installers natural focal points for the provision of many products and services, from security systems to mortgages to data storage, thermostats, smoke detectors, energy-information services, and other in-home products. As a result, companies in a wide range of industries may benefit from innovative partnerships built on the deep customer relationships that solar players are likely to own. Tesla Motors already has a relationship with SolarCity, for example, to develop battery storage coupled with solar. It is easy to imagine future relationships between many other complementary players. These possibilities suggest a broader point: the solar story is no longer just about technology and regulation. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On 01-Jul-13 10:52 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/16/ongoing-sharp-drops-in-solar-pv-cost-overlooked-amidst-price-trade-wars-insolvencies/ [2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-pv-costs-set-for-another-30-fall-in-2012-2012 [3] http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain More on the dropping cost of PV panels: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands And some news from the US: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/06/26/another-day-another-1-billion-for-distributed-solar A new bull run appears to be in progress: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/business/energy-environment/solar-power-craze-on-wall-st-propels-start-up.html q Depending on whom you talk to, the rise of SolarCity and similar companies is either a sure sign that solar power is finally having its day or that yet another mania has gripped the markets. Two other companies, SunPower and SunEdison, have also exploded in value. In all, an estimated $13 billion was invested in solar projects in 2013, a tenfold increase since 2007, according to GTM Research, which tracks the industry. Lyndon Rive, a founder of SolarCity, said he wanted to do “something that could solve some of the environmental challenges we’re facing.” Thor Swift for The New York Times Solar companies have had the wind at their backs lately. The broad stock market is coming off its best year since 1997 — the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index rose nearly 30 percent in 2013 — and the shares of many young companies have leaped from one high to another. /q Udhay
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
But is the sun shining on wind-power companies? jrs On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Solar companies have had the wind at their backs lately.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On 17-Jun-13 10:37 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/16/ongoing-sharp-drops-in-solar-pv-cost-overlooked-amidst-price-trade-wars-insolvencies/ [2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-pv-costs-set-for-another-30-fall-in-2012-2012 [3] http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain More on the dropping cost of PV panels: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands And some news from the US: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/06/26/another-day-another-1-billion-for-distributed-solar Another Day, Another $1 Billion For Distributed Solar If distributed solar fails, don’t blame the banks. Over the past few days, the sector has secured just shy of $1 billion in third-party financing from Wall Street to support a sustained and likely spectacular future growth in deal flow. Sunrun, a privately-held rooftop solar solutions provider, secured a whopping $630 million in financing from JPMorgan to purchase and install solar power equipment for homes and then sells the output to homeowners under 20-year lease agreements. The company, based in San Francisco, boasts a total of more than $2 billion in third-party capital for future solar projects. Meanwhile, Wells Fargo said today that it will invest more than $100 million of tax equity financing over the next 18 months in distributed generation solar power projects developed by SunEdison. Since 2007, Wells Fargo has financed about 200 mostly utility-scale solar projects developed by SunEdison in 13 U.S. states and Puerto Rico to the tune of $950 million. Unlike SunRun’s leasing model, SunEdison structures its projects under the terms of a power purchase agreement (PPA). SunEdison builds and manages solar projects it develops to customers who buy the energy produced for a fixed rate specified in the. In both cases, the third-party investors allow SunRun and SunEdison to install solar power equipment without asking customers to pay the upfront costs for customers typically associated with solar projects. Over the past five years, SunEdison has raised more than $5 billion in project finance for solar power plants. SunEdison has interconnected over 1 Gigawatt of solar energy and has a visible pipeline of more than 2.7 GW future projects. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: Speaking about a wipeout, how probable would you see a nuclear conflict arising between failing states? I see huge problems in the Pakistan/India/China corner. The climate shift will probably hit Pakistan much harder than it already is. Sure, we have to keep our eyes on the nukes, but I don't think they will be used by state actors. It's another matter if non-state actors get their hands on them. Big wars involving nukes are not possible anymore for many reasons - fraying patriotism; growing loyalty to regional causes; and disruption of propaganda by new media. Some may yet wish to start one in the hope of distracting the populace, but anyone can see it won't have the same success as in the past. So I am not worried about nukes, but I am worried about the unrest being caused by three things, often interconnected. First is climate change, the second, weak political representation and control, and third, the cold war between US China happening in the subcontinent. Here is the start of a rather lengthy list: - Bangladeshi migration into India Nepal; - riparian conflicts between all states; - civil wars with naxalites, baloch rebels, Islamists and disgruntled local actors; - failing local governments - JK, Karachi, Balochistan, NWFP, Maoist belts - power and water riots in India, PK, Bangladesh - The Chinese string of Pearls - Gwadar, oil pipelines in Burma, etc. It's clear Pakistan is becoming another Afghanistan, but the nukes aren't going to save it. p.s. I'm not entirely sure though that only states have nukes. States like Georgia have been selling nukes for more than ten years, I'd be surprised if some billionaires in the region or elsewhere haven't considered picking one up as insurance.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: [...snip links...] Notice that most of it is very predictable, several days in advance. You are right up to the point that global climate change bites. And even without a climate apocalypse, I thought the margin of error with all such predictions was rather hefty - 15-20%? The problem with gas peak plants is that they run just a few weeks per year, and are not economic without subsidies. The reason coal hasn't gone the way of the dodo (and the nuke) is political. It does increasingly look there will be a premature exit from coal. Coal will always be needed - if not in Europe, then in China or India. We are not going to stop digging as long as there's profit. renewable energy aplenty. This is a problem that won't be solved until we can figure out how to store and normalize the energy or cheaply MWh scale battery storage is making very good advance, and EV battery storage does it at well. You need about an EV scale battery for night cycling. Nanobatteries are a possibility - ten - twenty years away. Germany's natural gas grid can currently buffer 3 months. We know natural gas lines can tolerate 5-15% of hydrogen without refitting, so hydrogen from water electrolysis and synmethane (via Sabatier) are likely ways to absorb surplus of renewables (which already happens regularly, and will become a permanent fixture rather soon). Pipelines are not close to renewable sources - the Nord Stream runs subsea for example - and the transport infrastructure to integrate renewables like you say is expensive - this is why they are just ideas with marginal implementations waiting for something big to change. Pipelines, even subsea pipelines are vulnerable to political unrest - and the world is going to be frothing with unrest for the next decade or two. You can protect an off shore oil platform with a near shore airbase, but a pipeline requires a network of spies and client states. That's hard to build and maintain without cold war mentality. In any case the investments in protecting this sort of thing are huge - and wipe out potential savings. It's interesting that France import electricity during winter from nonuclear Germany -- for electric heating -- and in the summer -- because during heat spells they have to shut down the reactors. Yeah, but the peak production capacity is more than France can handle or distribute effectively, so it's not as if they are lacking the capacity to produce significant amounts of power - nearly 30% of EU's power is French. France lags behind in wind power and other renewable sources: 0.1% of production
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:02:54PM +0530, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: [...snip links...] Notice that most of it is very predictable, several days in advance. You are right up to the point that global climate change bites. And There's a diagnostic in current predictions, where you vary input slightly, and if strongly divergent outcomes occur you know you're in a strongly nonlinear domain, and adjust your accuracy correctly. even without a climate apocalypse, I thought the margin of error with all such predictions was rather hefty - 15-20%? Whatever it is, it is more than good enough in practice. Gas turbines ramp up in 2-3 hours, coal and nuke need 2-3 days. Which means that coal and nuke have a serious handicap, and need to be phased out in favor of more agile plants. The problem with gas peak plants is that they run just a few weeks per year, and are not economic without subsidies. The reason coal hasn't gone the way of the dodo (and the nuke) is political. It does increasingly look there will be a premature exit from coal. Coal will always be needed - if not in Europe, then in China or India. We are not going to stop digging as long as there's profit. I agree that we will burn everything. We'll probably dump as much CO2 as we did the last 1-2 centuries, and of course it will cause considerable methane outgassing, as well as nonlinearities (north polar ice could be ice-free by summer 2014 already, and water is lower albedo than ice). renewable energy aplenty. This is a problem that won't be solved until we can figure out how to store and normalize the energy or cheaply MWh scale battery storage is making very good advance, and EV battery storage does it at well. You need about an EV scale battery for night cycling. Nanobatteries are a possibility - ten - twenty years away. We definitely have an order of magnitude improvement potential. In case of nonmobile applications, the power/weight ratio is far less important than total price, and price over lifetime (how many charge/recharge cycles it can take). Germany's natural gas grid can currently buffer 3 months. We know natural gas lines can tolerate 5-15% of hydrogen without refitting, so hydrogen from water electrolysis and synmethane (via Sabatier) are likely ways to absorb surplus of renewables (which already happens regularly, and will become a permanent fixture rather soon). Pipelines are not close to renewable sources - the Nord Stream runs I'm talking about water electrolysis, which can be a fridge-sized unit for invididual homes, larger for municipalities. It can be located directly next to a gasholder, or an underground pressurized tank. Sabatier can be also small (they're considering running a Sabatier plant on the ISS). subsea for example - and the transport infrastructure to integrate renewables like you say is expensive - this is why they are just ideas No, the transport and storage for 3 months is there. You can bump it up reasonably cheaply, as it's decentral. with marginal implementations waiting for something big to change. Pipelines, even subsea pipelines are vulnerable to political unrest - The whole point of decentral renewable is you produce where your consumption is. If you run the math, Netherlands or Germany would be fully energy self-reliant. There would be no need for import. Other countries would do even better. and the world is going to be frothing with unrest for the next decade I expect that we'll see serious disruption (famines) beginning in 2020, being very serious on 2030 and the world being an extremely different place in 2050. Due to the sins of omission in the last 40 years the course for the next 40 years is already charted. We can only influence the outcomes by reengingeering the more complex systems of the world to fail gracefully, so that the resulting systems will be more resilient, and that the degradation will be not a series of catastrophes, but a more controlled degradation, eventually arrested. In order for it to happen we need the awareness to be present. Unfortunately, I do not see this awareness at the moment, so we might have chosen the pessimum trajectory. or two. You can protect an off shore oil platform with a near shore airbase, but a pipeline requires a network of spies and client states. That's hard to build and maintain without cold war mentality. In any case the investments in protecting this sort of thing are huge - and wipe out potential savings. Speaking about a wipeout, how probable would you see a nuclear conflict arising between failing states? I see huge problems in the Pakistan/India/China corner. The climate shift will probably hit Pakistan much harder than it already is. It's interesting that France import electricity during winter from nonuclear Germany -- for electric heating -- and in the summer -- because during heat spells
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:37:47PM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: More on the dropping cost of PV panels: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its It's not alternative energy, it's alternativeless energy. We've ran out of most of things and are running out of the rest. We have nowhere else to go. connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen as normal. What, you mean it isn't? http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/154467 Looks pretty normal to me. Wind farms already provide 2% of the world’s electricity, and their 9% herabouts last year. Higher this year. capacity is doubling every three years. If that growth rate is maintained, wind power will overtake nuclear’s contribution to the world’s energy accounts in about a decade. Though it still has its opponents, wind is thus already a grown-up technology. But it is in the field of solar energy, currently only a quarter of a percent of the planet’s electricity supply, but which grew 86% last year, that the 4.6% hereabouts last year. Much higher this year. biggest shift of attitude will be seen, for sunlight has the potential to disrupt the electricity market completely. Related topics The underlying cause of this disruption is a phenomenon that solar’s supporters call Swanson’s law, in imitation of Moore’s law of transistor cost. Moore’s law suggests that the size of transistors (and also their cost) halves every 18 months or so. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Price is the less important factor, EROEI and ability to scale up (we're currently running a two order of magnitude deployment deficit planetwide) is. In terms of solar, you need 3 TWp/year, or 1 TW/year effective. That's the equivalent of 2000 of 500 MW nuclear reactors or large coal plants. Swanson, the founder of SunPower, a big American solar-cell manufacturer, suggests that the cost of the photovoltaic cells needed to generate solar power falls by 20% with each doubling of global manufacturing capacity. The upshot (see chart) is that the modules used to make solar-power plants now cost less than a dollar per watt of And inverters costs don't fall nearly as fast, and along with manpower now dominate the installation costs. capacity. Power-station construction costs can add $4 to that, but these, too, are falling as builders work out how to do the job better. And running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free. Coal-fired plants, for comparison, cost about $3 a watt to build in the Peak total fossil and nonbreeder (breeders don't work) fissible is 2020. You have to factor in that fuel availability will be highly uncertain, nevermind that the price might go into regions, where no prices have ever gone before. United States, and natural-gas plants cost $1. But that is before the Fracking gas in the US will be over before 2020. fuel to run them is bought. In sunny regions such as California, then, photovoltaic power could already compete without subsidy with the more And not in sunny regions, too. Germany's photovoltaics is already competitive. You can harvest about 2-3x from the same panel in places with higher flux. expensive parts of the traditional power market, such as the natural-gas-fired “peaker” plants kept on stand-by to meet surges in demand. Moreover, technological developments that have been proved in the laboratory but have not yet moved into the factory mean Swanson’s law still has many years to run. Running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free Comparing the cost of wind and solar power with that of coal- and gas-fired electricity generation is more than just a matter of comparing the costs of the plant and the fuel, of course. Reliability of supply is a crucial factor, for the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. But the problem of reliability is the subject of And the coal will not always be available. intensive research. Many organisations, both academic and commercial, are working on ways to store electricity when it is in surplus, so that it can be used when it is scarce. Progress is particularly likely during 2013 in the field of flow batteries. These devices, hybrids between traditional batteries and fuel cells, use liquid electrolytes, often made from cheap materials such as iron, to squirrel away huge amounts of energy in chemical form. “Grid-scale” storage of this or some other sort is the second way, after Swanson’s law, that the economics of renewable energy will be transformed. One consequence of all this progress is that subsidies for wind and solar power have
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: in rich countries. In the end, though, they too will change as the alternatives become normal, and what was once normal becomes quaintly old-fashioned. It has been quaintly old-fashioned for many years now where I sit. Renewables don't work when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow or the water doesn't flow - so most of Europe keeps its thermal capacity critically active (40-50% fuel load) even when there's renewable energy aplenty. This is a problem that won't be solved until we can figure out how to store and normalize the energy or cheaply distribute it. France does something interesting with spare nuclear power - they pump water up into mountain dams in Switzerland, and gain back the power on demand via hydroelectric turbines.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:29:30PM +0530, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: in rich countries. In the end, though, they too will change as the alternatives become normal, and what was once normal becomes quaintly old-fashioned. It has been quaintly old-fashioned for many years now where I sit. Renewables don't work when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't Do look at the actual data in http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2012.pdf http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2011.pdf Notice that most of it is very predictable, several days in advance. blow or the water doesn't flow - so most of Europe keeps its thermal capacity critically active (40-50% fuel load) even when there's The problem with gas peak plants is that they run just a few weeks per year, and are not economic without subsidies. The reason coal hasn't gone the way of the dodo (and the nuke) is political. It does increasingly look there will be a premature exit from coal. renewable energy aplenty. This is a problem that won't be solved until we can figure out how to store and normalize the energy or cheaply MWh scale battery storage is making very good advance, and EV battery storage does it at well. You need about an EV scale battery for night cycling. Germany's natural gas grid can currently buffer 3 months. We know natural gas lines can tolerate 5-15% of hydrogen without refitting, so hydrogen from water electrolysis and synmethane (via Sabatier) are likely ways to absorb surplus of renewables (which already happens regularly, and will become a permanent fixture rather soon). distribute it. France does something interesting with spare nuclear power - they pump It's interesting that France import electricity during winter from nonuclear Germany -- for electric heating -- and in the summer -- because during heat spells they have to shut down the reactors. water up into mountain dams in Switzerland, and gain back the power on Works where you have such terrain. Don't think this will ever viable in the plains. demand via hydroelectric turbines.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On 18-Jan-13 8:37 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: While no expert, I understand the main reason wind is taking precedence over solar as the alternate energy source of choice at the moment is the relatively higher cost of photo voltaic panels. That won't last long, the cost has dropped 75% in the past 2 years [1] [2]. I am more concerned about ERoEI [3]. Udhay [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/16/ongoing-sharp-drops-in-solar-pv-cost-overlooked-amidst-price-trade-wars-insolvencies/ [2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-pv-costs-set-for-another-30-fall-in-2012-2012 [3] http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain [whole post above retained for context] More on the dropping cost of PV panels: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen as normal. Wind farms already provide 2% of the world’s electricity, and their capacity is doubling every three years. If that growth rate is maintained, wind power will overtake nuclear’s contribution to the world’s energy accounts in about a decade. Though it still has its opponents, wind is thus already a grown-up technology. But it is in the field of solar energy, currently only a quarter of a percent of the planet’s electricity supply, but which grew 86% last year, that the biggest shift of attitude will be seen, for sunlight has the potential to disrupt the electricity market completely. Related topics The underlying cause of this disruption is a phenomenon that solar’s supporters call Swanson’s law, in imitation of Moore’s law of transistor cost. Moore’s law suggests that the size of transistors (and also their cost) halves every 18 months or so. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Swanson, the founder of SunPower, a big American solar-cell manufacturer, suggests that the cost of the photovoltaic cells needed to generate solar power falls by 20% with each doubling of global manufacturing capacity. The upshot (see chart) is that the modules used to make solar-power plants now cost less than a dollar per watt of capacity. Power-station construction costs can add $4 to that, but these, too, are falling as builders work out how to do the job better. And running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free. Coal-fired plants, for comparison, cost about $3 a watt to build in the United States, and natural-gas plants cost $1. But that is before the fuel to run them is bought. In sunny regions such as California, then, photovoltaic power could already compete without subsidy with the more expensive parts of the traditional power market, such as the natural-gas-fired “peaker” plants kept on stand-by to meet surges in demand. Moreover, technological developments that have been proved in the laboratory but have not yet moved into the factory mean Swanson’s law still has many years to run. Running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free Comparing the cost of wind and solar power with that of coal- and gas-fired electricity generation is more than just a matter of comparing the costs of the plant and the fuel, of course. Reliability of supply is a crucial factor, for the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. But the problem of reliability is the subject of intensive research. Many organisations, both academic and commercial, are working on ways to store electricity when it is in surplus, so that it can be used when it is scarce. Progress is particularly likely during 2013 in the field of flow batteries. These devices, hybrids between traditional batteries and fuel cells, use liquid electrolytes, often made from cheap materials such as iron, to squirrel away huge amounts of energy in chemical form. “Grid-scale” storage of this or some other sort is the second way, after Swanson’s law, that the economics of renewable energy will be transformed. One consequence of all this progress is that subsidies for wind and solar power have fallen over recent years. In 2013, they will fall further. Though subsidies will not disappear entirely, the so-called alternatives will be seen to stand on their own feet in a way that was not true in the past. That will give them political clout and lead to questions about the subventions which more traditional forms of power generation enjoy (coal production, for example, is heavily subsidised in parts of Europe). Fossil-fuel-powered electricity will not be pushed aside quickly. Fracking, a technological breakthrough which enables natural gas to be extracted cheaply from shale, means that gas-fired power
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:37:55AM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Divya Sampath divyasamp...@yahoo.com wrote: While no expert, I understand the main reason wind is taking precedence over solar as the alternate energy source of choice at the moment is the relatively higher cost of photo voltaic panels. That won't last long, the cost has dropped 75% in the past 2 years [1] [2]. I am more concerned about ERoEI [3]. CdTe has EROEI of of 43:1, and rising (and of course it's recyclable, CIGS has about the same energy density as enrichened uranium over lifetime, and of course it is also fully recyclabe), while in its heyday oil had 100:1 and is now down to 25:1 in best locations, and much lower (below 10:1) in others. I wonder solar is still called 'alternative' energy. It should be called alternativeless energy. There is really no other way to keep this civilisation running.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: CdTe has EROEI of of 43:1, and rising (and of course it's recyclable, CIGS has about the same energy density as enrichened uranium over lifetime, and of course it is also fully recyclabe), while in its heyday oil had 100:1 and is now down to 25:1 in best locations, and much lower (below 10:1) in others. You have recent cites for these? My searches are throwing up various posts by you. :) Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 06:18:34PM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: CdTe has EROEI of of 43:1, and rising (and of course it's recyclable, CIGS has about the same energy density as enrichened uranium over lifetime, and of course it is also fully recyclabe), while in its heyday oil had 100:1 and is now down to 25:1 in best locations, and much lower (below 10:1) in others. You have recent cites for these? My searches are throwing up various posts by you. :) There is http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5573 and references mention Life cycle assessment and energy pay-back time of advanced photovoltaic modules: CdTe and CIS compared to poly-Si, by Marco Raugei, Silvia Bargiglia and Sergio Ulgiati at Energy Volume 32, Issue 8, August 2007, Pages 1310-1318 Update of PV energy payback times and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions V. Fthenakis, H.C. Kim, M. Held, M. Raugei and J. Krones, 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 21-25 September 2009, Hamburg, Germany I think there's a considerable headroom in thin-film PV which could bring us to 100:1. Even more importantly, we need self-reproducing self-reparing systems, very like biology. For these even relatively modest EROEI doesn't matter, since their lifetimes are very long, and they auto-deploy. Your only issue is harvesting the energy, hopefully conveniently packaged.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: There is http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5573 I saw that, but your post made me think the state of the art has advanced since 2007. No? Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:50:23PM +0530, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: I wonder solar is still called 'alternative' energy. It should be called alternativeless energy. There is really no other way to keep this civilisation running. India is betting on the entire spectrum - imported coal, wind energy, Peak coal is 2030, if not earlier due to recent shift to coal due to loss of liquids. fast-breed thorium reactors and even solar panels in space. It doesn't Nobody has built a working alternative fuelcycle MSR breeder yet, not for lack of trying. SPS only makes sense much after 2050, after we've exhausted terrestrial solar, and it has to be built using extraterrestrial material due to http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/tag/eroei/ yet have to worry about evening out utilization factors against demand Do you have data for peak demand in India? It's pretty much exactly around noon in Germany, which seems somewhat anomalous. since any power generated is soaked up by the power hungry nation, but renewables are worryingly backed already by conventional power in most of Europe for ensuring stability of supply. The German energy grid already is at 21.9% renewable, 135 TWh total. Wind was 45 TWh, biomass 41 TWh, photovoltaics 28.5 TWh and hydro 20.5 TWh. In fact, the gas turbine peak plants will be probably subsidized, since they have to run so rarely they're not cost effective. When global spending on consumables has grown 250 fold in less than 60 years, it does appear too much to hope for sustainable economics to become rightfully popular. Some resources are less scarce than others, so there might be some growth possible, even just here down on Earth http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3086 All the same, I view a global culture that lusts after consumables as an aberration since it destroys in its wake many social practices and ecosystems nurtured over centuries and millennia. I agree, but humanity is burning through this planet, and won't stop unless the environment pushes back. We're actually at the peak of the overshoot, so things are bound to get very interesting by 2030 latest.
Re: [silk] Energy: 100% of global power from solar using 1% of total land surface
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 06:46:56PM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: I saw that, but your post made me think the state of the art has advanced since 2007. No? The problem with EROEI is that the total lifecycle computation is complicated, and there are several ways to do it, which produce different numbers. E.g. there are simple fabrication steps to reduce the energy by e.g. dropping the aluminium frames from the assembly. You could double the lifetime by going back to silicone sealing between glass instead of acetate foil which is poor water vapor barrier, and so on. My hunch is that there will be progress by going away from glass and using metal foil and sheet metal, or straight polymer. I think 100:1 will be possible, eventually.
