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 fallen over recent years. In 2013, they will fall > further. Though subsidies will not disappear entirely, the so-called Subsidies are being killed in Germany faster than elsewhere. > 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 stations, which Not cheaply. > already produce a fifth of the world’s electricity, will keep the > pressure on wind and solar to get better still. But even if natural gas Somebody hasn't done her homework on peak fossil. Actually gas turbine peak plants need subsidies in Germany, as they only run few weeks in year, which makes them cost-ineffective. It's *renewable* that's bringing the prices down and makes coal, nuclear and methane unable to compete. > were free, no Swanson’s law-like process applies to the plant required > to turn it into electricity. Nuclear power is not a realistic > alternative. It is too unpopular and the capital costs are huge. And Forget the unpopular, the economics are all broken. > coal’s days seem numbered. In America, the share of electricity > generated from coal has fallen from almost 80% in the mid-1980s to less > than a third in April 2012, and coal-fired power stations are closing in > droves. The opposite in Germany, but that's a political problem. > It may take longer to make the change in China and India, where demand > for power is growing almost insatiably, and where the grids to take that > power from windy and sunny places to the cities are less developed than If you don't have money to invest into the grids, then make your own power and use most of it. Air conditioning would be a very good case. > 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. > Geoffrey Carr: science editor, The Economist > > From The World In 2013 print edition
