Slashdot Mirror
Solar Power Headed For 45% Annual Growth
mdsolar writes "USA Today is running a pretty good article on solar power that gives an overview of the current state of the industry. Highlight include production costs of $1.19/Watt for First Solar, 40% annual cost reductions over the
last five years, revenues expected to triple in three years, and a prediction for 2014 as the year when solar photovoltaic power plants become cheaper than other forms of generation. From the piece: 'Like wind power, solar energy is spotty, working at full capacity an average 20% to 30% of the time. Solar's big advantage is that it supplies the most electricity midday, when demand peaks. And it can be located at homes and businesses, reducing the need to build pollution-belching power plants and unsightly transmission lines. In states such as California, with high electricity prices and government incentives, solar is already a bargain for some customers. Wal-Mart recently said it's putting solar panels on more than 20 of its stores in California and Hawaii. Google is blanketing its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters with 9,212 solar panels, enough to light 1,000 homes.'"
It's going to go from 0.00001% to 0.000015%. Great!
It's going to go from 0.00001% to 0.000015%. Great!
:)
No, silly, its gonna go up to 0.0000145%
finally at my fingertips ... I just need a good battery now. f*ck you, corporations.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Solar Output to lessen by 45%
The following replies are posted by unwashed nerds.
Plus, there's the guys doing electricity by converting solar heat using sterling engines http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp and the work converting heat into electricity using an intermediate sound conversion step http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/07060 3225026.htm.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Solar's big advantages are that it is essentially pollution free, doesn't up CO2, reduces petroleum requirements which means more lubricants, plastics and so on at reasonable prices, reduction of political leverage of oil rich countries, increase in ability to operate independently at every level from national to individual, and over the long term, it costs less.
Combined with ultracaps, hopefully to be seen as practical power storage come this fall (via EEStor), the power supply landscape may change significantly in the next decade or so.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I like the advantage (over petrofuels) that its fuel is free, without forcing the US to kowtow to foreign tyrants who sometimes try to kill us, and sometimes need to get rescued from people trying to kill them, and nearly always are at the center of global warfare.
--
make install -not war
$1.19/Watt??? maybe $/Joule or $/Wh
Here's the thing, though: Photovoltaic cells aren't the best way to utilize solar energy. As a trivial example, the Boston MoS featured an algae tube that produced hydrogen in the sunlight. Using that H2 to produce power is a lot more efficient than a standard PV cell. The only trouble* is "but that's not the way we do things nowww!" so it hasn't caught on. Once the infastructure is in place, though, I foresee fields of this stuff. *Plus, y'know, it's algae. "Ewww, slimy!" :D
Many people tout solar as the solution to the world's energy problems - yet most neglect the issue of its low energy density ... it takes a lot of solar panels to match the power generation of even a small coal power plant let alone a nuclear power plant, etc.
... there's always a tradeoff with energy generation.
Most people don't want to live in a place that's covered in solar panels and windmills far as the eye can see...
And on a related note, neither windmills nor solar panels are benign - they both have a subtle effect on the environment
With all that said, for personal / household use solar has much promise, assuming the price can be reduced further, such as panels on roofs, etc to help people augment their energy needs.
Ron
Great. So we're just going to use up the sun's energy faster.
I hope you bastards freeze in the dark.
since the first serious calculations were done to determine the feasibility of orbital solar power plants. The results *then* indicated that it was the only economically feasible way to supply the world's future energy needs. Since then, both space and solar cell technology has improved dramatically. Meanwhile, billions of dollars is being sunk into fusion research and there's no expectation that a clean fusion reactor will be developed in the next 50 years.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ever see what goes into producing silicon solar cells?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
>> USA Today is running a pretty good article
Also, pigs soar above the frozen wasteland that was hell.
Oh, that's right. one of the worst factories ever with regard to the environment; an Integrated Circuit Fab. I like it when hippies talk about how perfect solar is. Let's not forget that we need nasty chemicals like Arsenic to make solar cells.
Investing in panel makers? Maybe. Investing in a home installation? Call me when the break even point drops below 10 years. How many people even live in their houses for that long anymore? Sure, it may add some equity to your home, but not much, especially if the prices DO fall and/or the efficiency of the panels increases significantly during that 10 years. Imagine trying to include your 5 year old computer as part of your home's equity. You're risking a very similar situation with solar.
You're also betting that grid power won't get any cheaper, which may or may not be a good bet, depending on the fuel source of your local power plant. If solar/microgeneration takes off, there could be an abundance of grid power, causing prices to plummet, especially if people start generating more power than they use -- unlikely, but certainly possible if panel efficiencies increase. The only advantage you have is that grid power can never drop below the cost of maintaining the plant and the distribution network, no matter how cheap the fuel. Nonetheless, my feeling is that there's no time like the present -- to put off a solar installation.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I wonder how much sunlight would have to be absorbed by power cells instead of all being converted to heat by the usual materials that currently absorb it, before it makes any dent in the increase in global warming.
--
make install -not war
By the power vested in my pedigree; college binge-drinking; and well-known cocaine use, I, George W. Bush, do hereby suspend the
the IP address of the infidel web site known as "Slashdot" until you disavow all energy sources EXCEPT oil.
Sincerely,
President-VICE Richard B. Cheney for "President" George W. Bush.
Be Patriotic: Keep buying those SUVs and trucks.
The energy density can be 200+W per square meter. I consider this is very high. http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/ has more information.
I don't know how much people can be consider "most". But I know all the people don't want to pay utility bills.
Solar and windmills make subtle effect to environment while coal power plant makes significant if not dramatic effect on the environment.
Solar and fusion may ultimately solve our energy quest together.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
I have been looking into building a small solar electric system, the problem I came into was how to store the energy. A grid-tie inverter is not a cheap thing if you want to build a small system. The other problem is that in a battery array age and type of the batteries are important. (those Trojan 105s look like a decent battery though). I am more likely now to build an electric car and charge off an array (would be for around town I commute ~80 a day so no go for an electric rig until storage gets better). For now I suppose I will just get a few 6 volt batteries and run a 400w inverter for lights, fan, electric fence charger...
Yay, google has coated its building with solar panels. Meanwhile, the wind blows freely over some farmers fields. But I guess spending all that money to impress some farmer just isnt worth it when you can impress anyone who visits Google HQ, even though wind power is actually a better way of generating electricity.
Sure, PV modules don't convert all they see to useful electricity. Where they really shine (sorry) is that they generate that power AT THE POINT OF USE.
Look at the chart on p 8 (of 41) of this pdf from Lawrence Livermore National Labs.
Note that of the 38.2 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of electrical energy produced in the USA in 2002, fully 26.3 quads never get used! That's where the real power (sorry again) of solar is found.
Oh, that's right. one of the worst factories ever with regard to the environment; an Integrated Circuit Fab. I like it when hippies talk about how perfect solar is. Let's not forget that we need nasty chemicals like Arsenic to make solar cells.
*ahem ahem*
Berkeley Scientists Synthesize Cheap, Easy-to-Make Ultra-thin Photovoltaic Films
40% efficient solar cells to be used for solar electricity
Titania nanotubes could boost solar cell efficiency
Pink solar cells provide green power on the cheap
Carbon nanotubes could help make nanoparticle-based solar cells more efficient and practical.
Quantum Dots Enables New Advances in Solar Cell Industry
Green and cheap enough for ya?
No matter which way the sun light goes, it ends up as heat and radiate back to the universe in the infrared spectrum. And there are some molecules like CO2, CH4 and water can absorb those infrared, so this is the green house effect. If there are too much CO2 in the air, we get too much heat preserved on our planet. But using photovoltaic, we can cut down the amount of CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere, so solar energy can reduce the green house effect. And relieve the so called global warming.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
That has a nice irony about it.
It all ends up as heat anyway, and yes, you're absorbing more energy from the sun than you would be otherwise. The question is, is it more or less than the equivalent CO2 produced by conventional generation.
Deleted
10 years? I'm looking at a 5-7 year ROI in Southern California.
(Less if you figure the asset value in the house.)
As for betting on future (grid) energy prices, I'm going to bet that it's not going to get cheaper over the next 10 years. You are free to bet on the utilities lowering prices, alternate fuels being cheaper, overproduction of solar energy, and Unicorns.
There were 1.7 GW installed in 2006: http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2007-intro.htm bringing the world up to about 6 GW. At a typical 5 hours per day equivilent peak generation that comes to 11 billion kWh per year. World net generation was 16,590.6 billion kWh per year in 2004: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1116.html, so your fraction should be 0.07%, off by about 4 orders of magnitude. At 45% growth, how long would it take to replace world net generation? Somewhat less that 22 years since 1.45^22=3550 which would imply that more than half of the worlds net generation would be fabricated in the year 2028, with the rest fabricated prior to that year. Since panels last 25 years or longer there would have been little need to replace existing solar PV capacity by that time.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent residential solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Nope - unsightly is a small scale NIMBY problem - the real grief they cause is the losses incurred due to transmission and the investment in step up/line/step down infrastructure (which costs a large amount of money to install and maintain).
Maybe. Investing in a home installation? Call me when the break even point drops below 10 years. How many people even live in their houses for that long anymore?
There is growing evidence that CA suffered shortages and blackouts because generators wanted higher prices for themselves. They got those prices and more!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you're buying from your electric company, you don't buy power at all. You buy energy (which would be Joules, Watt-Hours, or, typically, Kilowatt-Hours). If you're buying your own power generation source, then you're very likely buying based off of how much power can be delivered — which is measured in Watts.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Solar power has to do with distribution lines (4kv-21kv), not transmission (60kv-750kv). And if there were no distribution lines no one would reap the rewards from the power company paying you for producing power. The effect of solar power is and will amost always be minimal.
If we promise to relocate the scorpions to Michael Vick's jail cell, I think we can cut a deal with PETA.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
is if solar panel this days is able to produce enough energy to create another solar panel. Energy from PV is clean but what about process for producing solar panels? Is it clean ? It's the same story with electric cars...etc. Just think !
I did a napkin calculation a year or so ago and at that time, you could give 100k houses free 1.5mw solar power (with inverters, trackers, and batteries) each year for the cost of the Iraq war.
Sounds like a lot- but it's really not.
However... the price is dropping. At some point very soon- you could give 1 million houses free solar power each year. And then they question is why are we wasting blood and treasure in a foreign land.
OTH- I think that solar will not get much cheaper than oil for a long time.
If solar is cheaper, the producers, or the government will be more likely to take extra profits or taxes. So if oil power is $2 bucks a unit, then solar power is going to be roughly $2 bucks per unit.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The first thing to bear in mind is that conservation is almost always more economical than production.
In the area where I live, the local power company has to pay $0.40 / kWH for any solar power you pump back into the grid. At that rate, the payback is real fast.
As an extreme example, I once installed pv solar panels in the high arctic where the sun only shines for eight months. Because of the expense of any other kind of power, the system paid for itself in one season! (The alternative was to fly batteries into a remote site by helicopter at $400/hr.)
One of the things that most people forget is that the money you save is after tax dollars. If I save a dollar, I have an extra dollar. If I earn a dollar, I have half a dollar because of taxes. In other words, it makes more sense to invest in solar power for my house than to invest my money in stocks or bonds!
There is also something to be said for the military advantages of decentralized power generation. Look at the way we make war:
Step 1. Destroy utilities, power plants, hospitals.
Result: Population is crippled, and unable to fight back.
How many power plants would you have to take out to cripple New York City? Not that many I think. If all of our electrical power is generated on rooftops, our infrastructure is less attackable.
Storms can also cause huge problems: Katrina.
Or what about accidents? remember that huge east coast blackout a couple of years ago?
I'm supposed to be working right now.
I came across an interesting article explaning how California utility PG&E is entering into a contract to obtian used batteries from electric cars: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2 _archive/2007/08/01/100138830/index.htm. They'll use these for stationary storage. If the
current fleet is converted to electric, I calculate that these used batteries can store about half a day of our energy use: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. That does not cover seasonal variations in solar power, but it does look more like getting
base load as well as peak from solar.s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money by renting solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Assuming you live in a developed country somewhere near other people, chances are very good you have a magic technology that allows you to outsource the "keeping it on your roof" part.
It's called the electricity grid, and for most people, you can buy "green power" (that is, for every kwh you consume, the utility buys a kwh of renewables, usually wind), from it far cheaper than you can put a solar system, even a grid-connected one with net metering, on your roof.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The article states "...prices still have fallen about 90% since the mid-1980s -- 40% annually the past five years...".
This doesn't make much sense.
Let's say that 5 years ago, it cost $1.00 to create a particular amount of electricity via solar.
Now, if that falls 40% per year, we have
Year 1: $0.60
Year 2: $0.36
Year 3: $0.216
Year 4: $0.1296
Year 5: $0.07776
So that would mean a ~92% reduction in cost per watt in the last 5 years alone. I doubt that production cost was stagnant from the mid-1980s until 5 years ago. Given that these numbers are apparently from the same source, and apparently in conflict, I don't trust either of them.
The reason why the big-central-plant generation model is still favoured by most over distributed generation is that distributed generation is way more expensive, particularly if the grid is already built.
Have you gone off-grid yourself? How much did it cost, and have you micromanaged your energy consumption to make it work? If you haven't, might I suggest you investigate the costs and then get back to us?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Could not resist this: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/franklin3.ht ml s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power for what you pay now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The grid is actually remarkably efficient for an energy distribution system - it loses only 9% of its energy input. The vast majority of the electrical losses in this chart come from converting heat energy to mechanical energy to electric energy. Converting energy between its various forms is always expensive (those pesky laws of thermodynamics!!)
Have a look at the graph on this page. The retail price for solar panels has been essentially static for the past few years.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Meanwhile, while we waste ten times in dollars as the Iraqi oil we're trying to steal on a civil war that we have no reason to be involved in, the EU is on track to achieve 25 percent of their total energy supply from alternative energy.
If we were serious you'd be seeing increases of 1000 to 5000 percent every year.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Dream on.
The oil gets expensive.
The alternatives do well.
The oil gets cheaper.
The alternatives die.
It is a cycle.
Just watch.
We have plenty of oil and the alternatives are a joke.
http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/peak.html
Your electrical energy provider might already have a program that lets you pay a few cents more for 'green' electricity.
In Alberta and Ontario, you can sign up with Bullfrog Power (I did just last week). For an extra 2c/kWh (less than $6/mo for me) they put 'green' electricity on the grid to match what I used.
In Alberta they use wind power, in Ontario a mix of wind and 'low impact' water generation. I imagine if more people sign up and solar power price drops as TFA says, that they'll be adding solar to the mix shortly.
At current system efficiencies (17%) residential rooftops can supply 46% of net generation. That is more that the residential sector consumes. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. Land
area is not really an issue with solar.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power with no installation charge: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
1) Take a bunch of largish mirrors and shape them into a dish 37' in diameter.
2) Point all the mirrors at a Stirling engine.
3) Attach the output of the Stirling engine to 20kw generator.
4) Track the sun through the sky.
5) ???
6) Profit.
"One dish on an annual basis can produce 55,000-60,000 kWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the total energy required for 8-10 homes in the U.S." (Stirling Energy Systems FAQ)
Too bad these guys already stole your idea!
if you don't mind having to move a big weight, look into getting electric forklift battery packs instead. A much better deal dollar wise there than trojans or rolls-surrettes, etc. The smaller batteries can be hand moved (although they are still quite heavy), but the cost is significantly higher. The forklift battery packs are already wired with welded busbars as well, so it saves a little more there, too, parts plus labor. You mentioned an electric fence so I will assume you are a rural guy like me and can handle moving stout stuff with your equipment.
Anyway, solar works, and well, within its limitations. Once you have it up and installed the only remaining question you will have is why did you wait. The first time your grid juice goes down and you still have full power, you'll *really* smile about it. Maintenance is pretty easy, occasionally clean the panels off and top off the batts with distilled water. I used good disconnects and actually covered the panels before, or did the maintenance at night on new moon nights when the least amount of power is being generated. Also wait for the batts to cool down a little before opening them up, and pour in the fresh water slowly, and you can read up how to build a proper battery bank housing unit with ventilation, which is required, you use a small DC fan as an air PUSHER into the unit with an exhaust someplace safe, you don't PULL the gassy air out. big PVC pipe is fine, the bottom of your storage bank container gets lined with sintra and put some baking soda down there on the bottom, just in case. I found a bright headlamp worked good for battery maintenance, keeping my hands free,(and goggles of course and rubber gloves, cheap insurance) and a big turkey baster for the last little bits into the cells to get it "just right". Just remember, you got a LOT of amps sitting there, you don't want to weld yourself!
Oh ya, on the batts. Double size your battery bank (or a lot more than what you think, whatever). Figure out what you need, get double, then they are always shallow cycling and they will last a long time, plus install a "desulphator", you can google that up and see which one you might like, they work pretty well from my experience, the batts I have one on are from 98 and still working fine.
the future of mankind on any one type? I don't. About the only type of energy that makes NO sense is the coal and natural gas. Sadly, they and nuclear fission are the only real choices that we currently have. Wind is up and coming, but it will take a while. If we really were thinking long-term, we would increase our geo-thermal research. Even a MIT report supports that concept.
As to orbital solar plants, they will only come about when space travel gets cheap enough. Now, I know that you know the status of that situation. It is coming along, but at this time, it is still not there. But even when it is cheap enough, then you have the issue of the solar cells being low costs AND efficient.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Everyone likes to think that solar is getting cheaper every year just like computers and disk drives, but it's not true. Look at this chart:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/
You will see that solar panel prices bottomed out back in 2003 and have been rising ever since. Demand is exceeding supply thanks to ever more generous subsidies, especially in Germany, which have driven up worldwide price. The truth is that solar costs more today than it has for several years, and costs are still rising slowly. It is a myth that solar prices are constantly coming down.
Old Navy just announced a 45% annual growth in pocket sizes in an effort keep up with the growing size of solar calculators.
Doesn't on-site production eliminate all the energy wasted due to resistance in power lines, etc?
All of the sun's energy we harness as electricity ends up as heat anyway, either through electrical resistance or mechanical friction.
until the Earth melts?
The latest Slashdot meme.
> Solar's big advantage is that it supplies the most
> electricity midday, when demand peaks.
huh?
I live in Arizona and was taking with an APS rep about green technologies a few years ago. Turns out that peak demand is about 4-5PM during workdays. That is because all of Industrial, Retail, and Home are all actively eating lots of energy between 4 and 5 pm.
Unfortunately, Solar doesn't do as well at 4-5PM as we would all like.
I'm a small enough customer that the utility tacks on a charge for the privilege of charging me. (Actually, I think most customers get this charge, but it's a significant fraction of my bill.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Good timing on this story. I'm in the final phases of installing a 10kw solar array at my workplace in Seattle, Washington. It's one of the largest privately financed projects in the state. I just created a gallery for the pictures of the install. The payback time for the array is about 7 years. It was pretty easy to do, and just looks cool. http://www.jbdg.com/gallery/solarinstall/index.htm l
> I'd suggest we all stop taking holidays abroad on aeroplanes
Are you kidding me? You want me to give up visiting someplace interesting so you can drive your car around on cheap gas a little longer or wait a few extra years before downsizing your living accomidations?
Screw you.
Anyone who doesn't take a trip to China or Russia or Australia now won't ever be able to afford one in 10 years. I'd much rather go without a car right now and live in a small apartment and walk to work - and travel around the world - than give it all up just so some other hosers can squander the engergy a little longer on something else.
Hell - if peak oil is such an absolute certainty, you'd do well to building massive tanks and just buying all you can afford and holding onto it for 10 years.
3% per year is a long, long way from 40% per year. Other manufactured goods have been dropping in price a lot faster.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Have any of you ever seen or used a Stirling engine? They aren't very easy to get running right. The heat eventually gets evenly distributed and theirs no way to make it move until it cools down. Thats why they weren't that widely used originally and were only good for things like pumping water, since it could cool the block while pumping. My dad made one of the original 2 cylinder ones and I think it was probably a flaw in the design that caused it to stop. My old man, he's in tool and die and has to machine things down to ridiculous tolerances smaller than 1/100 the width of human hair, and he made it at work with those same CNC mills and lathes. The model had heat fins and only had to move a fan. Looking at the site it doesn't describe cooling, it has a little line on a diagram of one of their engines that says cooling and points to a blue piece.With water cooling, i would think it would suck a lot of power from the engine and you would need to push more water the bigger you make it. So i'm thinking between cost of engineering, manufacturing, and maintenance of the wearing parts also the fact they don't work as well in hot weather with all the places crazy about solar being hot (arizona,california...) solid state could probably beat it out for $/watt.
The hydroelectric that can be developed within USA and EU has been. Canada can still develop some. In addition, there is LOADS more within Russia, china, and most of the 3rd world countries. But in the end, it is not going to replace even a small amount of the coal plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
-- Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts?
Solar technologies are getting better, but they aren't getting that much better.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
they reach the 1.21 giggawatts needed for the flux capacitor.
I've been having a discussion with Chuck DeVore who is in the California Assembly: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-dormouse- said.html. He is very pro-nuke and anti-solar. One thing that has come up is the Pacific Intertie which carries power from the Northwest to LA. He points out that the
Northwest is growing and may not have power to send in the future. That is where he comes from originally. If that future includes solar, then the power might flow in the other direction. I don't think I've persuaded him yet, but it is a very impressive piece of hardware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie. s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The cells do degrade mostly owing to cosmic rays creating defects in the doping layer. So, they'll perform to better than 80% over 25 years. In 100 years they'll degrade to 40%. You get about 66 effective new years in a century. Cells can be recycled: http://www.solarworld.de/solarmaterial/english/pre ss/8AV.3.14.pdf at about a third of the cost in energy to make them originally. Used in a location that give an energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of 33 for extended life panels (two years payback), the recycled panels will have EROEI of 99. This is higher than any other energy source.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
You're ignoring what your $10,000 could have been doing in the intervening period. If, say, you invested it in the Vanguard S&P 500 tracking fund, it's returned 12.26% per annum over the almost 31-year life of the fund (the returns from year to year vary greatly, obviously).
So, no, you're not "winning" by investing your cash in solar panels, you're losing big, financially, compared to the alternatives. In fact, you could buy high-quality carbon offsets out of the returns from your mutual fund and still be way out in front.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yes, there is a project in New Mexico to do just this linked here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mexicans-c onspire.html. s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power at home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
But the majority of Slashdot posters live in places where grid electricity is already connected.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Use solar power?
If not, you're probably better off running off the grid.
Additionally, add in oil shale; at today's prices it's definitely affordable to develop (see Alberta and the oil sands projects). The US has enough PROVEN oil shale reserves alone to power us for 200+ years at today's consumption rate. And we're not even talking about coal liquification, which will add another 200+ years of petroleum reserves.
Peak oil has at least 300+ years before we reach it. Unless, of course, we decide to artificially limit our use of our own massive reserves of petroleum for the simple fact that some feel "it's the right thing to do". Sure, develop alternative power sources, but the "OMG WE'RE OUT OF OIL!" crisis is a LONG way from coming, and is only a crisis if we choose to make it - there's plenty of petroleum around for us to use while we're developing new power sources.
And, of course, there's plenty of oil if we COULD muster the political will to access it, right here in the US. For those who crow about us being in the Middle East because of oil, how about letting us access the oil right here in exchange for getting out of the Middle East?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, solar power is clean and it is starting to reach a price range within one order of magnitude from being competitive.
But capacitators using "barium titanate coated with aluminum oxide and glass" (according to Wikipedia) does not sound like it's going to help make solar power cheaper. Those caps are good as a short term power booster for cars and in other applications where the value of the product justifies the price.
Green electricity generation needs to be cheap as hell if we want to replace coal. If green power is not cheap as hell, then coal will be replaced by uranium and nuclear reactors once the coal mines starts to peak.
The prices of solar power have been going up over the last few years. The article misstates information *and* its quite possible that it is intentional. Industry wide costs for every year since 2000!
How are costs going down when the industry says they are flat to increasing? I call BS.
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
it takes a lot of solar panels to match the power generation of even a small coal power plant let alone a nuclear power plant, etc.
Yup. And it takes a lot of homes to use the power generated. Soooo.... how's about you remove a large amount of power lost due to long transmission cables and step-down transformers and generate the power at the source?
Most people don't want to live in a place that's covered in solar panels and windmills far as the eye can see...
Most people don't want to live in a world where rain is corrosive enough to eat the paint off your car and the ground water is radioactive enough to cause birth defects, either.
neither windmills nor solar panels are benign - they both have a subtle effect on the environment
Versus the major effect on the environment that coal and nuclear power plants have? Hmm... lemme see here... which would be the *lesser* of two evils?
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Locating solar PV systems at businesses and homes is only for "enthusiasts" and bleeding-edge proponents. Considering the infrastructure of powerlines in the US, it makes far more sense to just convince the electric companies that they can invest in solar over the next 20 years and turn a hefty profit in the process.
Expert solar technicians can centrally manage and maintain central solar power plants on a much grander scale than screwing around going business to business to fix a broken system, or needing to remote control ~2000 small sites instead of just controlling 10 major sites.
Obviously, securing 10 sites is easier than securing thousands, so when the power generated scales into the realm where remotes are condemned, you only have to hire a fraction of the techs that you would need for a decentralized platform. Plus they only have to worry about the generation to storage. Everything after that should run through the existing grid, requiring your basic electrician to fix, and wow... we've already got plenty of electricians who work for power companies.
Protector of Capitalist views,
Meorah
"Peak oil has at least 300+ years before we reach it."
Are you willing to bet your life and your family on that statement?
As for the Oil Shale, do you know what the costs would be to refine it? It's basically sludge that has to be massively filtered/treated/turned/compressed/distilled before it could be used as gasoline. Expect to pay $15/gallon for your "oil shale" at the early stages, but as refinement gets better, you can expect better than $3/gallon (when it's all the oil that remains, I can guarantee that you won't be getting any of it for your SUV or Pickup).
America has small reserves of oil (very small on the international scale). Those aptly named "reserves" are just that.
Personally, I am curbing my use of oil because it's the right thing to do. Since you distanced yourself from the "some" that "want to do the right thing", I will forevermore consider you a bad guy.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
We *did* hit peak oil in the 1970s. Ever since then, the U.S. has trended towards producing fewer barrels of oil per year. Feel free to look it up. Also, the bulk of the remaining reserves are in Saudi Arabia, which is most likely lying about its reserves. We can only hope they are, because we're in deep trouble if they become the energy gatekeepers of the world.
By "mustering the political will" I assume you mean "drilling ANWR". Therefore, by "plenty of oil", you must mean about six months worth. How the hell is that going to fundamentally alter the picture?
Oil shale is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. It requires huge quantities of water and energy, and poses grave risks to groundwater. From a global warming standpoint, you only get half as much energy per unit of CO2 belched into the atmosphere. As far as I'm concerned, any high-carbon solution is off the table, so no coal liquefaction either.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I have never seen an economic analysis of solar cell production. Will a solar cell manage to produce more power than was required to make it in its normal lifetime? Hmmmmm.
Oil shale is profitable at today's oil prices; once up and running it'll be around half the price of oil today. Given that we don't pay anywhere NEAR $15/gallon for gas now, I doubt we'd pay that for oil shale based gas.
Realistically, if the political will existed, the US could be energy independent TODAY, and for the next few centuries. Canada's already exporting large amounts of oil-sands based oil, and it's not too different than oil shale sources. We could do it, if we wanted. It would take a willingness on ALL sides to commit to energy independence NOW, though.
Searching for alternative energy solutions is fine; however, we need energy NOW and to fund the search. To ignore the massive proven reserves we have - 3 TIMES those that are in Saudi Arabia, and even larger than the entire Middle East - is IMHO folly.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Additionally, it's not just ANWR, but the Florida and Californian coasts. A find last year in the Gulf of Mexico will increase US reserves by 50%. There's another BILLION barrels off the coast of California. And those oil shales - enough to power us for decades.
So, since you want to take new drilling, oil shale, and coal liquefaction off the table, then what the heck do we run on for the 20 years while alternative energy sources AND infrastructure are deployed? What powers airplanes, ships, trains, streetlights, IC fabs? What creates the plastics, drugs and fertilizers that modern society needs? What's your solution?
I say - if you're serious about wanting to be out of the Middle East because of our dependency on their oil, then we immediately develop our existing oil reserves so we have the energy to use while we transition to a different source. But we have to have the intermediate step.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The energy to weight ratio is about 200 times better for silicon than it is for coal in terms of required transportation infrastructure. So, solar allows development without requiring as much hardware. You probably would not transport a lot of coal by mule train, but for solar that is an option.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power for your home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
How's about a look at the real numbers, of today.
Sitting at our State fair, a BIG solar array, many meters square. The sign says: makes $25 of electricity per month. Cost $25,000.
If we assume we borrow the $25k at 10% interest, that's $2,500 we have to pay back the first year just in interest. The panel made $25*12 = $300. If the panel lasts 20 years, we've lost $25,000 plus roughly $2,200 times 20, or about $65,000. Actually, much more as we lost the ability to invest the $25k in something worthwhile.
Solar power is not going to be anywhere near break-even, not now, not likely anytime. The physics just don't allow it.
solar power use? The lobbying groups pushing on congress will get this technology moving... faster than the science. We shouldn't expect a 100% efficient product right now, but getting these products to mass market will certainly move the research to create better PVs.
I'll just ring up my rep on speed dial... Will a trillion $ be OK or should I just have him sign a blank check?
It appears that coal has reached peak energy production http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/many-more-ghos ts.html in the US already though this might change if a lot of new power plants are built. The energy per unit mass mined will certainly continue to decline. The world coal energy production
may peak around 2030. On the other hand, bringing new nuclear power on line has a long lead time and it may face a market where in cannot compete on price as soon as it starts producing or within just a few year there after. In this circumstance, offering federal loan guaranties seems the height of folly. The solution would look to be a greater than 45% growth rate in renewables and a transition of transportation to more efficient electric power. Since wind is expected to install 3 GW in the US this year: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_First_Q uarter_Market_Report_2007.html and solar PV installed 0.14 GW in the US last year http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2007-intro.htm (0.2 GW this year at 45% growth) we are seeing the equivilent of 2 or so nuclear plants a year while the NRC seems inclined to handle applications for new nuclear power one at a time. It is difficult to see then how new nuclear power finds a market unless
coal plants are shut down. By the time any new nuclear plant comes on line, solar, at 45% growth, will be installing at a rate equivilent to the new nuclear capacity. In order to make and economic case for nuclear power then, one needs to show which coal plant it will shut down and that it can operate long enough displacing coal to make financial sense since all other new generation will likely be less expensive (wind already is). But, solar alone can cover current generation in 22 years so the longest operation period that a reactor can anticipate is about 16 years, much shorter than the design lifetime. That then raises the cost of new nuclear power by about a factor of three. Long lead times make for investment uncertainty when competing disruptive technologies are involved. s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money renting solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This is the second post in this thread where you've used the word "where" instead of "were". It's "they were for torpodos", not "they where for torpedos". People will take you more seriously when you stop making such mistakes.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Back to physics 101.. You are greatly underestimating the amount of area needed. You will need much more than the current energy output if you plan on distributing your Solar E from a single location nation wide, as today transmission eats up over 50% of our electric power (and that is with local generation.) (While pushing energy around in gas/oil is much more efficient.)
A 45% annual growth sounds great, but you have to remember that right now only a very small percentage of power is generated using photovoltaic solar cells. Just taking the share of PV solar energy from the graph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resourc es_and_consumption tells me that right now the global share is at about 0.04% (!!). Assuming for a moment that the 45% annual growth will remain constant, it will take about 15 years (!) for the global market share of PV solar electricity to reach even 10% (0.04 * 1.45^15 = 10.5%). Of course we don't know how fast it will start growing when the prices really become competitive with the fossils, but I think there is always a limit to the amount of growth that the market can support (given the time it takes to set up new production capacity).
This is basically true for any new product, so also for all other renewables and fancy stuff like nuclear fusion. Even if the adoption rate is large, it takes a long time to reach a large market penetration if you start from zero!
"Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view." - David Hilbert
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>> We hit peak oil because it got too expensive in the mid 80s to continue drilling and pumping the US. It's cheaper to source from overseas. The big price crash of oil in 1985 is what closed a lot of our production.
That mischaracterizes the situation, because the peak didn't happen in 1985. It happened in 1970. The second, slightly lower peak can be primarily attributed to Alaska ramping up its production in the late 1970s and early 1980s (if I'm reading this graph right).
>> Additionally, it's not just ANWR, but the Florida and Californian coasts. A find last year in the Gulf of Mexico will increase US reserves by 50%. There's another BILLION barrels off the coast of California. And those oil shales - enough to power us for decades.
As of January 2000, the United States had about 21B barrels of proven reserves. That's equivalent to about three years worth of consumption. That BILLIONOMGLOL!!!1 barrels is enough for two months. Pointing to all these new finds simply overshadows the more relevant fact: worldwide, we're discovering about one new barrel of reserves for every five barrels we consume.
>> So, since you want to take new drilling, oil shale, and coal liquefaction off the table, then what the heck do we run on for the 20 years while alternative energy sources AND infrastructure are deployed? What powers airplanes, ships, trains, streetlights, IC fabs? What creates the plastics, drugs and fertilizers that modern society needs? What's your solution?
You seem to be attacking a position I never took, ignoring some available options, and making some wrongheaded assumptions. Currently, the Middle East delivers about 20% of our oil. We could replace most of that simply by raising CAFTA standards. Hell, that would probably be doing Detroit a favor, since they're clearly not manufacturing the cars people want to drive. Serious mass transit efforts along with higher gasoline taxes would also help.
If we decided, today, that every new vehicle sold in the U.S. had to be a hybrid, or an E85 vehicle, or an electric vehicle, the entire fleet could be replaced within 7-10 years (going by current buying patterns). We have enough nighttime capacity on our power grid to keep over a hundred million electric cars fueled for a daily commute. So I don't understand why you think it will take twenty years to roll out the necessary infrastructure, or why conservation alone couldn't cover the near-term shortages that the transition will entail. Instead, I see a situation where we've very nearly run out of the reserves we're currently exploiting, and you're suggesting transitioning to whatever--be it new oil fields, oil shale, or coal liquefaction--that will keep the oil industry profitable. We have enough oil worldwide to cover the transition if we act now; no intermediate step is necessary.
>> I say - if you're serious about wanting to be out of the Middle East because of our dependency on their oil, then we immediately develop our existing oil reserves so we have the energy to use while we transition to a different source. But we have to have the intermediate step.
Long term, the ONLY way to become independent of Middle Eastern oil is to get off oil altogether. We don't have the reserves to fuel ourselves for long, even if we were willing to sacrifice the environment for it (which is exactly what coal liquefaction and oil shale would require).
It would take ten years to get ANWR on line, and probably another ten before it was producing at full capacity. As an intermediate step, these new discoveries you're talking about are worthless, because by then we could have already replaced far more oil production with conservation and alternative fuel efforts. ANWR and all these other new fields are just a way of putting off the day when we actually get clean.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You push the air through for ventilation because as the batteries are charging it gives off some explosive gases. Dragging explosive gases through a running electrical motor is not a real good idea....at least I ain't gonna do it...
Hey, ask away here! Maybe someone else here might want the info! On our Rv we just use 4 golf cart batts to store the "house" supply,. and have two starter batteries in parallel on a separate circuit, although I can jumper to the storage batteries if needs be, either to charge them from the engine or generator, or for emergency engine starting, either way will work, I've tried it, although batts are best used inside their design parameters, storage or starting.. you can do that as well with a device called an isolator, you can look them up see how they work and what they cost, not too expensive really. originally it had one starter and one deep cycle, but I modded it a lot, one single deep cycle just ain't enough. Found a place for the golf cart batts and squeezed them in and did a combo series/parallel, two sets of 6 volters done in series, then the two redone to parallel, giving me 12 VDC for the house current. then I ran new circuits and used a lot of normal hotplugs and just used 12 volt appliances.. The panels -2 of them- are on the roof, but I also arranged it so the RV can be parked in the shade (good idea, they can get really hot in the summer and fast) and the panels disconnected and lowered to the ground and moved over to the sunlight someplace,and have a little cart/stand for them when they are on the ground and around a 25 foot or so lead made out of heavy external wiring. For travel they bolt to the back bumper, I don't have a permanent roof mount, although they are available, as are crank up into the wind small windchargers for RVs. You get so much juice from the alternator while moving you really don't need the solar input, although you can mount them so they can be shifted completely flat for traveling and not blow away, etc, I just moved them to the back bumper because it was easier to deploy and aim them when parked, rather than be forced into an awkward parking situation to "aim" the panels.
Extra insulation in RVs is tough, all the wall space is usually cabinets/built in appliances whatever already and headroom is dear, although I guess you could add another inch of styrofoam wherever you can reach and then re-panel.
As to the weight deal, RVS are built on heavy truck chassis usually, I wouldn't sweat it until you start to talk about extra tons or something ludicrous like that. A few hundred pounds of extra batteries spread out over the chassis shouldn't be much of a problem unless it is a really small RV, and then you might want to think about towing a trailer instead and keeping the panels and batts on that thing, although I prefer towing a good mileage little car or truck.. Transpo backup is a wonderful thing sometimes...
I did a napkin calculation a year or so ago and at that time, you could give 100k houses free 1.5mw solar power (with inverters, trackers, and batteries) each year for the cost of the Iraq war
Isn't the Iraq war cost in the hundreds of billions? Aren't there only ~100 million homes in the US?
You only need a few kilowatts to power a home (for day and night). Megawatts is overkill unless you are planning to install an IBM BlueGene in your home.
I think for the cost of the war, *every* residence in the country could have been converted to solar. And in the process of doing so, we would probably learn a thing or two.
I used to salivate at the Jade mountain magazines and dream of running on solar.
But then I realized a few things. It is difficult (expensive) to power an air conditioner on solar power, and it IS a necessity in southern US. (And no, evaporative coolers don't work here).
Even if I lived in the same place for more than 10years, would the panels still function as well after that time? They will get dirty and weathered. The surface will probably become less clear/scratched due to the elements. What does 10 years of UV shining on a panel do to it? What if a tree branch falls on it? Hurricane? Wind storm? Really bad tropical storm? Kid down the street hits a baseball into a panel?
Here it sometimes rains for 5 days at a time. And the electric company doesn't pay the same rate it charges for generating electricity.
Solar is a neat idea. And it would be a labor of love installing and setting them up. But right now, I agree. It just doesn't (economically) make sense.
Even worse -- people easily overlook the cost of the resources required in the manufacture/transportation/installation of these things!
I didn't know Stirling Engines could use "liquid hydrogen" to transfer energy.
How the hell, does one buy "liquid hydrogen". And how the hell do they keep it confined?
If you're not borrowing the money directly, it's money you could be using to repay your mortgage. If you're not repaying your mortgage, you could be using the money to buy a mutual fund and earn around 10-12% per year over the next couple of decades.
If your argument is that you're using money that you would have otherwise blown on booze and hookers (or, if you'd prefer, donating it to your local church), you've decided to change what you do with your money from consumption to investment. The question then becomes whether solar panels are a good investment and we're back to comparing with paying off the mortgage or putting the money in the stock market.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The world currently uses 17.4 trillion kW-hours of electricity per year. That's an average generation of about 2 TW, not accounting for capacity factors.
At the wonderfully low price of $1.19/W for the best thin-films, that's $2.4 trillion just for the panels.
I'm not sure where to find mass figures for thin film solar panels, but lets make a generous assumption that a kiloWatt of capacity could be built into a 10 kg structure (panel, framework, wiring). That means only 20 billion kg of stuff to launch into space (without the attitude control and power-beaming gear). Let's take a big quantity discount and drop the launch costs by a full order of magnitude to $100/kg. There's another $2 trillion to get stuff up there. We just doubled the price versus building solar panels on the ground and got nothing out of it. And with a 20:1 ratio of fuel to payload (2.56 O2 : 1 kerosene), you just burned 870 million barrels of kerosene...doh! That's one of those evil fossil fuels!
Now lets consider power beaming losses. Efficiency is currently pushing about 40% over short distances (a couple meters). We'll be ridiculously generous and give it 50% (space elevator studies are currently counting on ~1%). We just doubled the required panels, and therefore the cost again. We're only up to four years worth of the GDP of the entire US.
Now granted, there comes a point, assuming continued exponential growth, where we can't reallistically supply the earth's energy needs from the surface, but that's long ways off at the moment...more than 50 years. Our current demand is about 1/10,000 of what we can achieve with today's solar technology.
And last point:
ITER will be running in about 15 years. It's a research reactor. DEMO, which is a prototype fusion power plant, should be ready 15-20 years after that. Assuming the last 30 years of fusion research weren't completely misleading, we should be able to go from DEMO to building commercial plants within another 10-15 years. So as a matter of fact, there are very realistic expectations of fusion power within the next 50 years. And by the way, billions of dollars have similarly been sunk into solar power to get the industry to where it is today.
In Europe there is currently an wind energy revolution going on. Germany has increased its use of Wind energy in 2006 by 26%! This is a huge example that deserves following by other nations.
What you see is the retail price of solar panels going up, not the cost of making them. Prices are driven by supply and demand, and this uptick has been driven by demand. That makes solar panel manufacturing more lucrative and spurs investment in new and expanded production facilities. Higher volume production will typically lead to lower production costs while better satisfying demand, and thereby resulting in lower -- sometimes dramatically lower -- prices in the long run.
This has happened time and again in the manufacturing industries. My favorite recent example is LCD monitors.
And I quote, ". . .there's no expectation that a clean fusion reactor will be developed in the next 50 years."
/ 18/0616205
i c_confinement
I assume you missed this piece:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
Comment removed based on user account deletion