Slashdot Mirror
What Gore Didn't Say About Solar Cells
AmericanInKiev writes "Computer World posted a piece on Al Gore and his claim that solar cells will improve at the same rate as microprocessors. Vinod Khosla on the other hand has expressed disappointment that the doubling rate for price/performance of PV is 10 years rather than 18 months for transistors. Which of these two has the facts on their side?" Before anyone has him inventing the Internet again, note that Gore's claim as related in the article is much milder than that Moore's Law applies to solar cells per se -- namely, he's quoted as saying "We're now beginning to see the same kind of sharp cost reductions as the demand grows for solar cells." An optimistic statement, but not a flat-out silly one.
But to start us off on topic, is there any evidence that the cells will increase beyond their current 10% conversion rate?
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Moore's Law talks about the complexity, not speed or performance. That's why it doesn't apply to either solar cells or digital camera sensors.
Digital camera sensors, especially, as it's not the complexity that kills ya, it's that it can't get physically smaller and still capture as much light (independent of the # of pixels). CPUs get cheaper because they get physically smaller, and thus require less silicon. The same deal with silicon PV cells - you don't want to make them smaller, you want to make them more efficient at converting light to electricity. Solar cells will indeed get cheaper (MUCH cheaper) very quickly (within the next few years, you'll see several competing technologies, in fact), but not due to silicon processes, but because they're going to be made without silicon (or with much less silicon, or silicon of a much lower grade than CPU-grade silicon (they've been competing for the same Silicon resources all this time)). I'm just sayin'.
I firmly believe that solar is going to boom in the next few years and start covering every piece of cheap land on the globe. I feel that there is a lot of money to be made in energy in the short run when solar supplements the grid. And there is money to be made in energy in the long run as we phase into plugin hybrids and the demand on the grid gets huge. Of course like most nerds, I have a "not in my lifetime" long run view of an eventual Dyson Sphere of solar power in space which probably doesn't start out trying to be one, but instead starts out as Sim City microwave power plants. On a reverse note, people think the innermost planets cannot be habitable due to their temperatures from the sun, but can't we just pull a Mr. Burns and block out the sun? We could then send energy through focused beams to collectors.
God spoke to me.
The cost of wind turbines has doubled in the past three years due to increasing demand and commodity prices. Of course that's less than the increase in electricity prices, so it's cheaper relatively.
However, I don't think oil/electricity price is the sole or even primary factor behind the renewables craze. Our government has had a '90% renewables target by 2025' for more than a year. ie, when oil was $70 a barrel.
There's a lot to do with public perception, and that's much more in favour of wind power nowadays.
(Written from an across the ditch viewpoint)
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
His idea for a 10 year Kennedy-esque-moon-mission-analog of rapidly transforming our energy base from one of fossil fuels to renewable energy is not only a great idea economically for the long term but also great for the short term. Any time a country is in an economic slump, the best way to relieve it is by instituting widespread public works projects. Not only do they create short term wealth and job opportunities, but they have sustained maintenance work as well as the overall betterment of society through the finalization of said public work.
A recent poll (I think it was from last Thursday) said that over 90% of Americans are FOR the rapid mobilization of wind and solar power. It seems everyone's on board for this.
Except BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. Which is quite mind-blowing since the populous as a whole is ALL FOR IT and if either did support such a plan, it would net them a HUGE amount of voters from both political parties. It seems everyone I talk to has energy on their mind, a couple have said that they'll vote for whichever candidate would push for Gore's plan or one like it.
Which leaves me to wonder, if neither Obama nor McCain seem to have any desire to embrace it, is it finally time for a viable third candidate, one who represents the publics opinion? Could we be seeing/should we deserve to see a candidate Gore?
It is not so much Gore's views as it is Gore himself. I for one think the message is worth hearing, considering, and acting upon. However, it seems like Gore comes off as pretty pompous, overblown, and almost zealous with his anti-global warming stuff. What with the selling carbon credits like they were indulgences from the middle ages? How about just cutting some emissions and avoiding creating fake industries...I digress. Gore has a good message, he just says plenty of other (sub) messages that annoy the crap out of people.
:-P
Regardless, Gore provides a voice for a real concern that can possibly affect the lives of everybody on the planet, and that's good. I'll tolerate him if it means our planet will get saved in the process
Since I cringe each time the Candidates energy plans are butchered - and it happens often.
ie. McCain has said Oboma is AGAINST a 300 million dollar (Xprizey) thing for a vehicle battery. and Oboma is opposed to nuclear.
Well, I've never heard Oboma suggest that electric vehicles are a bad idea or anything disparaging of their development, second, I've actually heard Oboma speak rather embracingly of Nuclear - provided as he says - we can solve the storage problem.
McCain would obviously spill oil anywhere he could find it.
AIK
As mentioned previously, Moore's Law does not apply here.
However, the use of nano-tech (to increase light collecting surface area), multiple layers (to absorb more frequencies), and lenses/concentrators (to focus more light on the collectors), and thermo-electric converters (to convert heat from the panels into electricity) should be able to push efficiencies well passed the 40% range at reasonable cost. Of course, these improvements will be "5-10 years out" for the foreseeable future.
If Al Gore is to the environment what Rev. Jesse Jackson is to .. well anyway, I think I'd rather hear from people who generally get their facts straight. Vinod Khosla has what one calls a pretty good record on these things - though I'd take exception to his positions in retrospect on bio-ethanol for example. I agree with you on Carbon Indulgences.
With current technology it is impossible to convert to PV in any meaningful timescale mostly because PV has so much embodied energy.
PV's energy payback time is something like 10 years. That means that if we set a goal to make 20% of electricity from PV, you'd have to find 2 years worth of spare electricity to make the PV.... and where's that going to come from? This problem marginalises current PV into only ever being a bit player in the energy world. Or, to turn it around, if we can find 10% of spare electrical capacity to channel into making PV then that will limit the PV conversion rate to 1% per year. Or if it is only 5% spare then that makes a 0.5% conversion rate - not even enough to cover increasing demand.
PV will only be practical for mass generation when it comes from vastly different technology.
Wind is more viable, in some areas.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
700 billion in remittences to foriegn powers. every year. What if PV got just 7 billion of development every year. Would prices increase 33%. Or would they drop. One energy policy my have a future, the other is a race to the edge of a cliff.
I suspect that many people realize that when first created, the internet was closed to themselves. It was an elite ivory tower kind of thing. You know - the kind of thing a guy who rides on private jets and limosines would like. That thing - called Arpanet I think - was probably what Al was referring too. There is a world of difference between the government-edition Arpanet - and the mostly free (as in speech) Internet - which brought the printing press to the individual for the first time in history, and connected every individual to the kind of elite information previously only available to the rich. :)
Somehow I doubt that Al Gore played a significant role in democratizing the information age. That role would fall to a new category of leaders. And I think you of all people should know
If I'm wrong on that - let's see where Al Gore voted to open up the Internet to private citizens...
Did you not see T. Boone Pickens' proposal for reducing our dependency on foreign fuels?
Solar isn't competing against oil unless you a solar powered car. Solar power is competing against coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear for electricity generation.
And Pickens' proposal was to create giant wind farms to generate electricity, so that we could free up the locally-sourced natural gas for cars.
I'm not saying I agree with him on everything, but some people understand plenty well where fuel comes from, at least well enough to know that you can use the same energy source for different purposes, just like you can use different energy sources for the same purpose.
(For what it's worth, our house is powered by wind and hydro for electricity, but natural gas for heat & water heat. I'd consider a swap to solar thermal if my HOA would allow solar anything on my roof.)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
The simple solution is plant more trees. More trees is more shade. More shade is more tolerance to higher temperatures (90 degrees in the shade feels cooler than 72 degrees in the sun). More trees is more hiding places / homes / food for pray/animals. Trees / plants also absorb sunlight, reducing the greenhouse effect.
Ok, so maybe that's not an energy solution, but I think a lot of our problems stem from urbanization and the lack of trees. The hippies are right, in this sense. Parking lots are a good place for trees, and having them for shade would help keep our cars cool as well. Trees are nature's natural climate stabilizer.
Khosla is one of the planet's largest investor in biofuels. He has engaged in rather disheartening attacks on any plan that suggests electrons can replace liquid carbons molecules. See his recent statements on how plug in hybrids will forever be "toys."
He may very well be right in some instances, but given the vitriol he has spilled against alternatives to his investments, it's hard to trust his statements as honest assessments.
Gore, on the other hand, has been even handed in suggesting there is no silver bullet to our energy and climate crises.
All that being said, PV cost and efficiency has historically been closer to Khosla's estimate than it has been to Gore's. But that has been mostly as a function of investment. Now that billions upon billions are being invested in the space, I think we'll see the cost curve start to look more attractive.
The problem, though, is that we don't have much gallium. Definitely not enough to build whole square miles worth of solar panels.
Gallium is only found in trace amounts in Zinc and Bauxite ores. There is no gallium-high ore. Mostly we get a little of it as side effects of producing aluminium. It's enough for silicon doping and leds, but that's about it.
Even at the rate at which we're already using it, there's an estimate that the (easily accessible) reserves will be depleted by 2017. Can you imagine the rate we'd use it up for solar panels? Not to mention we'd need to dig out and process a _heck_ of a lot more bauxite than we currently do, to get that much of it.
So it seems to me that that plan is dead right there. There is no obvious way how to get lots of it, and the price will likely only go up from here.
Err, not really. You can use steam to produce electricity. Nuclear power goes the same route, btw. IIRC some 80% of the world's electricity is produced by steam turbines.
So, I don't know... any particular reason why we _can_ use heated water to produce electricity, if we heat it with coal or a nuclear reactor, but not if it was heated by the sun? It's the same process and with the same efficiency.
Plus, it seems to me that, from a pragmatic point of view,
1. A significant part of the world would rather have convenience, rather than sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I'd rather have a small stove in the kitchen, rather than a huge solar contraption. Plus, I'd rather cook when I want to, not just when it's sunny outside.
2. The world seems to have decided already that it wants solar-produced electricity.
3. We're actually pretty good at producing electricity from steam in the meantime. The big power plants get about 40-45% of the energy out of the fuel and converted into electricty. That's good enough.
But more importantly, it's better than what even the best uber-expensive prototypes of solar panels can do. So I'm kind of wondering, dunno, what's with the obsession with solar panels?
4. Transporting hot steam or hot water is pretty wasteful too. _Storing_ it, even more so. It needs a lot of insulation, and even so there are losses.
And it's done already, btw. I live in a town where the power plants also provide the hot water.
Let me tell you, when I want to take a shower in the morning, I first have to waste some cubic metre or two of water (no, seriously) just so I actually get hot water. Everything that was past the big insulated pipes, comes out as cold water first.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...most credible population models have the worlds population leveling out at 15 billion, which we can easily sustain.
But sustain at what level of existence?
The broken window fallacy is about replacing one window with another window and having the side re-investment of money. Instead, this is the fundamentals of econ. That is, when something is perceived as being too high price, it gets replaced when the first low costs item can do so.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, it's Gore an his minions who have unilaterally declared the debate "settled science", and labeled any opposition as nutcases and/or enemies of society.
The ad hominem arguments against Gore don't advance the debate over the issues, but pointing out his hypocrisies (e.g. his own profligate energy usage) and his profit motives in the carbon credits business (reported at 100 million dollars for him so far) are all fair game.
And he is a pompous ass. So there.
....And if he produces a few gigawatts of clean power in the process, then what exactly is your problem with this?
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Making a profit in the U.S. is E-E-EVIL, and anyone proposing to create such a (shudder) thing is automatically dragged out into the middle of the street and shot. Please disregard the resultant stimulus to 'hard' industry, the people put to gainful work, the economic benefits, and the reduction in the petro-deficit; the thing to remember is that profit is E-E-EVIL.
(Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad!....)
Don't like the subsidy? Ask your representative to help repeal it (and get crucified by the tree-huggers). But please, don't blame a businessman for being smart enough to utilize all the resources at his disposal.
Regards;
There is something far more egregious than Al Gore's mischaracterization of solar cell technology. For all the years he's been out there giving his presentation on global warming, he never talks about the damage done by animal agriculture. According to the United Nations FAO report, the best thing we can do to reduce global warming, to reduce the costs associated with type 2 diabetes and obesity, and to preempt the diseases of affluence is to reduce our consumption of meat and dairy products.
Why doesn't Al Gore talk about methane, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2? Not only does methane hang around for longer than CO2, when it degrades, it breaks down into CO2.
Personally, I'm doing my part. I no longer eat any meat or dairy, and I get all my vegetables from local farmers' markets. When appropriate, I try to encourage others to cut down on meat and dairy as well, as I've become too aware of the damage to health and the environment that it causes. Heart disease killed my father at 54, and his father at 55. Both were avid meat eaters. I cross my fingers that I will live more than just another 14 years.
Apart from the 400 liters of methane produced by each cow every day, there's the water pollution and disease caused by pig farming, the waste of agricultural land producing soy to feed cattle, and the suffering of the animals themselves, which I find impossible to ignore.
I just found this story through Google, which gives a few more statistics in relation to some protestors urging Al Gore to talk about these things.
http://www.vivavegie.org/pr/algore/AlGoreDemo/index.htm
I realize that the media and popular culture are finding it more and more acceptable to ostracize people like myself, who are expressing concern about this problem. Whatever the majority of people do - in this case, eating meat without much thought about it - the media feels it can be the enabler. And people sure do like to be told that what they're doing is just fine, and that whoever disagrees is some kind of nut.
Meanwhile, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes are exploding all over the world. And as affluence grows, these problems are increasing. All these problems cost the society, in medical expenses especially, whereas a little prevention could do so much more. But the food and pharmaceutical industries like it! Which is kind of sick. One would hope that the health and well-being of people would be the first priority, and that corporations existed to benefit the society - or at least not to dumb it down and harm it. But instead they suppress and distort information, demonize vegetarians and animal advocates, and tell young people that milk (not yucky broccoli) does a body good.
Recently I've been looking at sites like "Consumer Freedom" (an industry thinktank) and sites targeted at farmers and the animal industry. It's a little embarrassing to see how far these groups stoop, and how they tacitly expect people to agree with their ideas. They call anyone who threatens their bottom-line "kooks" and "radicals," and their readers feel empowered and enabled to think of concerned people that way. And the mainstream press is leaning towards the same kind of demonization, which makes it possible for countries like Austria to jail advocates without reason and without evidence.
In fact, people who advocate for animals, regardless of how peacefully, are roundly called "terrorists" now, and it's even been enshrined in laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It demeans the good will of so many people, and enables the mainstream to discount anything that relates to animal advocacy.
Thing is, nobody likes the facts, which is understandable. People like their cheeseburgers! But the thing is, we can't just live at the level of children who eat what we like because we like it and it feels good in the moment. I mean, fine, do what you want, but with awareness! Eating meat at the level we do require
-- thinkyhead software and media