Slashdot Mirror
Solar Could Lead In Power Production By 2050
Lucas123 writes Solar power could be the leading source of electricity compared with other renewables and conventional sources of power, such as oil and coal, according to a pair of reports from the International Energy Agency. PV panels could produce 16% of the world's electricity, while solar thermal electricity (STE) is on track to produce 11%. At the end of 2013, there had been 137GW of solar capacity deployed around the world. Each day, an additional 100MW of power is deployed. One reason solar is so promising is plummeting prices for photovoltaic cells and new technologies that promise greater solar panel efficiency. For example, MIT just published a report on a new material that could be ideal for converting solar energy into heat by tuning the material's spectrum of absorption. Ohio State University just announced what it's referring to as the world's first solar battery, which integrates PV with storage at a microscopic level. "We've integrated both functions into one device. Any time you can do that, you reduce cost," said Yiying Wu, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Ohio State.
of making it difficult for homeowners to utilize this technology thanks to the regulatory capture of giant utility companies. http://www.law360.com/articles/573896/enviros-blast-pa-limits-on-customer-solar-generation http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/as-hawaii-demands-utility-reform-thousands-of-solar-installers-are-laid-off This along with downgrading of utilities stock by one of these banks or analysts (I can't recall which right now), we are going to see utility companies use their political connections to stifle this until they can have full control of the solar electricity production.
My ass could lead in power production by 2050 also.
Bend over, let's get started.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Executive Director also stressed that the two reports do not represent a forecast.
The linked article also misstates what the U.S. Department of Energy report contains (no, it doesn't say solar will go from .2 to 10%). People post this kind of nonsense and then wonder why they have a credibility problem.
From the article. "IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven stressed in a statement that her agency's two reports do not represent a forecast. "
The report said "if you wanted to try to have more solar, here's what you would try, and here's what the (devastating) consequences would be. They absolutely did not in any way say that would happen or should happen.
Solar Could be 50+% of production, but only around 35% of energy usage. AKA, we'd be wasting power because we are installing too much solar power while we have no good way to store the power, a new solar station only reduces hydrocarbon use by around 60% per watt in places with existing solar power usage due to the need to idle hydrocarbon plants but the inability to fully shut them down. These returns are diminishing. We need to end all solar subsidies and instead focus on energy storage, not tomorrow but right this second.* Don't let help them open more solar power plants till we can store the power. Am researching tech that won't at best be commercially viable for 10-20 years. It's nuclear resonance fluorescence.
*This is the problem with government subsidies, they start usually doing good they continue until they are bad. Politicians start getting kick backs and thus can't end the subsidies because then they would get the kickbacks.
Absurd?
Ezekiel 23:20
> "Due to global warming, the sun is only available, on average, half the day"
Are you drunk?
It's not "regulatory capture"; it's the very real cost of maintaining the infrastructure that you count on when it's dark out for a few days. I know you're a special penny, but why do you deserve to get paid more for power than other generators? That is exactly what happens with net metering.
I have a shed on a friend's property which has a number of LED lights on it which are glowing quite well, and it is definitely night.
What is desperately needed is a form of energy storage technology. We get within an order of magnitude of energy by volume of gasoline for energy density, and transportation will be fundamentally changed. Even basic power grid design would be changed by such a discovery.
It's not "regulatory capture"; it's the very real cost of maintaining the infrastructure that you count on when it's dark out for a few days. I know you're a special penny, but why do you deserve to get paid more for power than other generators? That is exactly what happens with net metering.
So tax us honestly.
Tax us on energy production and again on consumption -- grid usage -- to maintain the grid, instead of hiding the cost of the grid. Don't let some corporate behemoth charge us what they want based on "Think of the grid!"; the argument is no more valid than "Think of the children!".
Of course, if we do this, I must insist that the grid be owned by the public, as well, rather than some corporate behemoth, and it can be maintained by the lowest bidder. If the corporate behemoth *happens* to be that bidder, good on them. If it doesn't, good on whoever wins instead.
Just like the gas tax or bridge tolls, and public roads.
There is also the cost of burning coal and oil that isn't seen. Climate change is controversial, but it is pretty obvious that it is happening, and really bad stuff is going to happen unless we stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere at the rate that it is going in.
You insensitive clod!
I live in Northern Canada; climate change is a *benefit*, not a *cost*! Change it faster, please!
solar panels cost more in materials (fabbing the silicon, energy for the aluminum, more energy to melt and shape it, etc.) than a panel ever gets back in energy coming in
Yawn. You coal shills need to come up with some new lies. Everyone in the world knows that your statement above is a lie. Solar panels return their embodied energy in 1 to 3 years. They continue to return more energy after that for at least another 50 years. At that point, everything in them is fully recyclable into new panels.
If you must lie for your feudal coal barons, please try to think of some more original and entertaining lies.
They act like they think there could be technological advancements in the next 35 years.
We know better. Technology stopped progressing early last decade and solar will never be useful. In fact, solar energy is bad for you, causes cancer and creates 100 times more pollution than fracking in a nuclear waste site. Being part of the grid is double-plus good. It ties us together as a society and fosters love and understanding. In the long run, fossil fuels save money and keep the environment clean, because we dig that nasty oil and coal out of the ground where it could hurt animals and burn it off safely.
This has been a paid advertisement, and may not represent the opinions of the proprietors of this Slashdot account.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's "clean" bunker fuel, right? They capture all that carbon, and also sulphur?
Even if they were supposed to, they wouldn't. Virtually all power plants are over their legal emissions limits. There is no significant penalty.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Since solar panels cost more in materials (fabbing the silicon, energy for the aluminum, more energy to melt and shape it, etc.) than a panel ever gets back in energy coming in,
In fact, solar panels would recoup the energy cost of their production in just seven years back in the seventies. And we're talking about the polycrystalline panels. So if anyone was wondering, this is how tired the anti-solar rhetoric is. Not only is it not true, but it's forty years of the same stupid lies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This. Solar nicely produces at peak times. Pumped storage is currently under-utilized in Germany.