global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

I hope I have not given the impression I am advocating we ignore solar panels. My view is that we need to devote large amounts of $$$ to research into a wide range of energy generating methods. This includes solar panels.

 

It is just that, right now, the time for us to use solar energy has not arrived. Research, yes. But we need to invest mightily in proven technologies such as nuclear in order to make sure we have the electricity generation available for the enxt few decades.

[iNow]

It is just that, right now, the time for us to use solar energy has not arrived.

 

You are welcome to that opinion, but the moment you assert it as some inherent fact (as you've just done) you lose all credibility and your position immediately becomes completely wrong.

 

Now is the ONLY time.

[D H]

You are welcome to that opinion, but the moment you assert it as some inherent fact (as you've just done) you lose all credibility and your position immediately becomes completely wrong.

 

Now is the ONLY time.

By your own criterion, you just lost a lot of credibility and became completely wrong with the bolded statement.

[iNow]

It was a play on my username, and meant as a joke. Oh well. I still fundamentally disagree with the position being espoused by SkepticLance.

 

Also, how the hell is solar not a proven technology? Clearly, they were "proven" enough to be used on spacecraft and satellites, calculators and watches, homes and factories, and in damned near everything else that draws power.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell

 

The photovoltaic effect was first recognized in 1839 by French physicist A. E. Becquerel. However, it was not until 1883 that the first solar cell was built, by Charles Fritts, who coated the semiconductor selenium with an extremely thin layer of gold to form the junctions.

 

Gee... almost 150 years since the first one was built, and three major generational shifts in the technology have occurred since that time. Of course, the only logical conclusion is to suggest that they need more study.

 

 

I am often baffled at the ridiculous nonsense Lance shares so often here and which he considers perfectly valid. It will be interesting to see what kind of spin and semantic contortion he uses to change his stance on this particular post he's made.

Edited July 31, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

You need to look beyond your own limited judgements. The discussion has been about bulk supply of electricity - the sort of power that is generated in gigawatts. For that, solar panels are not a proven technology. Sure they are a proven technology for other uses, and I have already acknowledged that in earlier posts.

 

This is what I said in post 323

 

 

"However, I accept the argument about the cost coming down. There is little doubt that the cost of solar panels and thus the cost of solar generated electricity, will come down, and possibly very dramatically. When that happens, solar power can be added to the range of mass electrical generation systems."

 

Try to keep up.....

[Edtharan]

The discussion has been about bulk supply of electricity - the sort of power that is generated in gigawatts. For that, solar panels are not a proven technology.

Yes, but other forms of solar technology are more viable for large scale production of electricity.

 

Also, there is Micro generation. Rather than a single huge power plant, there are many small power plants. This has been made possible through remote operation and distributed information systems.

 

SO the arguments of the past, that controlling and monitoring it was infeasible, has been completely removed. Also with the lower cost of solar cells this should be even more feasible (IIRC around 20 years ago, they stated that if the price of oil rose above around $70 a barrel then this kind of technology would be economically feasible).

 

Sure they are a proven technology for other uses, and I have already acknowledged that in earlier posts.

Micro generation is an adaptation of these "other uses", only they need the distributed control and management systems that are now possible.

 

Although, for micro generation to work we need to increase the supply of solar cells produced or supply will not keep up with demand (and then the price will rise).

 

This is what I was saying. Governments need to help start up production plants so that we can start getting the required supply levels up and making this policy.

 

You have acknowledged that these other used are feasible, so why not on the large scale (distributed micro generation)?

[iNow]

The discussion has been about bulk supply of electricity - the sort of power that is generated in gigawatts. For that, solar panels are not a proven technology.

Yes, they are, in fact, proven. Where is the data to support your contention that they cannot be scaled up to gigawatts?

 

I am going out on a limb here and suggesting that no such data exists.

 

 

 

Oh yeah... wait... gigawatt plants are already going up.

 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/shells-showa-solar-plans-1-gigawatt-plant-1083.html

 

http://www.pv-tech.org/thin_film/article/first_solar_targets_1_gigawatt_production_by_end_of_2009

 

http://www.greenandhot.com/?p=41

 

http://www.pv-tech.org/thin_film/article/thin_film_gigawatt_fab_arriving_soon_hints_applied_materials

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9972306-54.html

 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?cid=5213&id=53003

 

 

 

Try to keep up.....

Oh... PLEASE. Would you just go away, already.

[Mr Skeptic]

I wouldn't so much say that solar is unproven, only not yet ready. For most situations, solar is not the correct choice, primarily due to its high price and daytime only generating ability. More research is what will bring the price of them down and increase their efficiency, although higher energy prices may have the same effect in the mid to near future. At the moment, I'd say it is a good choice for remote power, and is or will soon be a good choice for built-in solar rooftops.

[iNow]

More research is what will bring the price of them down and increase their efficiency,

However, you're not looking at the bigger picture. Higher demand creates more competition, which drives down costs. Higher demand creates lower supply, and the industry must respond by becoming more efficient in manufacturing (both speed and materials pricing). This drives down costs. Also, too many people still see solar as a roof top only application. When grouped in larger grids, they provide enormous power.

 

I'm still seeing zero valid reasons why now is not the time to scale them up. Even nuclear takes years to gain approvals and years to build and huge sums of money to do so.

 

Solar is available now, and higher demand can be met much more quickly and cheaply, and it's also subject to Moore's Law.

 

Someone please explain to me why this is not a viable option as if I'm a child who is too naive to understand.

 

<and Lance, if it is you who decides to take that challenge of explaining, I only ask that you use correct and accurate information which is supported by facts and is an accurate description of future trends. Thanks>

[booker]

Skeptic-

Why you might find this discussion over solar cells realistic is beyond me, Skeptic. Solar FITS, of residential capacity can expect 25 years to recover capitol investment with govenment kickbacks. Large scale arrays do a bit beter, but have less kickback. Silicone is energy intensive to manufacture. Solar cell plants don't sport solar arrays on their roof for sound economic reason. They take their power off the grid. The energy returned on enery invested takes about 8 years to recoups. They take that much energy to produce.

There is always a better technology around the corner, promoted to the press as the next thing about to round the bend. I believe it, when I see it, as a viable product that actually sells into the market It makes me a bit more accurate far more often than the wild-eyed, low techs.

Edited July 31, 2008 by booker

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, all I have against solar panels is price. When the price is right (either of solar panels or electricity), I'll be all for them.

 

As for higher demand, that will raise prices, not lower them. Whether or not larger supply and more competition would offset that or not depends on economies of scale and the amount of inefficiency in production. Silicon solar cells, for example, are likely to become more expensive with higher demand, as they will no longer be supported by the computer industry's waste silicon.

 

Look at it this way. If solar cells are now economical, people should be buying them in droves. If not, getting people to buy them would require government spending. IMO, that government spending would be better spent on research. For now.

[Edtharan]

As for higher demand, that will raise prices, not lower them.

It is High demand, low supply that creates higher prices. What we have now is high demand forcing the prices above the break even line. What we have to do is to lower it by creating supply.

 

Silicon solar cells, for example, are likely to become more expensive with higher demand, as they will no longer be supported by the computer industry's waste silicon.

Exactly. This was my point. We need to government to assist in the development of this supply industry.

 

I am not saying that the government has to foot the bill for it, quite the opposite actually. The government offers incentives to start-ups by providing loans with low interest. The governments can then recoup these costs as the start-ups pay back their loans. It is not like they have never done this kind of thing before.

 

Also, they could create the industry themselves as a government run institution, but then as solar production takes off (and the demand for this silicone increases) they can sell it off, it if so desired.

 

Yes, the government might take a short term loss (around 5 to 10 years), but it would be less than the costs of a nuclear plant and the money will be returned quicker than a Nuclear plant as well (ie you expect return on the investment before the nuclear plant would even be operational ).

 

Remember, the government is not creating these solar power stations, they are helping to create an industry that supplies the creation of solar cells. This in turn makes the development of the end product cheaper (the solar power plants) and this can then be invested in by industry (which has more money available to invest - hence they can afford the plants).

 

This will also have knock on effect in other industries that rely on high quality silicone too (like computer manufacturing) as it will also give them access to more cheap high quality silicone and help reduce the costs of those industries too. This is not even mentioning new industries that will spring up to take advantage of this new cheap resource.

[iNow]

I understand your point, Mr. Skeptic. Usually a high demand leads to higher prices. However, what will happen is that high demand will prompt more businesses to get into the market ultimately increasing both supply and competition (as alluded to by Edtharan) hence decreasing cost. That competition between these businesses will continue to drive down manufacturing costs, hence further reducing cost at the consumer level.

 

Demand is already high, and these effects are already happening. Also, demand is not simply at the individual level, as whole corporations and countries are bidding on contracts for solar plants.

 

 

Too simplistic of a supply/demand logic is not effective all by itself when describing a complex market with several variables at play, such as that we have with solar. While counter-intuitive, the increased demand is exactly what's going to bring down the cost of solar. The same logic applied to computers. When demand passed a certain threshold, the cost per kb dropped dramatically and continually, while performance gains kept trending upward.

[Mr Skeptic]

But much of the cost reduction for computers was based on new technology. Competition on the best vacuum tube, or on who can hand-craft memory cheapest, would never have gotten the price down to a reasonable level. But once we had solid state and etching, the price went down. As we continue to cram more transistors onto a chip, the price per kb continues to drop. Yes, some of this research was due to demand and competition. But it was still research.

 

 

 

I don't think you have too much to worry about.

[iNow]

As we continue to cram more transistors onto a chip, the price per kb continues to drop. Yes, some of this research was due to demand and competition. But it was still research.

 

That's actually a really good point, and you're right. I think I was imlicitly linking (in my mind) an increase in demand and competition with more research, but I never said that outright. Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Check this out:

 

 

nsf.gov - News - Water Refineries? - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

 

"

New method extracts oxygen from water with minimal energy, potentially boosting efforts to develop solar as a 24-hour energy source

 

Using a surprisingly simple, inexpensive technique, chemists have found a way to pull pure oxygen from water using relatively small amounts of electricity, common chemicals and a room-temperature glass of water.

 

Because oxygen and hydrogen are energy-rich fuels, many researchers have proposed using solar electricity to split water into those elements--a stored energy source for when the sun goes down. One of the chief obstacles to that green-energy scenario has been the difficulty of producing oxygen without large amounts of energy or a high-maintenance environment.

 

Now, Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemist Daniel Nocera and his postdoctoral student Matthew Kanan have discovered an efficient way to solve the oxygen problem. They announced their findings July 31, 2008, online in the journal Science.

 

"The discovery has enormous implications for the large scale deployment of solar since it puts us on the doorstep of a cheap and easily manufactured storage mechanism," said Nocera. "The ease of implementation means that this discovery will have legs..." <more at link>

 

 

 

A snapshot showing the new, efficient oxygen catalyst in action in Dan Nocera's laboratory at MIT.

 

Credit: MIT/NSF

Edited July 31, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

I think Mr Skeptic has presented my view point quite well. I have nothing against solar energy, except the cost. If and when it gets cheap enough, then we can use it a lot more. Right now, it remains too expensive for mass generation.

[iNow]

Did you look at Mr Skeptic's graph? If so, how cheap is cheap enough for you? Please express your number using proper units (like "per watt").

 

As a follow-up question, in what way have you accounted for the cost of carbon output from existing technologies into your calculations?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

I have told you this before. The 2005 figure is cost of generation of electricity in American cents per kilowatt hour - 25 cents for solar panels.

Compare this to coal at 6c, Nuclear at 7.5c, Wind at 10c, or hydro at 5.7c.

 

If solar panels could get the cost down to 10c, comparable to wind power, then we could begin large scale generation.

 

I understand why the cost in Mr Skeptic's graph is dollars per watt, but this is not a good measure for comparing to other generating methods. A watt is a flow quantity. To measure cost per unit energy requires the time factor added in. Hence kilowatt hour.

[iNow]

I have told you this before. The 2005 figure is cost of generation of electricity in American cents per kilowatt hour - 25 cents for solar panels.

Compare this to coal at 6c, Nuclear at 7.5c, Wind at 10c, or hydro at 5.7c.

 

That was three years ago, and the downward trend in cost is nearly logarithmic.

 

 

If solar panels could get the cost down to 10c, comparable to wind power, then we could begin large scale generation.

Thanks for your answer. You won't accept solar until it gets down to 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

 

 

You know what that means, don't you? It means you already support solar.

 

 

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2006/12/10_cent_kilowatt_hour_solar_en.html

 

The U.S. Department of Energy reveals that Boeing-Spectralab have

achieved a 40.7% efficiency

with a new type of solar cell.

 

The 40.7 percent cell was developed using a unique structure called a multi-junction solar cell. This type of cell achieves a higher efficiency by capturing more of the solar spectrum. In a multi-junction cell, individual cells are made of layers, where each layer captures part of the sunlight passing through the cell. This allows the cell to get more energy from the sun’s light.

For the past two decades researchers have tried to break the “40 percent efficient” barrier on solar cell devices. In the early 1980s, DOE began researching what are known as “multi-junction gallium arsenide-based solar cell devices,” multi-layered solar cells which converted about 16 percent of the sun’s available energy into electricity. In 1994, DOE’s National Renewable Energy laboratory broke the 30 percent barrier, which attracted interest from the space industry. Most satellites today use these multi-junction cells.

 

The breakthrough means

energy generation systems installed for three bucks a watt and generating power for between

5-10 cents a kilowatt/hour

.

 

See also:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=a_TUtlIwV7Fw

 

 

 

Also, thanks for that super description of kilowatt hours. I was just super confused until you edja-ma-cated me about 'dat.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Now, back on topic (maybe, if I summarized which post numbers were specific to solar, a staff member would be willing to split those into their own thread?? Let me know. I'd be glad to do the leg work and gather post numbers...)

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Unfortunately, if the models are truly not accurate, then it appears very much that their inaccuracy causes them to under-represent what is actually happening. More below.

 

 

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections -- Rahmstorf et al. 316 (5825): 709 -- Science

 

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections

 

"We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates. "

Edited August 1, 2008 by iNow

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Sure. When solar panels get to 5 to 10 cents per kwHr I will support them. Hell, I'll go out and buy a whole heap and install them on my house. Let's get there first. Your reference was talking about a potential - not something we actually have.

 

Please do not get touchy about the kilowatt hour explanation. Not everything I say on this forum is for your benefit. There are others also reading.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, that is some interesting information. If it were true, then my statements would be obsolete already. However, I like to get my facts from as close to the source as possible. You say that it is about the Department of Energy...

 

http://www.doe.gov/news/4503.htm

 

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner today announced that with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough

may

lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt/hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation’s energy mix.

 

Note the bolded word. While high efficiency, concentrated sunlight systems may turn out to be a good idea, I think that thin film solar is more likely. Time will tell. As for the cheap solar that this breakthrough may lead to, I will support it when it shows up.

 

On a related note, solar will also have to compete against other technologies.

When I said solar was too expensive, I was also comparing it to other alternatives, even green ones. It does seem that the time is ripe for wind power, and surprise, surprise, people are building wind farms. When the time is right for solar, people will start building solar plants everywhere.

 

My own view is that we need to phase out coal starting now. The obvious replacement is nuclear -- clean, safe, reliable, well-developed. Nuclear can provide power for as long as we need to develop renewable energy and implement it, and serve as a reliable backup. However, it may be unnecessary to go through a nuclear phase, as solar and wind might be ready before we have time to construct new nuclear plants.

 

Another problem with some green technology like wind and solar is the sporadic nature of their generating ability, and their vulnerability to storms. Energy storage or world-wide power distribution will be necessary if solar is to become the primary source of energy, for example, though wind might only require a national distribution grid.

 

Also, I would never support only a single one of wind or solar. They should be used along with other power sources so that they can't fail simultaneously.

[iNow]

Sure. When solar panels get to 5 to 10 cents per kwHr I will support them. Hell, I'll go out and buy a whole heap and install them on my house. Let's get there first.

 

How do you propose we get there without support in the present?

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

On a related note, solar will also have to compete against other technologies.

When I said solar was too expensive, I was also comparing it to other alternatives, even green ones.

 

As per usual, Mr Skeptic, you raise a good point. To clarify my own, I never have suggested that solar is the only solution, just a major big piece of the future energy pie.

Edited August 1, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

As per usual, Mr Skeptic, you raise a good point. To clarify my own, I never have suggested that solar is the only solution, just a major big piece of the future energy pie.

 

Fair enough. I'm starting to wonder whether I'm wrong about the price of solar power. It is rather hard to tell, as the given price may not include subsidies, might assume unrealistically optimal conditions, or may exist only in the future. However, it seems they are competitive with at least oil/gas power plants. By the time any legislation gets signed, they'll be even better. And coal really does have to go.

[SkepticLance]

In the reference I originally quoted, solar electricity cost 25c per kwh. Wind 10c.

 

In the graph Mr Skeptic shows, the absolute costs are lower, but the relative costs are pretty much the same. In both cases, solar energy costs 2.5 times as much as wind energy.

 

As has already been pointed out, it is the relative cost that counts. Solar has to get down to the cost of wind energy or better, or else no energy corporation will use it for mass generation.

[iNow]

In the reference I originally quoted, solar electricity cost 25c per kwh. Wind 10c.

 

In the graph Mr Skeptic shows, the absolute costs are lower, but the relative costs are pretty much the same. In both cases, solar energy costs 2.5 times as much as wind energy.

 

As has already been pointed out, it is the relative cost that counts. Solar has to get down to the cost of wind energy or better, or else no energy corporation will use it for mass generation.

 

You've evaded my question.

 

How exactly do you propose we get to those lower costs without support in the present?