global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[swansont]

An advantage of solar and wind is that they exist now, and will improve economically as they are more widely deployed (solar probably has more room for improvement). All technologies can improve with R&D, but you can't field a fusion reactor yet, or a room-temperature superconductor.

[scalbers]

Right, fusion isn't available as of yet. This is why I'm bringing up the subject in the context of whether increasing the funding can hasten the day when it may be available. In the long run this could be rather relevant. In the spirit of trying all possible options we might bring more solar and wind online in the short term while we research the more challenging methods for the long term.

 

The room temperature superconductor seems to have some relevance to the discussions of wind and solar as it could help with power transmission from areas that have lots of wind and sun to the areas where people are.

[Edtharan]

An advantage of solar and wind is that they exist now

This is the reason that I support wind and solar. Yes, there are other technologies that might be far better than either wind or solar, but wind and solar exist now.

 

Price is an issue, at the moment, but with the right economic support (supporting the manufacturing pathways not the end users) can bring the price down.

 

The main reason that supporting the production pathways will be better than supporting the end user is that each time the product passes through a set of hand, the price increases. This means that you will get more value for your money by supporting the early processes, and that it will also have a much bigger effect on the end user's price. Plus, with support in production, it becomes more feasible to over produce and this will bring the price down further.

 

Finally, if the support for the early production is done the right way (government or partially government business), then the government can recover their costs over time (around 5 to 10 years) and it will then effectively not cost them anything (and they might even make a profit, decrease unemployment and create whole new markets , they wouldn't want to do that now would they ). And, after they have established the markets, they can sell off the business in privatisation if they so desire.

 

This kind of thing has been done with telecommunication companies and power companies (well they weren't actually set up to do this, but it was done anyway) in countries all of the world before now (and still occuring). So it is not like this kind of business arrangement has never been implemented before now, it is a well known approach.

 

But the thing is, we know that solar and wind can work, we just have to do something to bring the unit price down or make the equipment produce more power for the same cost.

 

Then we can start to look into the unknowns for different sources of power.

[scalbers]

Yes, I've been mentioning quite a bit about solar in this thread and I support what you're saying. I'm wondering though if we can increase development simultaneously of short term things like solar and long term things like fusion? I think it might be interesting to add a discussion of these farther off technologies into the mix. Kind of like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 

This is one way of acknowledging the skeptics comments about diversification.

[iNow]

Yes, I've been mentioning quite a bit about solar in this thread and I support what you're saying. I'm wondering though if we can increase development simultaneously of short term things like solar and long term things like fusion? I think it might be interesting to add a discussion of these farther off technologies into the mix. Kind of like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 

This is one way of acknowledging the skeptics comments about diversification.

 

The challenge seems to be the cost benefit of this, and the odds of the gamble. While the payoff on development of fusion technology is tremendous, and while we should be doing that in parallel with implementation of wind, solar, etc... we should not IMO be doing so with equivalent scope, spending, or effort... not yet anyway.

 

We have a real problem to fix, one which should have been fixed a decade ago. If we wait too much longer for the development work on other technologies, the problem will only get worse and we don't even have a guarantee that our efforts will pay off if we chose to follow that other avenue of research with the same "oompff."

 

We need to implement immediate fixes and solutions, which gets back to the "solar and wind are proven" answer. We know they work. We know how they work. We understand the limitations and we are experienced with making them better.

 

I'm not saying that work should cease on technologies like fusion, I'm saying that this is more of a "Jetsons Flying Car" solution and that we shouldn't invest too heavily into it until we actually see some cars start flying.

[scalbers]

To help clarify this a bit, I would suggest that investing a few more billion today in the "flying cars" of the future may help hasten the day in the future they come to fruition. This could be done without interfering in any way with the near-term development of wind and solar. I believe the fusion investment is underfunded (recently brought back down to zero in the U.S. for ITER) from what I've heard.

[swansont]

Yes, I've been mentioning quite a bit about solar in this thread and I support what you're saying. I'm wondering though if we can increase development simultaneously of short term things like solar and long term things like fusion? I think it might be interesting to add a discussion of these farther off technologies into the mix. Kind of like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 

I think you have to. The timeframe of development is long, and you need to put money into projects even if they don't have an "immediate" payoff (where immediate can still be several years between discovery and market).

 

But "more money for research" is something that needs to be done intelligently, because money is still in finite supply. More money does not always translate into more productivity, or the same productivity return on the money. If a project is adequately funded, adding money slows things down — it takes time and effort to spend money, and that is time taken away from research. If you start up a second project, and it isn't very different from the first, you aren't likely to discover anything new — you have to be trying different methods that take you down different avenues of inquiry. So without some orthogonality of projects, the money is better used elsewhere.

 

And as an aside, this is where funding for basic research is important. Discoveries that have no immediate application get incorporated into other projects, but industry doesn't play this game much anymore — it's almost all government funded. But this also brings to mind the fact that some discoveries require other enabling technology or knowledge, so the sentiment that "we should have been researching this years ago" is a tad misguided. It's not necessarily so.

[iNow]

Looking back, I need to rethink my position a little bit. The argument I made against fusion is similar to the argument I attacked when it was being made against solar by others. I need to wrap my head around why I find solar more acceptable at this point than fusion so I can better articulate my true position to others.

 

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact the solar and wind were being compared against coal, so stand out as the preferred alternative much more robustly.

[scalbers]

Here's some info about DEMO, which is the proposed demonstration plant after ITER:

 

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

 

And this figure about "Beyond ITER"

 

http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm

 

Meanwhile, here's a good article with an update on geothermal power:

 

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update74.htm

[SkepticLance]

Most of you guys are Americans.

Ask yourself why your government is prepared to get into a war in Iraq that one writer estimates will cost $US 3 trillion in the long run, while being unwilling to spend a few billion on essential energy research.

 

My own view is that the net must be cast wide. Research should be on short term returns like wind and solar power, and new technology nuclear fission, as well as long term benefits like nuclear fusion and ocean wave energy.

 

I also think that we cannot wait too long for new development. Research is great, but the need for a massive increase in generation capacity ( and expanded distribution network) is now, and money needs to be poured into new power plants now. I support nuclear fission for this, since it is proven technology, and it is one of the few options that supports the sheer quantity of electricity generation that will be needed, without pouring out greenhouse gases.

 

One estimate says that 10,000 new fission plants will be needed globally in the long run if we use no other source of power. That is difficult but doable. Less difficult if supplemented by new power sources as they become available.

 

 

Options like wave energy, and large scale solar power are still a decade or three away. Research them, yes. Invest now in proven technology.

[iNow]

Options like wave energy, and large scale solar power are still a decade or three away.

 

This point has already been debunked in this very thread. Simply repeating it doesn't make it valid.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

I suggest you re-read my post. You have seized on a small point you disagree with, and ignored the larger one.

[iNow]

Doesn't make the point with which I disagreed any more accurate now, does it?

[Mr Skeptic]

I need to wrap my head around why I find solar more acceptable at this point than fusion so I can better articulate my true position to others.

 

Well, we have this ginormous fusion reactor that has near 100% efficiency, but we are hardly using. Seems a shame to waste all that energy that the sun is already producing, especially if we are to be using little copies of the sun instead.

[iNow]

Lol... You're quite right. My comments seem to imply that solar is not itself based on fusion.

[Edtharan]

Options like wave energy, and large scale solar power are still a decade or three away. Research them, yes. Invest now in proven technology.

As you have pointed out, Nuclear will take at at least 20 years to get operational. However, contrary to what you have said, Solar and Wind are available now and give a return on investment in around 10 to 15 years (with a lifetime much longer).

 

Even if Solar and Wind gave an investment return in 20 years, it would still be better than Nuclear as by that time Nuclear would only be starting to get going and will not have been able to give a return at all in that time.

 

Given that it takes around 5 to 10 years for a return on Nuclear we can compare the returns side by side.

 

Solar/Wind

5 to 10 years start up

10 to 15 years return on investment

15 years minimum time for return

25 years maximum time for return

 

Nuclear

20 to 25 Years Start up

5 to 10 years return on investment

25 years minimum time for return

35 years maximum time for return

 

So at best Nuclear would only give us a return if Solar was at worst.

 

Your conclusions are based on incorrect assumptions. You have assumed that:

 

1) Solar/Wind is more expensive than it is.

2) Solar/Wind will not be made cheaper by increasing mass production.

3) Solar Wind must be implemented in the same way that current power generation is

 

Let me address these points in turn:

1) The figures you are using for the pricing and efficiency of Solar is years out of date. Current figures (and posted in this thread) show that the price of solar using new methods of production, would be capable of production at a price comparable to that of current power production costs

 

2) Historically, when mass production is increased, then prices come down. Look at Mobile Phones, the prices have been dropping fast. Also computers, cars, food, etc, etc, etc. Based on historical precedent, Mass production (and increases in mass production), will lower costs.

 

3) Solar power (and to a lesser extent Wind), can be implemented in a micro generation system. The generators can be made small and cheap enough to be installed into a suburban home. It is also easily scalable, so that you can go from the micro generation up to full large scale plants (like today's power plants).

 

The advantage of scale that current day power plants have is due to the way they work. Solar, being made from cells, can be more easily distributed.

 

This give the advantage of being able to position plants near where they are needed most. This dramatically lowers the rate of loss due to transition, and so actually increases its efficiency.

 

It also accounts for the demand of total area that the plants would require. As the area is not concentrated in one place, and can co-exist with other types of infrastructure, the land that it takes up does not necessarily have to be acquired form else where (as a nuclear plant would).

 

As you 3 main assumptions are shown to be incorrect, then your conclusions (that solar/wind would be less effective than Nuclear) based on these assumption is also incorrect.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan

 

Here is an up to date reference on solar power price, dated May 2008.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=20702&a=

 

I quote :

 

"Solar power is more than three times the cost of electricity from conventional sources, according to figures from the industry tracking firm Solarbuzz and the United States' Energy Information Administration. Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s, but silicon shortages, which began in 2005, have pushed up prices to more than $4.80 per watt, according to Solarbuzz. "

 

This is an optimistic reference which believes prices will drop. But not by enough to make a big difference. Again, I quote :

 

"A report from Michael Rogol, an analyst at Photon Consulting, says that demand for solar panels will quickly rise in response to even slightly cheaper prices, holding the price drop between 2007 and 2010 to a mere 20 percent"

 

It is possible that the price will drop enough to become competitive in due course, but that is speculation. Right now, and for the short to medium term future, solar panel generated electricity will continue to be expensive. It will still have a place, especially where sunlight is intense and largely uninterrupted (deserts?), but is unlikely to make substantial inroads into large scale power generation for national distribution grids. At least not for a long time.

 

Nuclear power takes a long time to set up - yes. But at least we know how long. Proven technology, and electricity at current pricing way cheaper than solar panels.

 

Time may prove me wrong, and solar energy may become dirt cheap quite soon. However, that has been said for a long time, and it is still expensive. I do not think we will see any overnight miracles.

[swansont]

Take it for what it's worth, but the entry in Wikipedia puts nuclear power plant construction at $5-6 per Watt. If you want to build a lot of them, the price goes up, for the same reason that the solar price is going to be higher if demand is higher.

 

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

 

 

Edtharan

 

Here is an up to date reference on solar power price, dated May 2008.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=20702&a=

 

I quote :

 

"Solar power is more than three times the cost of electricity from conventional sources, according to figures from the industry tracking firm Solarbuzz and the United States' Energy Information Administration. Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s, but silicon shortages, which began in 2005, have pushed up prices to more than $4.80 per watt, according to Solarbuzz. "

 

This is an optimistic reference which believes prices will drop. But not by enough to make a big difference. Again, I quote :

 

"A report from Michael Rogol, an analyst at Photon Consulting, says that demand for solar panels will quickly rise in response to even slightly cheaper prices, holding the price drop between 2007 and 2010 to a mere 20 percent"

 

It is possible that the price will drop enough to become competitive in due course, but that is speculation. Right now, and for the short to medium term future, solar panel generated electricity will continue to be expensive. It will still have a place, especially where sunlight is intense and largely uninterrupted (deserts?), but is unlikely to make substantial inroads into large scale power generation for national distribution grids. At least not for a long time.

 

Nuclear power takes a long time to set up - yes. But at least we know how long. Proven technology, and electricity at current pricing way cheaper than solar panels.

 

Time may prove me wrong, and solar energy may become dirt cheap quite soon. However, that has been said for a long time, and it is still expensive. I do not think we will see any overnight miracles.

 

I don't get it. You cite an article and disagree with its conclusions? The same article basically says that solar manufacturers will be selling all of the product that they can manufacture as the reason that the price won't drop more than 20%. Simultaneously, you conclude that it won't amount to much.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

 

As I said before, dollars per watt is not an appropriate unit to use for comparisons. Comparing solar with nuclear on a dollar per watt basis is especially nefarious, since solar produces a lot of power in direct sunlight, but this drops when the light dims, and drops to zero at night. On the other hand, nuclear can continue its maximal power output 24 hours a day, and does. If you want to compare costs, do it on the basis of cents per kilowatt hour over a 24/365 average, which is realistic.

 

And if you build a lot of nuclear power plants, the cost per plant goes down, not up. The cost of Uranium will go up with a lot of plants, but that is less important, since it constitutes only about 10% of the cost of making electricity from nuclear reactors.

 

On your last comment - I am saying that solar panels will probably not be a major supplier to national grid power in the near future. It has a great future, but for more specialised uses, until and unless the cost drops enough to compete with the main mass generation systems.

[Edtharan]

Here is an up to date reference on solar power price, dated May 2008.

Skepticlance, you are not actually looking at my argument. Please take you time and try to actually understand it, ok.

 

I am not saying that we need to create new solar technologies. I am saying we need to address the mass production issues for current solar technologies.

 

There is no research needed and there is no new discoveries needed.

 

You keep presenting the counter argument that for solar power to become cheaper we need new research.

 

But then you post an article stating that the reason we don't have cheap solar technology with current technologies is that the supply chain of the silicone is in high demand.

 

My WHOLE argument for solar technologies is to increase the supply of silicon to bring the price down.

 

In other words, that article you posted as an argument against me, actually completely supported my argument. That is how much of a misunderstanding of my argument you just showed. You have got it 180 degrees around the wrong way.

 

[/rant]

 

Ok, now let me start again.

 

The main problem that is increasing the price of solar technologies is that the supply of silicone is in high demand. According to economic theory, if you can increase the supply (or reduce demand - but we don't want to decrease demand), then you can reduce the price.

 

Currently, Governments subsidise the end users (the consumers who buy solar technologies, either individuals or companies wanting to set up solar power plants). However, this subsidies increases the demand for the silicon.

 

As demand increases, the price rises.

 

This means that actions of the governments is acting to increase the price of solar technologies, not decrease them.

 

My proposal is to change this policy and get the governments subsidising the production of the silicon and the solar cells, not the end user.

 

By subsidising these early stages of production, the governments act to increase the supply of the technologies and this acts to lower the price.

 

We know the demand for solar is there. The price would not be as high as it is if there wasn't the demand for it.

 

The problem isn't new technologies, but one of supply and demand.

 

As demand is not the problem, supply therefore, must be it as it is the only factor left.

 

The solution lies in a different approach by governments. They need to address the supply issue, not act increase demand (the demand is already there).

 

As I said before, dollars per watt is not an appropriate unit to use for comparisons. Comparing solar with nuclear on a dollar per watt basis is especially nefarious, since solar produces a lot of power in direct sunlight, but this drops when the light dims, and drops to zero at night.

Part of the solution that solar is, also includes storage or alternate sources of power.

 

The technologies exist today (again, no research or hoped for breakthroughs are necessary).

 

Here is a list of possible ones (not that I am suggesting that any one in particular would actually work better than the others):

 

Hydro power: Either as damns or as pumped water as a storage for excess solar power.

 

Fuel Cells: This is probably the most unknown because it hasn't been applied in large scales before. But the technology does exist to try it out.

 

Geothermal: By its self it might be problematic in supplying all the power needs, but it could be used as supplemental generation for solar.

 

Wind: This has been shown to be economically feasible in some areas. Although improvements are likely to be made, this is, in its current state capable of supplementing solar.

 

Coal and Oil plants: Yes. These could be used, but not as main stream power, but instead used to take up the slack when Solar is not efficient (evenings and at night). Using various scrubbing methods, these plants could be made cleaner, and as solar will be taking up the majority of power, there would be less over all pollution (we might not be able to eliminate all pollution but we can try to minimise it)

 

Nuclear: Nuclear has some issues (both real and imagined). But it could be used to supplement Solar at night (etc).

 

Batteries: This is probably the most expensive off peak solution and might really only be used in local situations (like a domestic house), and not for industrial needs.

 

Thermal Storage: This used excess electricity from solar (or even direct solar itself) to store energy as heat. This heat is then used to generate steam for turbines when the sun is not shining.

 

None of these require new technologies to be implemented. Some are more expensive than others. Some are more efficient than others. Some require more land space than others. Some have political ramifications. Some have environmental issues. None are perfect. None can be a total solution.

 

However, all could be implemented using today's technologies.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan

I am not quite sure why this has descended to an argument. I have no problem with solar power, and in fact would love to be able to install solar panels on my house and attain a limited independence from the national grid.

 

I was merely pointing out that it is still about 300% more expensive than conventional means, and we have no way of knowing if and when this will change. I do not believe that energy policy should be based on something that represents a form of speculation. That is why I prefer to see planners going with proven technology.

 

Increasing silicon supply may help drop prices. After all, silicon is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. However, it is the uncertainty that should recognised. If the price comes down enough, that is great. Should we base energy plans on something so uncertain? I doubt it.

 

I would also point out that energy storage actually makes the cost problem worse. Storing, and later tapping energy from the store always causes very significant losses. This will double, at least, the cost of that energy.

[Edtharan]

I am not quite sure why this has descended to an argument.

This thread is about "salvaging fact from heaps of BS" about global warming. One piece of BS is that solar power must be expensive, which you seem to have accepted.

 

Solar power is only expensive because of the way governments are funding the solar industry.

 

I was merely pointing out that it is still about 300% more expensive than conventional means, and we have no way of knowing if and when this will change.

Again, this is the BS I am trying to correct. We do know that the price will change if the method of funding by the government changes. It is the current method of funding that has actually created the high prices in the first place.

 

It is not like the method of funding that I am suggesting has never been applied before. In many industries, government around the world have created drops in pricing with funding. In the telecommunications industries, most governments fund the basic infrastructure (or once did to get the industry up and running). In the power industry the governments fund the basic infrastructure and this lowers the price of connecting to the power grids.

 

Basic economic theory (supply and demand) states that what I am proposing will work. We have known the laws of supply and demand for centuries.

 

This is not new stuff. No new stuff is needed.

 

There is no unknowns needed to bring about a cheaper price of solar technologies.

 

It is really simple. If you can reduce the cost to manufacture an item, then the end price can be reduced too. An item sold in bulk for a lower price can make more profit than selling a few items at a high price.

 

These principles underline the success of the automotive industries.

 

There is nothing new here.

 

Using the exact same solar cells as today's technology can create, if you can lower the cost of their manufacture (as the raw materials - pure silicon - make up a significant proportion of the cost of the product), then hyou can dramatically lower the end product's price.

 

For each hand that an item passes through you can get a rough estimate of the price if you double it. So if it costs $5/watt for the end user to install a micro solar power system (a household system connected to the grid), and the solar cells had to pass through 4 hands (Silicon purification, Solar cell production, distributor, retailer), then the basic cost to produce a unit would be $0.31/watt.

 

If you could halve that base cost to $0.15/watt then the end price for the user would be: $2.5/watt.

 

For a government to subsidise this for 100,000 units (100,00 watts), it would cost the government: $250,000 if they subsidise the end product (50% subsidy).

 

If they instead subsidise the base product, to get the same results (50% subsidy) it would only cost them: $15,000.

 

That is a saving of $235,000

 

With that $235,000 saved, they could subsidise far more units, and thus easily meet demand (and exceed it to bring the price down), or fund research into better and more efficient solar technologies, put it towards other power supply sources, etc.

 

By continuing to fund the end product like they are, governments are causing the price of solar technology to remain high.

 

This is old hat stuff. Henry Ford (the car guy) knew this and implemented it. It is not new or require new technologies. There is no unknowns about the technologies to be discovered.

 

ytour arguments against this are jsut Red Herrings.

 

You keep stating that we don't know if or when the pricing will change. I will say this however, if the current funding strategy continues, then unless a new technology comes about that does not use silicon in its manufacture (or another hard to acquire material), then the price will not likely go down. But if the governments start funding the source materials and turn hard to acquire materials into common materials, then the price will go down.

 

Basic economic theory states that it will.

[SkepticLance]

To Edtharan

 

I think our views on economics are different. I assume you are American???

I am New Zealander, and we look at things a bit differently. Our opinion is that the USA got its economics very badly wrong. The US administration uses tariffs and subsidies to distort the economy in all sorts of ways - usually for the gain of whatever lobby group happens to be most influential at the time.

 

Way back in 1984, the NZ government dumped all tariffs and all subsidies. We now operate according to open competition. At the time everyone thought it would be a disaster. It is still a disaster to those who attempt to get into uncompetitive money making activities. They lose big time. However, it has resulted in the biggest boost to our primary products industry in our history. The area we were good at, we got really, really good at!

 

For this reason, I cannot condone your suggestion that the way forward is via subsidies. If the US government (and others) were to remove subsidies off other means of generating electricity, and solar panels became stars as a result, then I would applaud. To try to turn solar panels into a success by adding a subsidy is simply wrong. Another distortion.

[swansont]

Swansont

 

As I said before, dollars per watt is not an appropriate unit to use for comparisons. Comparing solar with nuclear on a dollar per watt basis is especially nefarious, since solar produces a lot of power in direct sunlight, but this drops when the light dims, and drops to zero at night. On the other hand, nuclear can continue its maximal power output 24 hours a day, and does. If you want to compare costs, do it on the basis of cents per kilowatt hour over a 24/365 average, which is realistic.

 

<sigh> You just quoted dollars per Watt. If it's a metric you do not wish to use for comparison, don't use it in your analyses!

 

And if you build a lot of nuclear power plants, the cost per plant goes down, not up. The cost of Uranium will go up with a lot of plants, but that is less important, since it constitutes only about 10% of the cost of making electricity from nuclear reactors.

 

Why will nuclear plants defy the economics that will buoy solar prices? Higher demand will somehow lower prices for nuclear, but not solar? There are few companies that build components for nuclear plants. If they get more orders, what's going to drive the price down?

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

Re raising or lowering prices of power generation with a greater number of plants.

 

There are two principles here.

 

1. If something is in limited supply, then increasing demand will raise prices. That is why gold and diamonds are so expensive.

 

2. If something can be made in more or less unlimited amounts, then increasing demand increases number of units made which lowers prices. The old 'cheaper by the dozen' principle.

 

If solar panels are limited by silicon availability, then increasing demand raises prices. Similarly the price of uranium goes up with increased demand, because the availability is limited. It is very likely that both these examples would reverse, and they would actually get cheaper in quantity, if new technology and extra investment is introduced to increase availability of silicon and uranium.

 

However, if we are going to make 10,000 nuclear power stations, the cost per unit goes down. The cost would go up only if there was some limit on building nuclear power plants, and I do not think that applies.