My Last Letter - GM "Chairman"

[iNow]

That's also why I was curious about the total lifetime of the car without having a combustion engine with thousands of parts to wear down. It could be that these cars start at a higher price, but last much longer, to the point that it becomes cheaper in the end.

 

What an excellent point. I hadn't considered that.

 

 

 

Phi - Nice job on the response above. Clear and broad all at the same time.

[CPL.Luke]

as I said solar costs 3-4 times more than coal and wind.

 

we do have to drill (or scoop) for solar, where do you think they get the silicon from, as for wind I don't know much about the supply chain of carbon fiber, but I's imagine drilling occurs at some point.

 

the volt was created under rick wagoner, Bob Lutz took over the helm late last year.

 

also coal is an example of "undercooked" petroleum, and there is alot more of it. Its been estimated that the US has enough coal to satisfy present energy consumption for over 200 years.

 

again to reitreate my position I believe that the battery technology and grid technology will be in place 10-20 years in the future, so that my childrens first cars will most likely be all electric, but its unlikely that my next 1 or 2 cars will be all electric. Just consider that with the technology that you have been saying existed since the 1990's (lithium ion) it would take several days to charge a car up to the point that would be considered normal for an average car powered by gasoline, and it would also cost about $10,000 per battery capable of 200 miles, these batteries wear out after 2-3 years and so you would be looking to replace $10000 of your car every 2-3 years regardless of the miles traveled. And thats assuming the battery had the maximum energy density per dollar that is available with lithium ion.

 

for those nimh batteries you keep talking about it that same 200 mile battery would cost

 

200 miles/(4 mile/kwh)=50kwh

 

50000wh/(1.37wh/$)= $36496

 

and now you have succesfully made it so that the batteries is indeinate provided you drive 0 miles a year.

 

as those batteries last for 1000 cycles, so if each cycle is worth 200 miles the battery will need to be replaced after about 200000 miles, however one thing I've ignored in this calculation is that with each cycle the battery loses some of its capacity, after a certain point its expected that it will be useless in its application hence the cycle liftime. however so you should consider the 200000 number an upper bound. Further each cycle will be worth progressively fewer miles, so the actual point of replacement would be considerably earlier than that.

 

Also the number of wh/$ in the wikipedia page I linked to sources the nimh energy per cost numbers from a AA rechargeable nimh battery, so it could be expected that the batteries would cost considerably less, possibly on the order of 5 wh/$ which would make it equivalent to the cost of the lithium ion battery.

 

I would doubt however that the batteries will get much cheaper with increased scale, as they start requiring extra parts, such as an internal liquid cooling system. But, thats just a guess as I don't know much about the cost of these things.

[waitforufo]

ParanoiA,

CPL.Luke responded so well in his post #23 I have little to add. Perhaps I am a bit more optimistic than CPL.Luke in that I don't think the infrastructure obstacles are all that high. The basic electrical grid infrastructure exists, but we will have to provide the extra fuel for that grid when everyone plugs their car into it. This forum topic has discussed on several posts just how hard people, particularly in the auto industry are working to produce practical electrical vehicles. Yes, success will be very hard. Making the shift will be made more difficult by dropping or stable fuel prices as people make the transition. I just laugh out loud every time I here someone say practical electric vehicles are being held back by evil big corporations. Such vehicles would print money for anyone who provided them to the market.

 

You also paint me as a pessimist. Not so. Capitalism constantly shows me an optimistic future. For example, this forum topic tells me that as energy prices increase, we will build more nuclear, solar, wind, hydro power plants and electrical vehicles will be there to fill much of the personal transportation gap. All that new infrastructure construction will pay people wages producing a prosperous future. Same with the construction of all those new electric vehicles. All sounds good to me. Also, I know Capitalism will bring it to me quicker than any bunch of governmental meddlers. Why? Because Capitalism rewards those people that perform all that really super duper hard work you mention.

[ParanoiA]

You also paint me as a pessimist. Not so. Capitalism constantly shows me an optimistic future. For example, this forum topic tells me that as energy prices increase, we will build more nuclear, solar, wind, hydro power plants and electrical vehicles will be there to fill much of the personal transportation gap. All that new infrastructure construction will pay people wages producing a prosperous future. Same with the construction of all those new electric vehicles. All sounds good to me. Also, I know Capitalism will bring it to me quicker than any bunch of governmental meddlers. Why? Because Capitalism rewards those people that perform all that really super duper hard work you mention.

 

Point taken, and well said.

[waitforufo]

Anyone with a staff of legal talent equal to Chevron, you mean. Perhaps that's why the patent was transferred to Cobasys, a subsidiary of Chevron that does nothing else. I may not have mentioned in this thread that Cobasys is selling only to hybrid manufacturers, so they most likely would be able to show damages. Oh, wait, I *did* mention this earlier in the thread, didn't I.

 

The first Google search hit for Cobasys and I found this web site.

 

http://www.cobasys.com/company/markets_served.shtml

 

This page states they serve the transportation market…

 

----------------------------------------------

TRANSPORTATION

Cobasys has the ability to produce and package energy storage systems using differentchemistries including NiMH and Li-Ion.

 

NiMHax Energy storage system solutions for Transportation applications

 

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV)

Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV)

Electric Vehicles (EV)

Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV)

------------------------------------------------

 

So they claim to sell to the EV market. Also I am certain Cobasys would be in violation of anti trust laws if they refused to sell their products to electric vehicle manufacturers. That would be particularly true if they were selling batteries to all the markets listed on the web page provided.

 

My guess is if you contacted them they would sell you any battery they manufacture. That's their business.

[Phi for All]

That's also why I was curious about the total lifetime of the car without having a combustion engine with thousands of parts to wear down. It could be that these cars start at a higher price, but last much longer, to the point that it becomes cheaper in the end.

It's hard to know. The EV-1s were all crushed (not sold, for some reason) when GM discontinued the program. Toyota sold some of the RAV4s (they only made less than 400 - so much for Lutz's claim of billions in retooling being required) and they're still on the road today, but the batteries are rare and so the price is skewed. The brushless electric motors are simplicity itself compared to IC, and much more efficient (remember that an electric motor consumes no energy while idling in heavy traffic).

 

as I said solar costs 3-4 times more than coal and wind.

Well, even you are not saying we should abandon solar, so lets just take *current* costs off the table, in the interest of not repeating ourselves ad infinauseam, OK?

we do have to drill (or scoop) for solar, where do you think they get the silicon from, as for wind I don't know much about the supply chain of carbon fiber, but I's imagine drilling occurs at some point.

Good point. The costs of mining the silicon should be factored in. But once the converter mechanism is in place, there is no distribution hassle like oil and coal.

 

Its been estimated that the US has enough coal to satisfy present energy consumption for over 200 years.

That's cool, but it still pollutes. It's my hope that, if we can stop coal subsidies, the market will force them to research ways to make it burn cleaner (I don't like the current "clean coal" myth).

again to reitreate my position I believe that the battery technology and grid technology will be in place 10-20 years in the future, so that my childrens first cars will most likely be all electric, but its unlikely that my next 1 or 2 cars will be all electric.

Sorry, C.P.L. Luke, I just feel you're wrong here. Look at what Toyota did with the RAV4. They took a popular model and just made some tweaks to make it an EV. We just don't know whether relaxing the emissions requirement or Chevron's suing them to stop using their NiMH batteries was to blame for the halt in production, but the demand was there.

Just consider that with the technology that you have been saying existed since the 1990's (lithium ion) it would take several days to charge a car up to the point that would be considered normal for an average car powered by gasoline, and it would also cost about $10,000 per battery capable of 200 miles, these batteries wear out after 2-3 years and so you would be looking to replace $10000 of your car every 2-3 years regardless of the miles traveled. And thats assuming the battery had the maximum energy density per dollar that is available with lithium ion.

No, *you* have been talking about lithium ion, *I* have been talking about nickel metal hedrite.

 

for those nimh batteries you keep talking about it that same 200 mile battery would cost

 

200 miles/(4 mile/kwh)=50kwh

 

50000wh/(1.37wh/$)= $36496

 

and now you have succesfully made it so that the batteries is indeinate provided you drive 0 miles a year.

The entire RAV4 sold for less than $30,000 after rebates from the IRS and ZIP-grants. I think your numbers are wrong.

as those batteries last for 1000 cycles, so if each cycle is worth 200 miles the battery will need to be replaced after about 200000 miles, however one thing I've ignored in this calculation is that with each cycle the battery loses some of its capacity, after a certain point its expected that it will be useless in its application hence the cycle liftime. however so you should consider the 200000 number an upper bound. Further each cycle will be worth progressively fewer miles, so the actual point of replacement would be considerably earlier than that.

I've never had a car that lasted me 200,000 miles. That'd be nice, actually.

 

Also the number of wh/$ in the wikipedia page I linked to sources the nimh energy per cost numbers from a AA rechargeable nimh battery, so it could be expected that the batteries would cost considerably less, possibly on the order of 5 wh/$ which would make it equivalent to the cost of the lithium ion battery.

Well, I think it's safe to say that the large format NiMH batteries are different from AA technology.

 

I would doubt however that the batteries will get much cheaper with increased scale, as they start requiring extra parts, such as an internal liquid cooling system. But, thats just a guess as I don't know much about the cost of these things.

I'm trying to pare down on the arguments, so guessing isn't really helping.

 

So they claim to sell to the EV market. Also I am certain Cobasys would be in violation of anti trust laws if they refused to sell their products to electric vehicle manufacturers. That would be particularly true if they were selling batteries to all the markets listed on the web page provided.

 

My guess is if you contacted them they would sell you any battery they manufacture. That's their business.

I hope it *is* different today. But just a few years ago it wasn't:

Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco.

So Cobasys got around the anti-trust laws by simply not making a battery they were capable of making to satisfy the EV market.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV

[CPL.Luke]

if you notice I posted a link that showed that lithium ion batteries are currently much better than nimh.

 

how big were those rebates? I wouldn't be surprised if the government took over $10000 off the cars price tag in order to be able to trot out a couple ev's in california to demonstrate their commitment to the environment, also keep in mind that I was talking about 50 kwh batteries capable of taking an electric car 200 miles down the road based on an energy efficiency of 4 miles/kwh (taken from one of the links I posted).

 

You also have yet to post any numbers which show that the nimh battery is as good as you say it is.

 

I've never had a car that lasted me 200,000 miles. That'd be nice, actually.

 

hmm as I've owned a car that was at 260000 and would've lasted at least another 20k if it wasn't for my own stupidity, I have to ask what you do with your cars when you get rid of them? do you sell them for scrap, because if you don't and instead you only trade it in, than the dealer looks at the car and figures out how much he can get for it. On a car that is going to require a new $10000 battery soon I can tell you that you will barely get a dime for your trade in.

 

ALso from a production standpoint its quite silly to insist that there is a general demand (a demand for mass-production) for an EV on the basis that 400 were made and they found buyers for them, thats kind of like insisting that there is demand for mass-produced ferrari's because they make a few hundred a year and you have to wait on a waiting list in order to get one.

 

As for the solar panel bit I would like to remind you of the energy costs of producing them, as silicon requires high heat to melt, and even higher heat to be forced into chemical bonds with other materials, the energy cost in producing these solar panels should not be underestimated, and why subsidies that support their use tend to have a distorting effect on the market, similar to subsidies for tar sands and biofuels. tax breaks for their use also switches money away from research and into development, which hurts the solar industry even more in the long run as compared to an enviroment with no subsidies.

[iNow]

As for the solar panel bit I would like to remind you of the energy costs of producing them, as silicon requires high heat to melt, and even higher heat to be forced into chemical bonds with other materials, the energy cost in producing these solar panels should not be underestimated, and why subsidies that support their use tend to have a distorting effect on the market, similar to subsidies for tar sands and biofuels.

 

Uhhmmm... we also make computers using silicone. They're pretty cheap now.

[CPL.Luke]

microprocessors are small...solar farms are big... see the difference.

 

processors were originally very expensive die shrinks are what made them cheaper and faster, I would highly doubt a plate of silicon can get better at absorbing the sunlight when it gets smaller.

 

not to mention at $200 per cm^2 thats pretty expensive

[Phi for All]

if you notice I posted a link that showed that lithium ion batteries are currently much better than nimh.

OK. I mentioned it because everything I ever quoted or spoke about in this thread was NiMH related. Lithium ion should make you feel better about the near future of EVs.

 

how big were those rebates?

From the Wiki entry I posted in the last post:

The MSRP was $42,000; but in California, ZIP-grant rebates of $9,000, decreasing in 2003 to $5,000, and a $4,000 credit from the Internal Revenue Service brought the price down to a more palatable $29,000 ($33,000 for some 2003 deliveries), including the home charger.

 

You also have yet to post any numbers which show that the nimh battery is as good as you say it is.

From the Wiki entry I posted in the last post:

PERFORMANCE: The RAV4EV has a governed top speed of 78 miles per hour (126 km/h)' date=' a tested 0-60 time of around 18 seconds (depending on state-of-charge on the batteries) and a range of 80 to 120 miles (130 to 190 km). Mileage depends on the same factors as a traditional gasoline-powered vehicle, mainly rolling resistance and average speed (aerodynamic drag).

 

The RAV4EV has 24 12-volt 95Ah NiMH batteries capable of storing 27.4kWh of energy.[/quote']

CHARGING: The RAV4EV's batteries can be recharged from being fully depleted to fully charged in about 5 hours. Charging is supplied via magnetic induction by a wall-mounted 6000-Watt charging unit on a 220 volt' date=' 30 amp, North American "clothes dryer"-type plug.

[/quote']

MILEAGE COSTS: As of May' date=' 2006, charging an RAV4EV from full-dead to full-charge, at a rate of US$0.09 per kilowatt-hour, costs around $2.70. As of May, 2008, based on a gasoline price-per-gallon cost of US$3.80 and up. and the non-EV 2003 RAV4 2-wheel-drive gasoline fuel efficiency of 27 mpg, the RAV4EV costs approximately 25% as much to fully charge, and makes mileage in the RAV4EV the cost equivalent to a 111.1-mile-per-gallon small SUV (2.12 L/100 km).

 

In addition, the RAV4EV has a charge timer built into the dashboard that enables the vehicle to start charging at a specific time. As the RAV4EV easily becomes the main cost of electricity in an average-sized home, this enables the owner to use a Time-Of-Day Meter to reduce electricity costs. This configuration is a standard practice with RAV4EV owners. The price of electricity at night depends on the carrier, but is usually in the range of 60% of the normal rate. In the use of charging the RAV4EV, this equates to a cheaper cost-per-mile, roughly equivalent to a vehicle capable of 166.6 mpg (miles-per-gallon) (1.41 L/100 km), based on a price of US$3.00 per gallon.

 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency listed mileage ratings for the RAV4EV in its yearly Fuel Economy Guide from 2000 through 2003. The 2003 model recorded city mileage equivalent to 125 mpg, and 100 mpg on the highway. Estimated combined mileage was 112 mpg.

 

For comparison, a reasonably modern European supermini may manage motorway travel at 5 L/100 km (47 mpg US) or 6.5 L/100 km in city traffic (36 mpg US), while an average North American mid-size car travels 9 L/100 km (27 mpg US) highway, 11 L/100 km (21 mpg US) city.

[/quote']There are other statistics from GMs EV-1 and the Ford Ranger EV, but those are from enthusiasts who are currently driving these vehicles. While their numbers are probably more realistic, they could also be more suspect so I didn't include them. Just remember that the RAV4 EV is a small 4-seater SUV, the EV-1 is a two-seater compact and the Ranger is a pickup.

 

hmm as I've owned a car that was at 260000 and would've lasted at least another 20k if it wasn't for my own stupidity, I have to ask what you do with your cars when you get rid of them?

I drive them until their resale value starts to creep below my needs, then I sell them privately (unless the dealer will give me more) and buy a brand new one outright.

do you sell them for scrap, because if you don't and instead you only trade it in, than the dealer looks at the car and figures out how much he can get for it. On a car that is going to require a new $10000 battery soon I can tell you that you will barely get a dime for your trade in.

I'm sure the battery will be just as much a factor on EVs trade-ins as an engine would be for IC cars. Again though, you're using current costs for trade-in on a vehicle I haven't begun to drive yet, and you're also assuming the battery will be as expensive as it is now when I do trade-in.

 

ALso from a production standpoint its quite silly to insist that there is a general demand (a demand for mass-production) for an EV on the basis that 400 were made and they found buyers for them, thats kind of like insisting that there is demand for mass-produced ferrari's because they make a few hundred a year and you have to wait on a waiting list in order to get one.

I think it's silly to base your arguments on what the costs are before auto-makers decide to produce them in mass. Henry Ford taught us how mass production brings the price down, and if Toyota can sell or lease 328 EVs at $42,000 a pop, you know the prices will be better when they make 328,000 of them.

 

And why would you balk at buying a vehicle that got 4 times the mileage your IC car gets? And don't forget that you may be able to charge it off-grid if big evil solar gets its way and you start generating your own electricity.

 

As for the solar panel bit I would like to remind you of the energy costs of producing them, as silicon requires high heat to melt, and even higher heat to be forced into chemical bonds with other materials, the energy cost in producing these solar panels should not be underestimated, and why subsidies that support their use tend to have a distorting effect on the market, similar to subsidies for tar sands and biofuels. tax breaks for their use also switches money away from research and into development, which hurts the solar industry even more in the long run as compared to an enviroment with no subsidies.

I think emerging technologies are the ones who need the subsidies and the only ones who should get them. They need them to overcome the entrenched markets whose infrastructures are already established. We should take the $2B we give to the $10B US sugar industry (which somehow manages to make our sugar cost twice as much as anywhere else in the world), or the billions we give to coal and oil that makes their numbers artificially low and give it to solar, wind and other alternatives.

 

And I don't know why you don't think solar and wind are going to be using those subsidies for R&D to bring their cost to the consumer down. The more they do, the more market share they get.

 

But I would support an initiative that took ALL the money we currently give in subsidies to ALL markets and spent it improving education in the US. I get the feeling that the poorly educated masses are part of what's gotten us into our current bind in the first place.

 

processors were originally very expensive die shrinks are what made them cheaper and faster, I would highly doubt a plate of silicon can get better at absorbing the sunlight when it gets smaller.

You're thinking too linear. There are already patents out there using phosphorescent paint to enhance absorption, and other devices to help focus the sun's energy to make silicon, selenium and cadmium more effective using smaller arrays and less material. Your doubts, high as they may be, are beginning to seem more and more misplaced.

 

You sound like someone with something to lose if solar technology takes off.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Phi for All

[iNow]

microprocessors are small...solar farms are big... see the difference.

Do you really think they make tiny little processors one at a time, or perhaps do they feed 200 and 300 and 400mm wafers into a machine 6 at time creating the chips en masse then cutting them up?

 

I'll give you a hint. The machines my company sells does the second.

 

For solar, the machines I've seen are huge and feed through glass panels roughly the size of a king sized mattress. They will follow a very similar approach to microprocessors since the technology is so very similar. You set up a fab to run through the panels and at the other end you have people truck them to a farm and link them together. It's not hard. Really. I wouldn't lie to you.

 

There's thin film, crystalline silicone, and countless other new technologies out there, so to be perfectly frank, I'm having a hard time buying your blanket dismissals since you're facts are so one sided and skewed.

 

I know how the manufacturing side works, and that's exactly what you're arguing against. Prices are dropping, and will continue to do so as demand and competition increase. Additionally, said competition will bring greater R&D, hence increasing efficiencies and decreasing cycle times. The times they are a changin'.

 

 

Either lend a helping hand or get the hell out of the way. The train is coming down the tracks and these silly myopic economic concerns you've been expressing aren't going to stop it.

[CPL.Luke]

alright Inow bare with me because this is only basic logic, but solar power doesn't benefit from being smaller.

 

if you have a silicon wafer that gets sliced up into 200 processors, and you perform a die shrink so that each processor is half the size that it would be otherwise you get 400 processors out of the same wafer. Now what would the expected cost be if the machine that builds the smaller processors cost the same as the machine that built the larger ones? Answer about half the cost, now wasn't that fun.

 

I'm sorry for being condescending but how could the process of fitting more processors onto a silicon wafer ever benefit pv manufacture? the point of a pv is to gather sunlight, and in order to do that it requires area.

 

also this statement earked me a little

 

 

Either lend a helping hand or get the hell out of the way. The train is coming down the tracks and these silly myopic economic concerns you've been expressing aren't going to stop it.

 

anyway I'm sick of arguing over solar, you can read about the real economics (not the silly subsidized stuff) here

 

http://www.txses.org/PVeconomics.php

 

bottom line assuming grid power is constant over the 25 year lifetime of the solar panel at a real level of 8 cents per year, the installation of solar panels will result in you paying 3.7 times as much for your electricity over the grid power cost.

 

here is a chart of real versus nominal pv costs

 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Real_and_Inflation_Adjusted_Price_per_Watt.PNG&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrshaba/Experiments&h=408&w=219&sz=7&hl=en&start=40&um=1&usg=__vGomEWW8zY5_dijE71agBeulteA=&tbnid=XM6HT5htqWzrgM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=67&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgrid%2Bpower%2Binflation%2Badjusted%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

 

the trend is quite clear

 

here is a chart of grid power costs in inflation adjusted terms over the past several decades

 

http://www.grinzo.com/energy_old/graphics_misc/us_real_electricity_prices_1960_2005.jpg

 

these tend to validate the assumptions made earlier in the article I linked to about using present costs to analyze the cost per kwh of solar versus grid power.

 

Phi for all I think we should have a disussion about the benefits and drawbacks of subsidies in a different thread, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond to your points without launching into the much larger topic of subsidies in general. We should start a seperate thread on subsidies as I don't have a definitive opinion on them as while I believe that support for a new industry is better shown in other manors and that they have a negative effect on the industry in the long run, however I'm very open to arguments for how they can benefit the economy as a whole. I've also never really heard the argument for why subsidies are the best method of propping up a new and beneficial industries.

 

The reason I am so anti-solar and anti-hydrogen though is that I don't believe in sending good money after bad. Solar has seen massive incentives and investment over the past 30 years, and it still hasn't been able to undercut the staples of grid energy (coal, hydro, oil, natural gas, nuclear) I prefer to work on things that show near term <10 years out promise, after all "in the long run, we're all dead". For instance clean coal technology, even if it costs twice as much as regular coal it will be able to undercut natural gas and nuclear. Nuclear's problems have largely been solved excepting excessive beurocracy involved in getting the permits to build one. Hydro is one of the best deals out there, but its use is limited to certain areas. Wind leaves something to be desired in terms of reliability and so its use is also restricted to certain areas.

 

There are also a coupleof promising new fusion techniques out there, however they should not be a major focus for the same reasoning that solar should not be a major focus. Fusion has always been 30 years away, despite the investment thats been made over the past 30 years. We need a real solution to the energy crises and we need one now.

 

The energy crises will not be solved by pretending that it could easily be done, the first step is realizing just how hard it will be. That it is not something that will go away after a few key steps are taken, and that the change to cleaner sources of energy will be incremental. If you want clean energy than you are going to have to compromise, solar is to expensive and adoption by the power industry en-mass will cost huge amounts of money, and it simply will not happen in the next ten years. If you want cleaner energy you are going to have to look at things that are cost effective now as power plants are renewed, there won't be an oppurtunity to change things like we can now for a long time to come. If we try to pretend that these sources are available today we will wind up with dirtier air as oil, nuclear and natural gas plants are replaced by coal plants.

[iNow]

Thanks for the link, but I do this for a living.

[CPL.Luke]

either tell me specifically where I'm wrong on the cost analysis, and produce your own numbers, or get better at your job.

 

be specific, specifics are the only way to get out of this rhetorical mud of faux disagreement

[iNow]

Since you asked so very nicely, I'm going to go ahead and say no to both.

[CPL.Luke]

fair enough, till next time

[Phi for All]

either tell me specifically where I'm wrong on the cost analysis, and produce your own numbers, or get better at your job.

It's pretty obvious how frustrated you're becoming when you say things like this (shitty, just a very shitty thing to say to someone about their career, besides being an ad hominem attack). It's also obvious from your "basic logic" that you've reached the end of your rope trying to tie up this argument.

 

As I stated at the end of post #35, you don't need to improve the area of collection on a solar panel if you can either improve how the sun is focused on it or use phosphorescent paint to enhance absorption. Area is only one way to do it.

 

And that's really been my point all along, C.P.L. Luke. You keep throwing out *current* stats on solar and how it fails against established infrastructures, but you can't deny that if more R&D is put into solar, if more demand is created to drive the market towards alternatives like solar and wind, costs will come down and innovation will thrive. That's the way technology happens, it starts out big and linear and expensive and then new ideas and market pressures encourage refinements and improvements that make the technology more efficient and cheaper to help increase demand and profits.

 

This is what you're arguing against, and your condescension and fallacious logic are not helping your case. No more current stats, please, that's not the argument and I think you know it. Solar is expensive now but it will come down in price when more research is done to improve it and more demand helps urge manufacturers to supply us with it.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Phi for All
correction

[iNow]

The funny thing is that he doesn't know what my job is (I only spoke of the work at my company).

 

Anyway:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWp69FUoiuc

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydOPBL5iO2Y

[CPL.Luke]

I was thinking that it ws a tad bit over the line, but I was getting sick of Inow constantly poking about specifics, when specifics were provided he called my position a myopic economic view etc. I did respond and take the flaming a tad bit higher each time which I probably should have been more relaxed about but... you are correct about my frustration level.

 

you said he technology was here today for electric cars, I provided ample evidence that all of the technologies have not come together yet to meet the demands of a mass-market car.

 

Inow demanded specifics about my positions, I not only provided current specifics, I provided past data. Yet he has yet to provide data on any of his points about where the cost of solar will come down.

 

 

I don't deny that more R&D will bring the price of solar down. nobody could deny that that would be true for nearly any technology. However eventualy diminished returns kicks in and eventually it becomes more expensive to develop the technology than its worth. (mines are usually a perfect example of what I'm talking about)

 

anyway this conversation has probably exceeded its usefulness to any of us, as I won't be convinced unless either of you can pull up a technology that would have a direct avenue to grid parity, similarly you guys won't be convinced by such a technologies absence.

[Pangloss]

Let's move on from the personal invectives if we can. Thanks.

[iNow]

Inow demanded specifics about my positions, I not only provided current specifics, I provided past data. Yet he has yet to provide data on any of his points about where the cost of solar will come down.

 

I think this quote really sums up the whole issue quite nicely. You are looking backward, I am looking forward (at least on this particular issue).

 

What exactly could I offer up that would satisfy you on this? Shall I look into my crystal ball and pull out market numbers split by geographic region? Yes, yes... here it is... the magic eight ball proves my point that downward trends will continue throughout many parts of Europe, Asia, and the US. Also, it has confirmed that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have nothing to do with our election of president.

 

 

 

You know that I cannot produce numbers for the future, so what I will do instead is show you trends from the recent past to support my contention that price decreases are abundantly probable in the near term.

 

 

 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/charting-a-path-to-low-cost-solar-1128.html

The solar industry can potentially reduce costs 40 percent over the next five years as the silicon shortage ends, according to Graham Stevens, an associate director at Navigant Consulting.

<...>

The company plans to make cells from 100 percent UMG silicon, which Johnson said is three orders of magnitude less pure than polysilicon, and is aiming for efficiencies of 16 percent to 17 percent.

<...>

Thin-film solar is another technology with the potential to reduce costs.

 

First Solar, for example, reached costs of $1.10 per watt in the fourth quarter.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST20585820080622

The measures are expected to help cut the cost of a solar power system, which now sells for about 2.3 million yen ($21,440), to 1.1 million yen in three to five years, it added.

 

 

http://www.solarplaza.com/event/thethinfilmfuture/Thin-film_solar_cells_heading_for__1_per_Wp.html

Hansen showed a number of graphs that indicated a gradually declining trend in terms of production costs. In the first quarter of 2006, for example, a panel cost $1.60 per Wp; in the first quarter, the price fell to $ 1.29, after which the price continued to fall with a few ups and downs to $ 1.18 per Wp in the first quarter of this year. By 2012, Hansen anticipates having saved a further 50 to 55 % of the module costs and almost another 60 % relating to matters such as the inverter, the mechanical and electrical installation, and overheads. Moreover, he referred to the approach once taken by automobile manufacturer Ford: ‘in 1914, the average time taken by the customary manufacturing process was 728 minutes. Ford reduced that to 93 minutes,’ says Hansen. ‘In the same way, First Solar’s module has been consistently standardized and cost-effectively optimized by means of a frameless glass-glass laminate and standard dimensions of 600 by 1200 mm. The fully automated manufacturing process has shortened the manufacturing process from 24 hours to less than 3, making lower investment necessary.’

 

 

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019305&contentId=7035199

In the USA, parity with the electricity grid at peak charging rates has already been achieved in northern California and Hawaii.

 

'Hawaii imports all of its energy, which means that it costs around 18-20 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity for home owners. Because of the ample sunshine in Hawaii, the cost of electricity from the sun is also around 20 cents per kilowatt hour,' says Posbic.

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS227491+17-Apr-2008+BW20080417

Product sales were $18.3 million for the first quarter of 2008,

compared to $16.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2007 and $12.6

million in the first quarter of 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanoantennas-solar-arrays-that-002905.php

A collaboration of physicists, scientists and businesses have teamed up to create cheap and highly effective solar cells on a nanoscopic scale. Spearheaded by the Idaho National Laboratory, this team is onto a fresh way of producing solar panels that can continue to absorb energy even after the sun has set. The technology, not only efficient at nearly 80%, will also be cheap to manufacture, at estimated pennies a yard.

 

 

 

http://www.energista.org/node/476

Photon Consulting, based in Germany, is projecting that electricity from leading (mostly silicon) photovoltaic (PV) crystalline cells will cost around 10¢/kWh - almost equal to the average residential grid price of 9.8¢/kWh. Many sunny states already exceed the 9.8¢ average: California - 14.48 ¢/kWh, Florida- 11.21 ¢/kWh, Texas- 11.54 ¢/kWh and Nevada - 11.22 ¢/kWh.

 

 

 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/new-energy-finance-predicts-43-solar-silicon-price-drop-1288.html

U.K.-based research firm New Energy Finance said Monday it expects the price of solar-grade silicon to drop as much as 43 percent next year.

<...>

According to the report released Monday, wafers are expected to retain their value in 2009 as the supply of wafers eases more slowly than the silicon supply, and then to drop by 41 percent in the next five years, reaching prices below $6 per wafer, or $1.62 per watt, beginning in 2011.

 

 

 

http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-solarUSA2008.php

Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50-$7.00 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02-$3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 to $1.43-$1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025

 

 

Solar power offers a number of advantages over conventional energy sources. Among them, the ability to deliver energy at or near the point of use, zero fuel costs, minimal maintenance requirements and zero carbon-based source emissions.

 

 

The investment to arrive at 10% solar in the U.S. is not small, reaching $450 billion to $560 billion between now and 2025, an average of $26 billion to $33 billion per year. However, given utilities' existing capital costs such an investment is not prohibitive. To put the investment in perspective: Utilities spent an estimated $70 billion on new power plants and transmission and distribution systems in 2007 alone.

Edited August 26, 2008 by iNow
Added more references

[CPL.Luke]

that is the type of thing I can deal with, I'm not asking you to look into a crystal ball but rather to show me that it will be possible for solar to ever be a profitable venture on a large scale.

 

the final post is exceptionally interesting as that would lower the cost of solar to levels where it coud effectively full fill the promise of "electricity to cheap to meter" that nuclear once offered.

 

did that graph come from reuters? the link isn't displaying images on my computer.

 

I would question the validity of that graph as grid power has remained relatively constant between 8 cents and 10 cents per killowatt hour for decades, and I don't see a large price increase across the board for all electrical standards, as long as governments allow the market to work or at the very least subsidize the parts which they want to increase demand for.

 

Also california has been known for chronicly underproducingbase line power which drives up prices, same with germany.

 

also one of our sources is wrong on the correct price of solar panels today I'll see if I can find a second source tomorrow

 

the article on Japan brings up the issue of subsidies once again, (which I disagree with) this doesn't support the case that solar is cost effective, it only supports the case that if the government pays for half of the system its cost effective. for the individual.

 

similarly I discount the profits of first solar as evidence of a growing trend as there is a growing trend for governments to heavily subsidize the panels making them seem like a good deal.

 

Interestingly enough I passed by the first solar plant on the road today, it looked pretty nice, but that s about all I can say about it as I merely passed by it.

 

remember when talking about costs and benefits you have to work in real unsubsidized dollars.

 

EDIT: looks like you added links while I was typing my response, two of your sources contradict each other, with first solar offering $1.29/watt solar energy today. I checked their SEC filing and thy state it there as well, however they note that they are currently not subjected to enviromental regulations that other companies are whcih could dramatically increase their costs, and or force them to stop doing business (their words) I'd be interested to see if these regulations were in affected the coal power industry (they regulated the release of cadmium), as this would artificially drive up the price of coal or othe energy sources while leaving the solar power option open because its "clean".

 

note that last bit was pure speculation as I haven't read about the EU regulations that they may later be effected by.

 

EDIT: does anybody know if the costs for first solars system included opportunity costs?

Edited August 26, 2008 by CPL.Luke

[iNow]

the final post is exceptionally interesting as that would lower the cost of solar to levels where it coud effectively full fill the promise of "electricity to cheap to meter" that nuclear once offered.

 

Since I did edit my post, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as "the last one." Was it this?

 

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanoantennas-solar-arrays-that-002905.php

 

 

 

did that graph come from reuters? the link isn't displaying images on my computer.

 

I would question the validity of that graph as grid power has remained relatively constant between 8 cents and 10 cents per killowatt hour for decades, and I don't see a large price increase across the board for all electrical standards, as long as governments allow the market to work or at the very least subsidize the parts which they want to increase demand for.

The graph came from BP - British Petroleum. Here's a link:

 

http://www.bp.com/popupimage.do?img_path=liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/frontiers/STAGING/local_assets/images/fr19solar_parity570x417.jpg%20&alt_tag=Graphic%20about%20grid%20parity,%20when%20the%20cost%20of%20solar%20energy%20equals%20that%20of%20grid%20electricity

 

 

As for the validity, you will see by looking more closely that the cost has remained relatively constant across decadal time scales according to that representation, remaining roughly within a 10¢ cost window.

 

I saw it for the first time reading from this link:

 

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019305&contentId=7035199

 

 

 

 

the article on Japan brings up the issue of subsidies once again, (which I disagree with) this doesn't support the case that solar is cost effective.

I say again. There's much more at stake than cold economics at this point.

 

 

remember when talking about costs and benefits you have to work in real unsubsidized dollars.

Not really, not if you include impact to the environment in your benefits and impact of burning oil and coal in your costs.

 

 

As for your question on First Solar, I'm honestly not sure. They are but one company among the thousands getting into this game.

Edited August 26, 2008 by iNow

[CPL.Luke]

 

Originally Posted by CPL.Luke View Post

 

the article on Japan brings up the issue of subsidies once again, (which I disagree with) this doesn't support the case that solar is cost effective.

 

I say again. There's much more at stake than cold economics at this point.

 

your oppinion, but it doesn't change the fact that when a government subsidizes a new technology it does not show whether it is cost-effective or not.

 

I prefer to work in real unsubsidized dollars for the sake of A: not dealing with inflation and B: subsidies tend distort the actual cost, the government could be supplying the money for 1/2 3/4 or 7/8ths of the system for all we know, which makes the techonlogy look more attractive than it is and makes it difficult to analyze. The government can't supply half of the cash for the power grid.

 

Originally Posted by CPL.Luke View Post

 

remember when talking about costs and benefits you have to work in real unsubsidized dollars.

 

Not really, not if you include impact to the environment in your benefits and impact of burning oil and coal in your costs.

 

 

As for your question on First Solar, I'm honestly not sure. They are but one company among the thousands getting into this game.

 

and apparently the new cheap solar panels don't have to include cleanup costs for hazardous materials because they are "green" first solar states in their own SEC filing that they currently don't fall under a number of regulations related to cadmium.

[iNow]

your oppinion, but it doesn't change the fact that when a government subsidizes a new technology it does not show whether it is cost-effective or not.

 

I prefer to work in real unsubsidized dollars...

 

<snip>

 

The government can't supply half of the cash for the power grid.

By restricting the conversation to unsubsidized dollars you are removing our discussion from the real world.

 

In the real world, this will be subsidized. In the real world, current energy sources like coal and oil are ALREADY subsidized. While we could easily distract ourselves about the merits of subsidies, it would be a waste of time.

 

In the real world, solar WILL be subsidized, and hence those numbers should be included in our calculations.

 

 

 

and apparently the new cheap solar panels don't have to include cleanup costs for hazardous materials because they are "green" first solar states in their own SEC filing that they currently don't fall under a number of regulations related to cadmium.

 

Okay. Again, First Solar is but ONE company among the huge number entering the market. Also, I'm not sure if they do thin film solar or if they focus on crystalline silicone wafers. Also, you should note that cadmium telluride is only used in very few types of photovoltaic panels (for the very reasons you cite... danger and disposal issues).

 

 

This wiki page speaks to your concern very directly. I will cite the relevant bit:

 

The amount of cadmium used in thin-film PV modules is relatively small (5-10 g/m²) and with proper emission control techniques in place the cadmium emissions from module production can be almost zero. Current PV technologies lead to cadmium emissions of 0.3-0.9 microgram/kWh over the whole life-cycle.

Most of these emissions actually arise through the use of coal power for the manufacturing of the modules

, and coal and lignite combustion leads to much higher emissions of cadmium. Life-cycle cadmium emissions from coal is 3.1 microgram/kWh, lignite 6.2, and natural gas 0.2 microgram/kWh.

 

Note that

if electricity produced by photovoltaic panels were used

to manufacture the modules instead of electricity from burning coal,

cadmium emissions

from coal power usage in the manufacturing process

could be entirely eliminated

.

 

 

That same page also supplements my earlier points with the following:

 

The fully-loaded cost (cost not price) of solar electricity is $0.25/kWh or less in most of the OECD countries. Within three years, the fully-loaded cost is likely to fall below $0.15/kWh for most of the OECD and reach $0.10/kWh in sunnier regions. These cost levels are driving three emerging trends:

 

1. vertical integration of the supply chain;
   
   
2. origination of power purchase agreements (PPAs) by solar power companies;
   
   
3. unexpected risk for traditional Gencos, grid operators and turbine manufacturers
   
   

.