Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells. … In the lab, researchers have achieved solar efficiencies of as high as 41 percent, an unheard of efficiency 30 years ago. Inexpensive thin-film methods have achieved laboratory efficiencies as high as 20 percent, still twice as high as most of the solar systems in deployment today. … Historically, the cost of PV modules (what we’ve been using above) is about half the total installed cost of systems. The rest of the cost is installation. Fortunately, installation costs have also dropped at a similar pace to module costs. …
Prices of oil don't really take into account all sorts of negative externalities.
I'd love it if solar could be competitive, even without considering externalities. Since let's face it, negative externalities are really hard to deal with politically as politically connected oil companies will fight tooth and nail not to pay for the externalities, nor would oil consumers really want those costs passed down to them.
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that most of the massive solar arrays use photovoltaic cells, which is what this article focuses on. Instead, they are solar thermal power plants, which require large, concentrated arrays to be efficient.
Why don’t we hear more about this? Do people not like hearing good news about the future?
My Hansonian interpretation: a lot of the supporters of Climate Change policy are more concerned with hurting people they don't like than with solving the problem of Climate Change. If solar cells will save us, we don't get to punish the Koch brothers. Policy preferences are not about policy results.
Heat pumps are extremely limited. They are less efficient at cooling than pure air conditioners. In humid areas, their outdoor units become huge blocks of ice in the winter, greatly reducing their efficiency, and requiring large amounts of "auxiliary" heating. In fact, in seriously cold areas, they require additional heating even if they don't ice up. They are fairly useful in very dry areas and in cool but not cold humid areas; and even in those they may not be worth their much greater costs.
They might like hearing good news but be more inclined to spread bad news. (Which makes some sense; feels like our attention should be concentrated on problems that need solving, not problems that are solved.)
The cost of storing electricity in a battery is similar to the cost of buying it from the grid, though I think it bit larger. I don't think there's any reason to expect this to change soon.
Historically, the cost of PV modules (what we’ve been using above) is about half the total installed cost of systems. The rest of the cost is installationThe above tells us that the article is talking about grid-tie systems, and not off-grid, since it does not mention batteries. As Curt Adams noted, you need to factor in storage or the equivalent. In a residential off-grid system of today, batteries are half of the total system cost. And they don't last all that long, either -- Concorde, a leading manufacturer of PV batteries, says that if you discharge their batteries to 50% of full, they should be good for 1000 charge-discharge cycles; 28% gets you 2000 cycles. That's only a few years of day-night cycles. PV power would really take off with good storage -- but it is not here yet.
I'll take that bet any day. I'll even put up $100 to your $20. I'm a PhD student studying thin film solar cells and although I chose this field and therefore clearly have a selection bias, I have reviewed the literature and economics multiple times in depth.
From the comment about oil -- Even today we don't produce electricity from oil because it is WAY above the cost of energy produced from coal (or natural gas). The solar part of the bet is where I am more confident...Although I agree with the scientific american article to a great extent, they fail to mention certain important points. 1) Installation costs are quickly becoming a larger portion of total installed cost. They have not tracked the great cost reductions made in the last few years in solar module cost. There still is a ways to go on simplifying installations, but this may total cost reductions.2) Production cost reductions are capped by the raw materials cost (of course related to scarcity). The cheapest solar modules available are made by First Solar (as mentioned in the article). Not mentioned was that First Solar uses CdTe which is a thin film using Tellurium which is very very scarce. Currently it is not too expensive because there are few uses, but as production grows (First Solar has been literally doubling every year for almost a decade), the Tellurium price will inevitably curtail cost reductions. In fact, we will run out of Tellurium far before solar is the dominant energy source. The good news is there are many competing technologies, some without visible resource constraints. The dominant technology, Silicon, is very abundant, but requires significant refined material which will continue to be a challenge for 5x reduction in total costs necessary.3) variability is a concern for major market penetration (read local areas of power from solar >20%. We are nowhere close to that. Not even in Germany which has had incredible subsidies for the last half-decade. But compared to wind, the sun is EXTREMELY reliable. The Sun WILL come out every day on schedule, and even in cloudy days, the panels produce a significant amount of energy (generally >50% of best days unless the weather is very severe). These variabilities can be eased at ~no cost by demand response from a hopefully some-day "smart-grid". In the long-term, energy storage will be needed, but even today it is only adds a few cents/kwh (which will decrease). That doesn't change the equation too much, and in fact grid-parity will be achieved in many areas before storage is largely necessary. Without reaching grid-parity, >20% market penetration (which suggests the necessity for storage) would be highly unlikely.
Solar power...blah, blah, blah, ... wind power...blah, blah, blah... Maybe we could harness all the heat from this useless debate to power up the global economy.
This cry for alternate fuel sources has been going on since the Arab oil embargo in the 70's. Has anything really changed? No?
That is because REALITY has not changed. The reality known by all rational scientists is that nothing we have available at this time can even come close to matching the energy density of oil, with the exception of nuclear power ( at least from a joules/gram point of view). That being the case there is no incentive for the best scientific minds to come up with a replacement for a technology that shows no evidence of disappearing within their lifetimes.
True scientific advancement is driven by NEED. And there is no need. We have enough oil to last hundreds of years (scientists know this despite the media hype). The methodology for extracting and refining it is mature, reliable and CHEAP.
Solar power DOES fill a need in very specific places; that is why it continues to be developed. It is not, however, a reasonable or viable substitute for the global uses of oil (electrical power plants, airplanes, ships, and cars) .
Given the fact that nuclear power is a viable replacement for oil (for electricity, at least) I do not imagine we will be seeing any significant change in technological advancement along other lines. Don't bother whining about the environmental impact of nuclear. All you have to do is look at countries where technological advancement is not throttled by ignorant politicians and activists to see all the beautiful nuclear plants working day in and day out. The only reason that this ridiculous anti-nuke stance continues in the U.S. is precisely BECAUSE we have not come close to running out of oil. If we were getting close the politicians would have a VERY different opinion. Just ask the U.S. Navy what there preferred power plant is.
By the time we actually run out of oil there is no telling what new things we may have learned. I can guarantee you that it will be alot better than photo-voltaic cells.
Is that even a fair bet?
Prices of oil don't really take into account all sorts of negative externalities.
I'd love it if solar could be competitive, even without considering externalities. Since let's face it, negative externalities are really hard to deal with politically as politically connected oil companies will fight tooth and nail not to pay for the externalities, nor would oil consumers really want those costs passed down to them.
One of the utility pages I find via Google describes peak use as 1-8 pm summer (AC, I assume), and 5-9 am, 5-9 pm during winter.
Those winter peaks are a problem. Those are both times when you get less sunshine.
You are correct about most solar arrays being solar-thermal, but the article was about photovoltaics:
Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells.
That's the point Robert Laughlin made in this EconTalk podcast.
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that most of the massive solar arrays use photovoltaic cells, which is what this article focuses on. Instead, they are solar thermal power plants, which require large, concentrated arrays to be efficient.
Why don’t we hear more about this? Do people not like hearing good news about the future?
My Hansonian interpretation: a lot of the supporters of Climate Change policy are more concerned with hurting people they don't like than with solving the problem of Climate Change. If solar cells will save us, we don't get to punish the Koch brothers. Policy preferences are not about policy results.
Heat pumps are extremely limited. They are less efficient at cooling than pure air conditioners. In humid areas, their outdoor units become huge blocks of ice in the winter, greatly reducing their efficiency, and requiring large amounts of "auxiliary" heating. In fact, in seriously cold areas, they require additional heating even if they don't ice up. They are fairly useful in very dry areas and in cool but not cold humid areas; and even in those they may not be worth their much greater costs.
IMO the Hallowell Heat pump is a great advance that is now and is ignored.
Another promising energy source is geothermal.
They might like hearing good news but be more inclined to spread bad news. (Which makes some sense; feels like our attention should be concentrated on problems that need solving, not problems that are solved.)
The cost of storing electricity in a battery is similar to the cost of buying it from the grid, though I think it bit larger. I don't think there's any reason to expect this to change soon.
Historically, the cost of PV modules (what we’ve been using above) is about half the total installed cost of systems. The rest of the cost is installationThe above tells us that the article is talking about grid-tie systems, and not off-grid, since it does not mention batteries. As Curt Adams noted, you need to factor in storage or the equivalent. In a residential off-grid system of today, batteries are half of the total system cost. And they don't last all that long, either -- Concorde, a leading manufacturer of PV batteries, says that if you discharge their batteries to 50% of full, they should be good for 1000 charge-discharge cycles; 28% gets you 2000 cycles. That's only a few years of day-night cycles. PV power would really take off with good storage -- but it is not here yet.
More info here..
For those of us old enough to remember: Well, of course technology will get better, and it will make our lives better, like it always has!.
Ray Kurzweil and Larry Page have been talking about this for several years.
I'll take that bet any day. I'll even put up $100 to your $20. I'm a PhD student studying thin film solar cells and although I chose this field and therefore clearly have a selection bias, I have reviewed the literature and economics multiple times in depth.
From the comment about oil -- Even today we don't produce electricity from oil because it is WAY above the cost of energy produced from coal (or natural gas). The solar part of the bet is where I am more confident...Although I agree with the scientific american article to a great extent, they fail to mention certain important points. 1) Installation costs are quickly becoming a larger portion of total installed cost. They have not tracked the great cost reductions made in the last few years in solar module cost. There still is a ways to go on simplifying installations, but this may total cost reductions.2) Production cost reductions are capped by the raw materials cost (of course related to scarcity). The cheapest solar modules available are made by First Solar (as mentioned in the article). Not mentioned was that First Solar uses CdTe which is a thin film using Tellurium which is very very scarce. Currently it is not too expensive because there are few uses, but as production grows (First Solar has been literally doubling every year for almost a decade), the Tellurium price will inevitably curtail cost reductions. In fact, we will run out of Tellurium far before solar is the dominant energy source. The good news is there are many competing technologies, some without visible resource constraints. The dominant technology, Silicon, is very abundant, but requires significant refined material which will continue to be a challenge for 5x reduction in total costs necessary.3) variability is a concern for major market penetration (read local areas of power from solar >20%. We are nowhere close to that. Not even in Germany which has had incredible subsidies for the last half-decade. But compared to wind, the sun is EXTREMELY reliable. The Sun WILL come out every day on schedule, and even in cloudy days, the panels produce a significant amount of energy (generally >50% of best days unless the weather is very severe). These variabilities can be eased at ~no cost by demand response from a hopefully some-day "smart-grid". In the long-term, energy storage will be needed, but even today it is only adds a few cents/kwh (which will decrease). That doesn't change the equation too much, and in fact grid-parity will be achieved in many areas before storage is largely necessary. Without reaching grid-parity, >20% market penetration (which suggests the necessity for storage) would be highly unlikely.
Solar power...blah, blah, blah, ... wind power...blah, blah, blah... Maybe we could harness all the heat from this useless debate to power up the global economy.
This cry for alternate fuel sources has been going on since the Arab oil embargo in the 70's. Has anything really changed? No?
That is because REALITY has not changed. The reality known by all rational scientists is that nothing we have available at this time can even come close to matching the energy density of oil, with the exception of nuclear power ( at least from a joules/gram point of view). That being the case there is no incentive for the best scientific minds to come up with a replacement for a technology that shows no evidence of disappearing within their lifetimes.
True scientific advancement is driven by NEED. And there is no need. We have enough oil to last hundreds of years (scientists know this despite the media hype). The methodology for extracting and refining it is mature, reliable and CHEAP.
Solar power DOES fill a need in very specific places; that is why it continues to be developed. It is not, however, a reasonable or viable substitute for the global uses of oil (electrical power plants, airplanes, ships, and cars) .
Given the fact that nuclear power is a viable replacement for oil (for electricity, at least) I do not imagine we will be seeing any significant change in technological advancement along other lines. Don't bother whining about the environmental impact of nuclear. All you have to do is look at countries where technological advancement is not throttled by ignorant politicians and activists to see all the beautiful nuclear plants working day in and day out. The only reason that this ridiculous anti-nuke stance continues in the U.S. is precisely BECAUSE we have not come close to running out of oil. If we were getting close the politicians would have a VERY different opinion. Just ask the U.S. Navy what there preferred power plant is.
By the time we actually run out of oil there is no telling what new things we may have learned. I can guarantee you that it will be alot better than photo-voltaic cells.