How Cheap Can Solar Get?

cells

paddyrg wrote: »

Storage and transportation of electricity is actually very difficult and inefficient. Of most use to us is being able to generate electricity flexibly and on demand - hydro power for instance is expensive per unit but can be switched on as demand is needed, then overnight use the surplus cheap nuclear electricity to pump the water back uphill!

Nuclear is actually very good at providing the consistent power baseline

Solar is ideal for the Middle East, as a huge proportion of energy usage is air conditioning, and yet more is desalination for drinking water. These both are perfectly fine with peak solar production. Here in the UK, our demand profile is more around making cold things warm, making dark places light, and so would require lots of inefficient storage. There's a lot of research going into capacitive storage, and improved battery technologies (ie chemical storage), but it's a long way off still.

most hydro is not as flexible as imagined. It is dependent on seasonal rains and its need to contain floods and prevent droughts. pumped storage is in most cases not doable and v.expensive

Nuclear is a proven technology and works upto high percentages but its time frame and costs make it only viable for large nations. India and China should aim for the French model and a few other larger nations might be able to make a good go of it. For everyone else including the UK its a difficult proposition


The UK road map looks to be nuclear + imports + wind + gas + solar. In that order. But who knows we really are at the beginning of the road it will still be 10 years before the road is clear

HornetSaver

cells wrote: »

If a few parts per million co2 molecules is heating the world what will it look like if we were to paint the whole of France black?

I don't know, but am very much in favour of an experiment to find out. Now excuse me while I raid B&Q for their UK-wide supply of black paint and brooms.

Solar's growth or lack of will depend on whether it becomes more efficient, reliable and cost-effective relative to other renewable and non-renewable sources of energy.

Despite oil's recent lows the long-term price trend is going to be upwards as demand increases and supply decreases, same for gas, until a critical point is reached where they're so expensive that something else starts to eat into their share and a new equilibrium is reached. A concept I know cells is familiar with but suspect will find a way of demonstrating does not apply in this case.

Solar and nuclear are really the only two viable current technologies with the potential to steal share from those mentioned above (wind power is a load of hot air, hydroelectric is not scaleable, wave power inefficient, biofuel requires land we simply don't have). It's pointless to try and predict the rate of decline of fossil fuels, and therefore equally pointless to say what proportion of production alternative forms of energy might account for.

But we are talking about potential for growth. Solar is more efficient now than wind power, and has more potential for future improvement than hydroelectric. It's cheaper to research and quicker to upgrade than nuclear (though nuclear is absolutely streets ahead of it in terms of current commercial viability). For those reasons solar strikes me as being second only to nuclear in terms of non fossil fuels with potential for future growth.

Solar will reach 16% of the global energy mix one day, but it could just as easily be 2078 as 2028 - it really depends on what actually happens with fossil fuels. Apart from the fact that fossil fuels are finite, we've been pulling reserve estimates out of the air for 100 years now, and it will probably be another 100 years before we actually figure out who was right.

Generali

For the UK, with 6 hours of heavily clouded daylight typical in late December, solar is never likely to be a large part of the energy mix.

In Africa, south Asia and Australia which has quite reliable sunshine I can see a day when most energy needs are met by solar.

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

Despite oil's recent lows the long-term price trend is going to be upwards as demand increases and supply decreases, same for gas, until a critical point is reached where they're so expensive that something else starts to eat into their share and a new equilibrium is reached. A concept I know cells is familiar with but suspect will find a way of demonstrating does not apply in this case.

Yes but will we be alive to see it is what we are actually interested in and my guess is probably not

Solar and nuclear are really the only two viable current technologies with the potential to steal share from those mentioned above

Possibly but worldwide its not been happening for the last 2 decades nor does it look likely over the next 2 decades

For those reasons solar strikes me as being second only to nuclear in terms of non fossil fuels with potential for future growth.

well it all depends on political support/subsidy and in that world I think it looks most likely to be solar>wind>nuclear for the support/subsidy

Solar will reach 16% of the global energy mix one day, but it could just as easily be 2078 as 2028 - it really depends on what actually happens with fossil fuels. Apart from the fact that fossil fuels are finite, we've been pulling reserve estimates out of the air for 100 years now, and it will probably be another 100 years before we actually figure out who was right.

Yes agree solar or wind or nuclear can play a significant role in primary energy maybe even upto the 16% you note. However the demise and end of fossil fuels is a lot further into the future than exponential chart drawers would have us believe.


Things will be a lot more clear in 5 years time when we will have seen how the big three alternatives play out

padington

Also regarding batteries, a researcher found that by placing a certain gell in the cell of a recharchable battery allows it to charge for 100'000 times and not just a thousand max.

So soon solar lights ets will just keep working for as long as the LED light lasts for all going well.

They're talking about possibly going for a lifetime.

God knows how they tested this though but apparently it definitely works.

paddyrg

There is some very exciting energy storage research at the moment, each research project has the possibility of increasing energy density and charging cycles etc by a percentage point or two depending on cost and how well they scale, etc (for instance a battery with great energy density but made of unobtanium may have limited practical use) - but in combination there's something really interesting happening.

We need an efficient way of storing/moving electricity, at the moment one of the most effective methods is as coal, and that is the problem. In Abu Dhabi they're experimenting with liquid salt for short-cycle collection and storage (sidestepping the low PV efficiency with mirrors arrays and collection towers), and this might have efficiency benefits thanks to the reduction in chance of energy state hysteresis. In fact I think PV is of limited use if we can keep the energy without conversion - going from hedirectly to electrical (via kinetic!) is very lossy, especially if that electrical is then converted to heat! Better to investigate insulation to use the heat directly - you can easily heat much domestic water with black painted radiators, and without expensive control systems, but a bit of plumbing.

Alas thanks to entropy/thermodynamics, things wear out, including PV cells. The future holds a lot of hope, we have some great energy savings with insulation, LED, which play a more important role than generation - even a watt unused doesn't need generating, with all the overhead costs of building and distribution.

CLAPTON

more insulation etc would be a good thing
pity the EU have just slapped 20% VAT on those things