Energy & Utilities
Pragmatic solar
Gregor Macdonald | September 19th 2012 | @EG_Energy
It is almost certainly the case that humanity has entered a third, historic energy transition. The first two, from wood to coal in the 18th century and then coal to oil in the 20th century, in retrospect seem obvious in their outcomes. But no such benefit of hindsight exists today as economies--western in particular--struggle with the end of cheap oil. Left to cast about for the next primary energy source, energy futurists have probed everything from algae to thorium as industrialism limps slowly away from fossil fuels. But one technology offers promise: solar.
Long considered too expensive, solar may now be too cheap to ignore. Solar panels, employed to capture the diffuse rays of the sun, have crashed in price in recent years causing havoc among solar manufacturers. Panels are now barely one quarter of the price they were in 2008. The benefits have accrued instead to users, as efficiency of photovoltaic capture continues to advance, while price continues to decline. The result? Nearly exponential growth in installed, global solar capacity.
But solar’s emerging price competitiveness does not explain fully why world consumption has moved in just five years from 5 terrawatt hours (TWh) to over 55 TWh. A myriad of government inducements and incentives, which have admittedly drawn criticism, did indeed provide a running start to the nascent solar industry over the past decade. But more recently, solar’s ability to provide a much less complex energy alternative, say, compared to nuclear power, has drawn interest especially in the developing world. In countries such as India, where hundreds of millions of citizens remain unserved by the powergrid and constraints on coal-fired power capacity are formidable, solar is now gaining as a quicker, simpler way to add capacity.
The stagnation of nuclear power, meanwhile, provides a useful lens through which to compare the rise of solar. Global consumption of nuclear power was almost perfectly flat between 2001 and 2011 at just over 2600 TWh. Governments should take notice because, priced in terms of future liability, nuclear power’s enormous risk and expensive waste are ultimately borne by the public. If nuclear’s long construction timelines and heady cost overruns are now a headache, perhaps government support of solar is no longer utopian but, rather, a practical choice.
Solar, like other technologies which capture diffuse energy, can never replace the energy density of fossil fuels. Oil for example, with its 5.8 million british thermal units (btu) per barrel, is a veritable miracle substance compared to biofuels, wind power, and also solar. But as the world economy continues its migration from liquid energy to the powergrid, differentiation among energy sources will heighten. Against natural gas, solar offers power without environmental extraction costs. To coal, solar offers the five billion people in the developing world, already suffering from terrible coal-fired pollution, a clean alternative. Importantly, solar offers the least complex on-ramp now to the powergrid. In a world where simplicity itself will command a premium, solar offers surprising and tremendous value.
This post is part of a series for the Global Energy Conversation, supported by Shell. For more information, visit the Global Energy Conversation website.
Comments
developing countries will really profit from solar
22:55 September 20th 2012
The other great thing of solar panels is that all developing countries with no (reliable) grid can immediately jump to solar PV. In the mean time, rich countries risk falling behind by not getting rid of their dependence on fossil energy.
Solar may even defuse a large part of the CO2 time-bomb due developing countries that would otherwise also be totally dependent on fossil fuels for their development and growth.
solar cells or wood?
23:19 September 21st 2012
Good morning
Reading the article on the future o solar cells as the main source of energy in the future I have the the following doubts 1) this form of energy is not continous.2)The real problem today is how to store it
Let us assume that to day ,again wood is our source of energy we can produce 24 hours per day,the fuel is renewable and beside we have and we have an automatic reservoir in the trees.. Maybe I am old fashioned. but this type of fuel is available in most countries and we do not need to spend money purchasing expensive equipment After all Biomass isthe cheapest source or energy today
Pablo Korach
Engineered wood poducts
M.Sc. Chemical Engineering
12v DC Panels on a boat
07:53 September 22nd 2012
I am stunned at how solar technology has improved over the last 10 yrs.I have 3 x 100w Bosch solar panels fitted to the roof of my boat and on the 1st Saturday in July this year I was getting 21.6amps @ 14.6v.Aswell as 'floating' the 440amp battery bank,the panels were running a tv,a laptop and a 34ltr coolbox well into late afternoon.The stored power is then used during the evening.So,for an outlay of £1000 (panels,charge controller and cables) I have all the power I need for up to 25 yrs.We just need to change our dependence of heavy duty appliances and the government should be pushing towards this outcome.NOT LOWERING THE FEED-IN TARRIF and slowing things down.
Questions about solar energy
22:22 September 27th 2012
I do not find the argument by Mr. MacDonald compelling.
First, government HAVE been pouring billions into solar energy. We should be now asking whether the investment to date has been worthwhile.
Second, his arguments are based on subjective assertions, not facts. Yes, solar panel costs have come down, but how do the costs compare to alternatives today, Mr. MacDonald? The most recent solar farms under construction in the desert Southwest of the US will cost $5/w (peak) to construct, and that ignores an "ideal" capacity factor of 20%, giving an average cost of $25/w. Compare that to the cost of building an NG-fired power plant, costing $1/w with a 90% capacity factor and you have a cost differential of 23X. How much could more could you reduce the CO2 burden if you spent money on NG replacement of coal rather than on building solar farms that still need coal as a "battery"?
The assertion that solar panel efficiency continues to improve seems contradicted by the facts. That was true fifty years ago when this technology was first brought to the marketplace, but PV solar is a mature technology today and the dominant Si panels have efficiencies approaching theoretical maximums. "Improvements" over single crystal silicon (poly Si, thin films) have REDUCED efficiency to reduce cost.
Mr. MacDonald offers us a brief history of the evolution of our use of energy, leaving out one CRITICAL attribute of our sources of energy to date - the source of energy has always been STORABLE. Spend some time worrying about that huge flaw, Mr. MacDonald. When you have a solution that doesn't double the high cost of solar energy, then come back and make your pitch.
Add new comment