

Cheap solar power poised to undercut oil and gas by half - edw519
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml

======
Alex3917
The specific technology mentioned in this article requires Indium. To quote
Earth: The Sequel, "In July 2006 International estimated that the global
indium supply was enough for just 4 gigawatts of CIGS. Scarcity has already
affected the semiconductor's price, which in 2007 was triple what it had been
in 2002."

To put the 4 gigawatts figure in perspective, "Industry research firm Clean
Edge predicts that revenues in the solar photovoltaic industry will grow to
$50 billion a year by 2015, reaching a total installed base of 75 gigawatts, a
tenfold increase from today. But that would supply just .5 percent of the
total amount of electricity needed for 2015. A more rapid expansion will
almost certainly require the second-generation photovoltaic technologies now
emerging from labs into the commercial market."

Wikipedia suggests the problem may be solvable in the long run, but economics
are pretty uncertain for the time being:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium>

------
iamelgringo
<http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3791>

_The existing plants prove that concentrated solar power is practical, but
costs must decrease. Electricity from solar thermal plants currently costs
between US$0.13 per kilowatt hour (kWh) and US$0.17 per kWh, depending on the
location of the plant and the amount of sunshine it receives. Conventional
power plants generate electricity for between US$0.05 and US$0.15 per kilowatt
hour (not including any carbon taxes or cap and trade related costs) but in
most places it's below US$0.10 (wind power generally costs around US$0.08 per
kWh)._

I wonder how long it's going to take solar-thermal to gain traction. The
economics seem a lot better than just plain photo-voltaic solar that's been
pushed for years. And certain types of solar-thermal have an energy reservoir,
so you can have peak load + base load capabilities, unlike wind power.

------
ph0rque
_The "tipping point" will arrive when the capital cost of solar power falls
below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power. We are not there
yet. The best options today vary from $3 to $4 per watt - down from $100 in
the late 1970s._

Nanosolar is "the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar
panels at as little as $.99/Watt"
([http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-
fi...](http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-
panels))

edit: after the post, I remembered that the cost of a solar panel is only
about half the total cost of solar power.

~~~
pingswept
The evidence that Nanosolar is really shipping panels at $0.99/W is pretty
weak. They made that announcement in December; I've seen no corroboration.

They've also claimed that they were going to build a factory capable of
producing 430 MW of panels annually by the end of 2007, which hasn't happened.

I'll be their biggest fan if they succeed, but so far, they're making big
claims, soaking up VC funds, and shipping little product.

------
phaedrus
But what is the conversion efficiency of the new solar panels they're
describing? I.e., if 100 watts of light hits it, how many watts of electricity
comes out?

I guess, though, if you can manufacture it cheaply enough to spam it over
every man-made surface in a city, you could overcome some inefficiency... But
the article still left me confused as to whether the described technology is
more efficient, less, or the same, as what we have now.

~~~
Alex3917
The absolute efficiency isn't very important. To quote Earth: The Sequel
again, "At just 10% efficiency-- that is, if only 10 percent of that solar
energy were converted to electricity-- no more than a square of land 100 miles
on a side would be needed to produce enough electricity to power the entire
United States." (The thin-film CIGS type tech described in this article is
typically a little less than 10% efficient, so pretty good.)

The key statistic is being able to calculate when solar is cost competitive
with coal, because once you hit that point it will start showing up
everywhere. Of course this depends on where you live, because different
regions of the country A) receive differing amounts of sunlight B) pay
differing rates for the amount of electricity generated. If you're talking
about an area like LA where there is a lot of sunlight and electricity costs a
lot, solar is already probably cheaper than coal. In Fairbanks, AK on the
other hand it will take a bit longer.

Another key to getting solar to be cheaper than coal is implementing real-time
pricing. To quote again,

"Though solar power is generally judged on the basis of whether it can beat
the retail price of coal-generated electricity, the comparison is in some ways
misleading. The true value of solar power lies in the fact that it is most
productive when the weather is sunny and hot-- precisely when consumer demand
forces a utility to operate at full throttle. According to PG&E, peak demand
is growing 25 percent faster than overall electricity needs, but the last
quarter of capacity is needed less than ten percent of the time. 'Peak
shaving' with electricity produced by rooftop solar panels relieves that
pressure on utilities, damping the prime driver to build new gas-fired plants.
It also reduces costs. Utilities "turn on" power plants in order of their
variable cost, often called "dispatch cost," starting with the least expensive
plant to operate and moving to the most expensive as demand rises. Solar
installations produce electricity at virtually no extra cost at just the same
time when units with very high variable costs are called upon to run. By
displacing these high-variable-cost units, solar units can provide tremendous
savings for the utility and the consumer-- and the atmosphere."

"To date, however, most owners of solar photovoltaic systems owners do not get
the discount they deserve on their electric bills. Typically, utilities charge
customers using a weighted average of the cost of generating electricity over
the course of a day. Some jurisdictions are now experimenting with a different
rate structure-- 'real time pricing'-- charging customers hour by hour for the
true cost of the electricity they use, and thus allowing them to reap the full
value of avoiding the cost of peak power on the grid."

"Given all that, almost everyone in the industry agrees that when the price
per peak watt falls to $1 and the storage problem is solved, solar-generated
electricity will compete with coal-fired electricity virtually everywhere."
(p. 19)

~~~
aswanson
I'm all for alternative energy, but if the only chance of it becoming cost
competitive with coal is to artificially jack up the price of the current
system through caps, I doubt Congress will pass it through. Even if they do,
once it shows up in the consumers bills, there will be hell to pay.

The best approach is to increase the efficiency through science and let the
technology naturally be adopted like every other innovation that wins in the
marketplace. I'm still for the cap, but if that is the linchpin for adoption
to take hold widespread, something must be wrong with the product.

~~~
Alex3917
The point of a cap is that it places a legally binding limit on the total
amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere. Alternative energy
achieving price parity with coal is just the natural result of internalizing
the negative externality of our currently broken system.

~~~
aswanson
My point was more along the reactive lines to a price increase of energy.
Regardless of the positive environmental result, which I applaud, if middle
America sees it's utility bill increase by a significant percentage, whoever
has their name attached to the legislation that caused it is at serious risk
of being voted out.

Note also that an increase in the price of energy causes prices across the
board for every manufactured item to increase. Classic inflation, 1970s style.
This is not the best economic environment to cause inflation in.

------
ivankirigin
Oil & gas don't turn off at night. There will always be a need for stored
energy, whether gasified coal, petroleum, hydrogen, or batteries.

~~~
reitzensteinm
One idea that I've heard mentioned a few times is to use a percentage of the
stored energy in electric cars to help power the grid overnight. The car
owners would have to be compensated, but as battery technology improves (it
has its own Moore's Law equivilant but the period of doubling is much longer),
say, 20% of the energy stored in cars would end up being a very significant
amount.

There is a problem with the idea though. Part of the reason why electric cars
are attractive is that you can charge them overnight in such a way that it
levels out the power demand, which makes power generation cost less. Not to
mention many commute patterns mean that cars are not at home during the peak
hours of electricity generation.

------
D_T
www.nanosolar.com/ has a similar approach. It is funded by the founders of
google.

------
mhb
Has there been a year's worth of progress since the article was written?

------
josefresco
Who wants to bet, that when solar power becomes as cheap or cheaper than
fossil, oil prices will magically plummet with some half-assed explanation as
to why. Sort of like the reasons prices are increasing now, just in reverse
(except no one will care)

~~~
aneesh
Yes, oil prices will decline, but there's a real, sensible reason! (not "some
half-assed explanation" like you say)

It's basic economics. Cheap solar power (a substitute for oil) will reduce
demand for oil ... so the market price of oil will decline if the supply of
oil is the same. But oil isn't traded on a free market, so it's a bit more
complicated.

------
keating
The first thing the author's name makes me think of:

"A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the
horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both
horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing
the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book,
practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter
grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry."

I don't hear enough rip!

