
How Solar Power Could Slay the Fossil Fuel Empire (2014) - kafkaesq
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-solar-power-could-slay-the-fossil-fuel-empire-by-2030
======
paulsutter
I'm an advocate for solar. I just want to see an honest analysis of the whole
question, what does a clean global grid look like? Anyone seen such a thing?
If we really switched over to solar power, we'd need storage to handle :

\- daily load variations (example, CA ISO "duck graph"[1])

\- seasonal load variations (example, Seattle has 16 hours of sunlight in
summer, and 8 in winter. It's overcast for weeks at a time in winter).

\- unusual events, from extended weather patterns to volcanic eruptions.

Five nines (99.999%) is 5 minutes/year of downtime. What does it cost to
guarantee at least that, given the variations in sun (or wind) and the fact
that the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need
that gets switched on, anytime, regardless of the weather?

Tony Seba's big handwave is that the "god parity" happens in 2020 where
photovoltaic is cheaper than transmission costs, so even if fossil fuel cost
zero, it would cost more than rooftop PV. Ta-da!

Ok, for what percent of the population does that give you how many nines?
What's the complete story that handles conditions in Seattle, London, and
really most of Europe?

Tony also likes to refer to Molten Salt Solar as "baseload". Bullshit that's
just short-term load following. Useful, yes! Complete solution, no. Or can it
be extended? Where can I find an honest analysis?

Yeah I've heard the other handwaves: flow batteries! existing pumped water
storage! add wind to the portfolio! supeconducting transmission from deserts!
LiIon manufacuturing learning curve! etc... But we need numbers, not
enthusiasm.

[1] [http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-
over-...](http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-over-duck-
chart-and-distributed-solar-powercrying-fowl-or-crying-wolf-open-season-on-
the-utilitys-solar-duck-chart/)

~~~
cdnsteve
Perhaps the notion of the _grid_ is outdated. Self reliance is the future,
solar combined with self storage like Tesla Powerwall.
[https://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/POWERWALL](https://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/POWERWALL)

~~~
danmaz74
And what happens when there are 2 consecutive weeks of bad weather during
winter?

~~~
slfnflctd
There are several answers to this. The three that stand out to me are
alternate power generation methods (inferior, but still helpful), designing
systems with excess battery capacity, and, you know, using less energy at
times when it's harder to generate.

People tend to be dismissive about conserving energy, but I expect they would
think differently if they were producing & storing their own. We use way more
than we need to-- some of the biggest power hogs are air conditioning and
refrigeration, neither of which is necessary in the winter.

~~~
danmaz74
My point is: how expensive would it be to have alternate power generation,
especially in cities? I think the grid isn't going anywhere anytime in the
next 50 or 100 years at least.

~~~
maxerickson
Small generators are not punitively expensive.

It's anyway going to be an awful long time before North America stops burning
fuel for winter heat.

I guess something like $500 a year is not a welcome new bill, but that would
be the cost for replacing a house sized generator at a pretty short interval.
If the duty cycle is low and maintenance is effective I would expect the cost
to be lower than that.

------
Shivetya
Solar doesn't replace base line generation unless you can get the power where
its needed and as you are not generating power from panels over the majority
of a day it means you must get it from someone who is generating it

~~~
grhino
Or generate and store excess energy during the day. I think the current
challenge is that current energy storage solutions do not scale to the size of
power plants?

~~~
jsudhams
Even the day storing may not be option, my home town chennai got a record rain
in last one month with almost no sun for most of the days. Also the only thing
that helped people are fossil fuel which is Candle and LPG stoves. The regular
coal based thermal power was not there due to shutdown of plant as well as
tranmission lines. LPG stove made people stay on first and second floor for
two weeks with no need to come down.

------
crimsonalucard
Business guys look at line graphs and think that trends continue forever. The
reality is, everything has a limit. No technology can improve indefinitely as
technology is bounded by the limits of the physical world (see Moore's law).
Only an industry scientist has the perspective to make an accurate prediction.
Will solar technology improve to a point where it can beat the energy density
of fossil fueles? Or is it physically impossible? Any qualified people willing
to supply an opinion?

Personally my intuition says that we will go to solar, but at great cost. We
will be forced to switch due to rising oil costs and even after the switch the
energy supply will be so diminished that we will no longer be treating energy
as frivolously as we do today.

~~~
Mvandenbergh
The theoretical maximum efficiency of a single junction silicon cell
(Shockley–Queisser limit) is 33.7%.

As a means of electricity production, it's already better than fossil fuels in
large parts of the world but fossil fuels are storable and that makes all the
difference.

~~~
selimthegrim
The Shockley-Queisser limit should not be treated as the pillars of Hercules.
Multi-junction and next generation systems hold great promise.

~~~
Mvandenbergh
Absolutely, but will any of those systems reach comparable cost per kW any
time soon?

~~~
selimthegrim
Does it matter when only a fraction of levelized cost is the cell?

------
bavcyc
Interesting article.

I can't remember who said it, but humans tend to over-estimate change in the
long term, and under-estimate change in the short term.

It will be interesting to see what changes do occur in this time frame.

~~~
yourapostasy
That is Amara's Law [1]. The paraphrase given by Cringely that is commonly
quoted (to my knowledge, Amara himself never gave as concise a quote as the
paraphrase) is:

"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and
underestimate the effect in the long run."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara)

------
at-fates-hands
I've been following solar for around a decade now and have yet to consider it
because of it's long ROI. Sure, the technology has gotten more efficient as
pointed out in the article, but a consumer's up front costs have yet to come
down.

I checked again last year about installing an array on my roof. My original
outlay would be in the 30-40K range with an ROI of over ten years. If you want
solar to take over the world and be a viable alternative to low income
families, this isn't going to cut it.

Also, does the author know there's a limited amount of lithium in the world
while his projections are pretty rosy for electric, the facts don't seem to
align with his assumptions:

 _William Tahil, the founder of Meridian International Research, a technology
consultancy in Martainville, France, has argued that there simply isn’t enough
economically recoverable lithium on the planet to support the auto industry’s
ambitious plans. Tahil estimated that only 4.4 million tons of the world’s
lithium resources can be extracted without prohibitive cost, a supply he
believes will be quickly exhausted if lithium-ion batteries become a staple of
next-generation cars._

[http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html](http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html)

So why people are focusing on lithium to herald in the new electric car
revolution, we should probably already be looking beyond electric cars as a
viable long term solution.

~~~
grandinj
There is plenty of lithium. This is just an updated version of the Malthusian
idiocy.

[http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_re...](http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/)

~~~
ksec
Where does it said there are pretty?? We know there are enough oil or petrol
that could last 100s to 1000s of years. And there are known Lithium reserve
that could last us 100s years even if we keep the current pace of development.

The problem with both is extraction cost. How can we effectively extract it
that provide a profits at this current price. It wasn't until recently US
mastered the technique of flasking oil we have more then what we need.

------
lintiness
oil's below $40/brl and ng is around $2. the solar / renewable drive "began"
with prices of both at 3*+ multiples of where they are today. the problem
addressed has diminished which should affect investment / development and
stall future transition.

------
olivermarks
it's worth noting that various large vc firms lost their shirts around this
period last year betting big on solar...this article may have been part of the
pr push for all that

------
CodingGuy
This will be the only chance for our climate/planet as I don't count on our
leaders to agree on a strict climate protocol.

------
Paul13
Really? Everyone knows with a little bit of research that The Climate Summits
are a bunch of ridiculous hoaxes.

Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years:
[http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/](http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/),
so enough with this scaremongering.

And everyone who has studied electrical engineering for real, knows that you
are always going to need base stations running on fossil fuel or nuclear
energy because solar/wind power is unpredictable.

The ones who benefit out of this is the companies you do the huge
installations and then increase the prices on utility bills because
"practically+scientifically" alternative powers sources are not cost
efficient.

Especially the wind power is useless, if you don't have base stations running
on coal/nuclear energy to cover for energy variations.

But in the end, the serfs buy it thinking the climate will be saved while the
corporations just get richer.

Get some reality checks here: [http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-
coal-plants-wi...](http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-
will-thwart-any-paris-pledges/)

Lastly, even Germany who had pledged to stop burning coal, votes not to do it:
[http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-
wi...](http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-
any-paris-pledges/)

and pays Denmark to disable wind turbines:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-
win...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-wind-power-
surplus-spurs-cash-for-neighbor-to-switch-off)

Conclusion: Solar/Wind energy exist only through subsidies:utility bills
increases->your tax money getting burned.

~~~
pixl97
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event)

Good luck with all your coal plants.

