

We don't have abundant solar power because of financing, not science - BvS
http://singularityhub.com/2012/01/21/why-dont-we-have-abundant-solar-power-blame-financing-and-industry-not-science/

======
firemanx
Ultimately, the problem with solar, wind, and any other "periodic" or
localized generation method is storage and distribution. I live in an area
with incredibly cheap power due to hydro dams that generate well in excess of
what we need. However, there's only so much we can do with that excess in
terms of efficiency of generation because it costs so much to send that energy
long distances.

In addition, you have the obvious periodic nature of solar and wind, which
mean that not only do you have the distribution problems, but you also can't
just flick it on and offset a bunch of peak load or burst demand (such as when
hospitals "turn on" in the morning).

You could have 100% efficient solar technology, and it wouldn't change much
the economics of green energy because of the physical nature of problem. Thus,
you need to change how we deal with the physical nature, and thus the
economics themselves by improving the technology in other places. I work for a
startup which is building a combination of efficient storage infrastructure
and a distributed software system to help manage the heuristics of controlling
supply and demand with this storage system and generation technology
(including solar and wind, but also traditional generation as well), helping
to do things like smart "time shifting" of energy supply.

Since superconductors are still a ways off, and even with them it doesn't
change the nature of periodic generation, I think storage technology is likely
the most important area for investment in the immediate future (and not just
because that's where my paycheck comes from :) )

~~~
Dn_Ab
That sounds like a great start up. Are you allowed to clarify what you mean by
efficient infrastructure? That is, do you mean the topology of the network,
the routing on the links or the type of nodes? What type of algorithms do you
use for load balancing? Are you storing on more efficient batteries for
example? What is the chemistry of your batteries? Or are they the dual, fuel
based?

Sorry, this has been a bit of a ramble just curious about your system.

~~~
corysama
I really appreciated this interview
<http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail5059.html> with the guy who
wrote the book <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Industrial_Revolution>

He stresses that financing, generation and distribution must all be improved
in sync for a successful transition to occur. This is based on his experience
in Europe helping them transition to distributed renewable energy.

~~~
firemanx
It's funny you mention that - that book has been making its way around at
work, and I've got it sitting on my desk to read right now.

I think the author is right on, though I bet we'll see some significant
incremental progress in the next couple years. I also think, based on the
blurbs I've seen, that he's missing out on one key part of the equation that a
lot of non-energy startups can go after - intelligence in the system. We'll be
building the distribution, storage and generation side, and the smart grid
will continue to plug into more and more devices, but it's the smarts of the
system at scale, doing things like we've all been working on in the social
space for a few years now, that will take those raw materials to the next
level, and do something really clever that none of us have thought about yet.

~~~
corysama
For me, the biggest surprise in the interview was the reaction of the legacy
energy companies. At first, they were very unhappy with the idea of
independent, distributed generation (no surprise). But once it became clear
that A) It's happening with or without them. And B) There's a new role for
them in distribution intelligence. They got on board and now are actually
pushing progress forward.

------
vilda
Very common problem with similar optimistic analysis is that they compare end-
user price (includes taxes and distribution costs) with the price of solar
panels (no installation and maintenance costs).

In reality, you have to calculate additional costs when dealing with
unpredictable sources. Either you have to have 100% backup in traditional
source or you have to conserve the energy (usually below 50% efficiency).

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed.

You have to buy land. You have to pay architects and engineers to design your
plant. You have to build facilities. You have to hire people to run it. You
have to maintain it. And eventually it'll be decommissioned, which works out
to an effective operating cost.

------
shmulkey18
"Researchers at Queen’s University in Canada have compiled a comprehensive
study of solar power plants and found that improvements in financing, and
industrial streamlining could allow for the technology to become as cost-
effective as traditional electrical sources. In other words, a much larger
part of the globe could currently reach grid parity if cheap loans and better
supply chains were available."

In other words, solar photovoltaics are not yet affordable without
technological improvements in the supply chain and without subsidy in the form
of below-market financing. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

------
jdwhit2
Solar power is a classic disruptive technology. It currently does not meet the
mainstream market's needs in terms of:

    
    
      - availability
      - cost per MWh
      - suitable locations (close to established high voltage power lines)
    

Each of these factors is being steadily improved over time. And once solar
technology meets the mainstream market's expectations for energy production,
incumbent producers will need to retreat their offerings into a vanishingly
small market for those needs not met by solar.

~~~
stretchwithme
I think we'll know its disruptive when it actually disrupts something. On its
own, without subsidies and other crutches.

And that may have happened with special assistance, as many other disruptions
have.

But its still not a sure thing. There may be other technologies that might
have gotten there first. But since we've biased investment in solar so much,
such alternatives may never develop.

We did something similar with the automobile in the US, giving it advantages
and subsidies like free roads. Is it any wonder that more efficient ways of
getting around withered?

~~~
Volpe
What were the more efficient ways (of getting around)?

~~~
stretchwithme
Mass transit is what I had in mind.

Personally, I prefer the car. But if I had to bear all of the costs of using a
car directly, and urban sprawl were not so preferred by planners, mass transit
would be my choice more often.

This is especially true at rush hour. Most highway construction happens just
to serve rush hour traffic, a time when mass transit is at its most efficient.

If these subsidies did not exist, mass transit would be much more widely used.
There'd be many more choices and there'd be no need to subsidize mass transit.

We actually have subsidies to counter the negative effects of other subsidies.
Getting rid of all subsidies would be better and allow people to make the
right choices for them with fewer negative side effects.

~~~
jdwhit2
I remember reading an opinion here on Hacker News not long ago where it was
suggested that in the future with self-driving cars we don't all need to own a
car. Instead a car could come and pick us up and drop off at the destination.
Do you think that this micro transportation (instead of mass transportation)
option could be environmentally friendly?

~~~
stretchwithme
Before you can compare things on an environmental basis, you have to be
comparing things that are equivalent.

I could compare rubbing a lamp to taking the subway in environmental terms and
the lamp comes out way ahead. It just takes more walking to get places with
the lamp method.

If you do wish to compare two things, you probably should include the cost of
your time and the environmental impact you would have during that amount of
time.

You also want to consider the actual impacts of building the transportation
systems, whether its rail or road.

It would be infinitely easier for you if each process involved were taxed
according to its impact. Then the costs would be included in the price you pay
and you could decide according to what works best for you.

------
ryanmarsh
Wrong, we don't have abundant solar power because of science, not financing.
Go build something using solar power, the technology just isn't there, but
most importantly neither are the physics. I spent a couple of years building
an industrial product that ran off of solar power. We are in the sun belt,
which is a region of the U.S. that has the most sun relative to the rest of
the country. What I learned is that solar power is a joke. There just isn't
enough solar energy arriving at the surface of the planet to make it
worthwhile to use. It's a fantasy, get over it and invent something new, like
a 600cc nuclear reactor.

~~~
spenrose
Wow, what a completely misinformed comment. Start here:

[http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/solar-grid-
parity...](http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/solar-grid-parity-101)

~~~
ryanmarsh
No, your article is misinformed. The article does not discuss the total cost
of generating power from solar panels, namely, cost of batteries and their
regular replacement, panel cleaning, and the cost of the amount of land
required for enough panels to generate 50 Kwh (avg) per day. This also does
not consider that you need 7 times as many panels to generate the same amount
of electricity on a partly cloudy day as you do on a clear summer day. It is
much worse in the winter months. I dare you to prove me wrong, not with an
article of someone's estimation, but real field work.

~~~
saturn
Instead of dismissing people's optimism with an impossible-to-refute "argument
from field experience", why not write up some of your hard-won lessons so
interested people can educate themselves?

I'd be very interested in an account of real world PV solar costs and hurdles
by someone who's been there, done that.

------
fdschoeneman
We don't have abundant solid gold toilet seats because of financing, not
science, either. Now this isn't to say that there is no market for solid gold
toilet seats. Surely, I'd buy one, if the cost was the same as a regular
toilet seat. But it isn't, now is it? Yes yes, I know this will kill my Hacker
News karma. Deduct away.

------
JerkyTreatz
Solar is not a viable means for today's energy consumption, and it certainly
won't be a viable means for tomorrow's energy consumption.

The energy race has been decided already, and the only answer to fossil fuels
is Liquid Floride Thoriam Reactors (LFTR). It's an alternative form of nuclear
energy that has been around since the Manhattan Project. Unlike the current
nuclear power plants of today, it is impossible for a nuclear explosion to
occur, there is no waste generated (well, there is about 1% waste, but the
waste generated is actually a very rare metal NASA uses to power deep space
satellites), and Thorium (the equivalent to Uranium) is 1000x more abundant
than Uranium.

LFTR will be the worlds core energy source within 30 years. China is the only
country actively developing a LFTR program- if it comes to fruition, they
could be the power suppliers of tomorrow.

Learn about it in 5 minutes: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4>

------
T_S_
It's not financing. It's the fact that we don't have a carbon tax. Price
carbon near the cost of sequestration and you will see plenty of money
invested in alternative energy. Anything else keeps the decision making in the
hands of the central planners. Ask Gorbachev how well that worked.

~~~
baddox
So, you're admitting that the problem is financing. You're just proposing one
way of incentivizing financing.

~~~
spenrose
I am not sure why y'all are arguing. Either a carbon tax or better financing
would help.

~~~
T_S_
They both help reduce climate change? Not sure. Without a carbon tax you could
burn 100 tons of coal to make a "green device" and nobody would know the exact
figure. With it, you don't even need to do the calculation. It's in the price.

------
joeag
Finance is the most important issue for solar adoption, especially for
distributed generation. For residential customers there is very little reason
not to invest in generating your own power from rooftop solar, unless you
don't plan to be in your house for 5-7 years. Even then there are studies that
show you can get your money back from increased resale value.

Think of solar like this - why would you not want to independently produce
your own power and escape the clutches of your local utility company? In most
states in the US, utilities are monopolies and although they are regulated,
they employ thousands of lobbyists to influence those who regulate them. The
result, predictably is annually escalating electricity rates. The utilities
raise rates to build new plants, transmission lines, increase management and
employee salaries, and lately in California, cover underfunded employee
pension costs!

Unfortunately, without a finance option available, you have to come up with a
big chunk of money to install a system (essentially pre-paying for 7 years
worth of electricity up front).

So, if you can finance the system over a reasonable period of time so that you
don't have to pay for the entire system upfront, it makes makes it much easier
to pull the trigger on purchasing a system.

Of course, if you can afford to pay for it upfront, it makes even more sense.

------
andrewpi
I wonder how the failure of Solyndra fits into this thesis.

~~~
jfager
Solyndra failed because its secret-sauce technology couldn't get cheap enough
fast enough compared to the plummeting cost of photovoltaics. So it fits
pretty well.

~~~
spenrose
We've only heard of Solyndra b/c the big-oil/big-coal GOP needed a talking
point. Solyndra is what they came up with.

~~~
jfager
That's only true for people who don't follow the solar industry. They got
their loan in March 2009 ([http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/21/fremonts-
solyndra-wins-f...](http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/21/fremonts-solyndra-
wins-first-doe-funding/)), filed for IPO in December
([http://gigaom.com/cleantech/solar-tube-maker-solyndra-
files-...](http://gigaom.com/cleantech/solar-tube-maker-solyndra-files-for-
potential-300m-ipo/)) and cancelled it in June 2010
([http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solyndra-ipo-
can...](http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solyndra-ipo-cancelled)),
and all three events were relatively well-covered.

------
nradov
A friend of mine founded a start up to finance solar power.

<http://www.clearspotenergy.com/>

------
Diogenes
1\. Bullshit. 2\. you all are better at math than I am, so I won't bother to
point out the obvious.

------
InclinedPlane
Solar power on its own cannot supply base load electrical power. Period. Full
stop.

Only in combination with an extensive power storage infrastructure could such
a thing be possible. Constructing such things would easily cost as much, or
more, as constructing all of the necessary PV plants.

Moreover, very substantial changes to the national power grid would also need
to be undertaken.

At the best possible costs this work would easily exceed what it would take to
build enough fission power plants to provide all of the base load, and that
isn't happening with any degree of rapidity either.

