Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them We hear about it all the time... Solar power as a renewable energy source. Not a bad idea considering that spectacular star of ours isn't burning out anytime soon. According to Scientific American, a massive transition to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of our total energy by 2050--with $420 billion in subsidies to fund the infrastructure that would make it cost-competitive.
So is a solar future really on the horizon and possible on that scale? First thing's first, let's define the topic of the week... Solar power means using radiant energy from the sun for heating water, air, and making electricity. Sounds promising, no?
Now not to rain on the solar parade, but there are some considerations to take into account before outfitting your pad with solar panels like location, time of day, time of year, and weather conditions. Even if it might be feasible in places like California, Arizona, and everyone's favorite sunshine state, what about Seattle, Binghamton, and Alaska? In other words, would consecutive cloudy days leave many of us literally in the dark? Storage and back-up systems are going to be very important given the sun doesn't deliver that much energy to any one place at a time. The solution would be photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs over huge tracts of land along with a direct-current transmission backbone to send that energy efficiently across the nation. So where? How?... This blogger is taking suggestions.
Now I'm not saying we can't meet these challenges and some local and state governments are already offering subsidies for rooftop solar panels. But before we all jump on the solar bandwagon, do readers think this is the way to go? And are local subsidies for private homes and businesses better than large-scale production involving transmission of electricity (accounting for associated loss)? Imagine a future where solar panels pave the desert between Phoenix and Los Angeles and consider whether that be worth the ecological footprint? So many questions, and here's one more....
What about those 'fourth generation alternative fuels' in and out of the news that would essentially convert carbon dioxide to energy by creating an organism that will ingest CO2, water, and sunlight to give off fuels like diesel and gasoline usable in today's automobiles? Really. Knowing a few folks in the industry, I suspect we're pretty close, and it's possible an energy bug may very well harness sunlight the most efficiently of all. Science fiction or science breakthrough? We'll just have to wait a couple years and find out...
Environment
Comments
I am very suspicious of this blog when all it seems to tell us is not to get too excited by emerging technologies. I wonder if this would be the case if Shell invested hundreds of millions in solar systems.
Posted by: Flippin | August 13, 2008 11:42 AM
Oh man! Shell are one of the biggest investors in solar, and manufacturers of solar equipment, in the world.
Posted by: Dunc | August 13, 2008 11:58 AM
--One last point, you make sure to use language that only 'fuels' my suspicion--"Now not to rain on the solar parade" and "before we all jump on the solar bandwagon," and so on. This seems to reduce solar energy research to the level of another goofy idea, thoughtlessly pursued, like one might a parade, or bandwagon.
It seems to me, drilling for oil, as an analogy to parades and parties, mindlessly pursued in the name of...what? Patriotism? Getting away from imported oil? as an analogy is much more apt.
Posted by: Flippin | August 13, 2008 12:02 PM
"Solar energy is abundant, local and emission-free. But the current costs of turning sunlight into electricity remain too high for large-scale use. The most widely applied technology uses silicon and a highly complex manufacturing process. After many years making solar panels this way, Shell has ceased its activities in conventional silicon based solar in 2006, moving straight into the next generation “CIS” thin-film technology. We believe thin-film technology - albeit in the early phases of development - could prove to be the most commercially viable form of photovoltaic solar technology to generate electricity from the sun’s energy."
I'm sure they have everyone in the lab working on it. They got 'em working in shifts. Soon they'll find the guy who soiled The Dude's car, too.
Posted by: Flippin | August 13, 2008 12:05 PM
Flippin,
I agree that drilling for offshore oil is a terrible idea.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | August 13, 2008 12:06 PM
Flippin, you're the one who who just said, "If we're going to make solar work, we've got to tackle the price. It needs to be made as cheap as possible, as quickly as possible."
How exactly do you propose they do that, other than by researching new technology?
Posted by: Dunc | August 13, 2008 12:11 PM
Oh, and it was a rug, not a car.
Posted by: Dunc | August 13, 2008 12:13 PM
Seems like a company working in that area wouldn't consider it "bandwagoning," then, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Flippin | August 13, 2008 12:14 PM
The Dude's car is a 4-door 1973 Ford Torino
Posted by: Flippin | August 13, 2008 12:16 PM
What on Earth are you talking about? Sheril is not a Shell employee. The content on this blog is not written by Shell. Her choice of words is her own business.
Posted by: Dunc | August 13, 2008 12:17 PM
Auto Circus Cop: [the Dude asks the Auto Circus Cop if there are any leads on who stole his beater car] Leads, yeah, sure. I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab, they've got four more detectives working on the case. They got us working in shifts!
[laughs]
Auto Circus Cop: Leads!
[laughs as he walks away]
Auto Circus Cop: Leads...
Now that we're way off course.
Posted by: Flippin | August 13, 2008 12:18 PM
Bored now.
Posted by: Dunc | August 13, 2008 12:19 PM
This posting seems very naive and simplistic. No advocate of alternative energy sources claims that solar power is the complete answer to reducing the dependence on oil. It is part of an holistic approach which includes conservation measures, wind, tide, wave, geothermal as well as photovoltaics, solar heating and solar cooling. Throwaway remarks about Seattle, Binghamton and Alaska fail to recognize that many parts of Europe make good use of solar power, especially Sweden, which for the most part is at similar latitudes as Alaska. Recent developments have increased the efficiency of photovoltaics (thin film, holographic prisms etc.) and technology will provide things like more efficient lighting and heat pumps. As more people start to utilise these things prices will come down through mass production. The design of buildings can also be improved to retain more heat (or reduce heat build up in hot areas) and make use of passive heating mechanisms like Tronde walls. Putting one's faith in a future petroleum substitute is very blinkered as it may not come to fruition. Undoubtedly we will need to use oil for many years to come but we need to make use of a combination of measures to tackle the problem.
Posted by: Genghis | August 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Genghis,
Sheril's on top of that. This week's blog topic is solar power so I believe she's addressing the Scientific American figures.
Posted by: John | August 13, 2008 2:08 PM
I'm not at liberty to say where I heard this (it was at work and I don't want to run afoul of any confidentiality problems... I like my job). But I work for a large firm (not Shell) that designs, produces, and sells oil well technology. Oil well technology is closely related to geothermal well technology. I asked a manager, were we also interested in developing equipment for the geothermal energy industry? He told me we had actually been developing it for a while. By now I guess we've probably entered the market. Flippin's naivete about the oil industry and business in general makes me laugh.
Now as for solar... I ran across a mention this morning of panels using nanotechnology to absorb and convert infrared energy--heat energy--into usable electricity. Only snag is that the conversion machine hasn't been invented yet. We'll get over that. Then any waste heat, including that given off by the Earth as it cools during the night, can be used by the panels.
Posted by: speedwell | August 13, 2008 2:14 PM
speedwell, I think the proposal for using infrared energy has a difficulty with the second law. You are still bound by the need for a temperature difference. Light comes from the Sun is effectively hot energy at 5780K. If you you use infrared energy, from something radiating in the infrared, you have a much colder source, and that puts tough limits on what can be obtained.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | August 13, 2008 4:12 PM
If the energy bug is a real possibility, it will change this entire discussion. It will change everything.
Posted by: Paul | August 13, 2008 5:23 PM
It seems that no matter which form of energy we use, we gotta pay through the nose for it. Why all the talk about subsidy when the bulk of $4 a gallon is clear profit?
Posted by: eddie | August 13, 2008 5:53 PM
I think that the necessary new technology has not already been developed largely as a result of the industry's political activity. They have found this massively profitable and can easily invest without subsidy. I feel they should be required to. We have been ripped off too much already.
Posted by: eddie | August 13, 2008 6:03 PM
|....an organism that will ingest CO2, water, and sunlight to give off fuels like diesel and |gasoline usable in today's automobiles?
This type of organism is already rather common. Look for my Sunday post on cyanobacteria.
Posted by: Sam Hazen | August 13, 2008 7:02 PM
Venter's is probably an algae. It's an active field of study (by many companies) but has a number of technical challenges which make it not yet cost-competitive. Shell is in fact an investor in this field.
A few years back, it looked like solar cell costs were going to drop far enough for PV to be competitive without subsidy. Unfortunately, the curve has flattened or even reversed; see http://www.solarbuzz.com/. In order to be competitive without subsidies, PV has to get under $2 per kWp. This will require some tech advances, though there are several candidate technologies.
Solar-thermal electricity generation looks promising, and there's a fair amount of it already being built by electricity companies. Note that California has a renewables mandate coming up fairly soon, which is driving some investment by utilities.
Posted by: Anthony | August 13, 2008 7:48 PM
But before we all jump on the solar bandwagon, do readers think this is the way to go?
You're the only one jumping on the bandwagon. The rest of the world understands that we don't need to pick just one strategy.
Oooh, solar can only satisfy most of our needs but not all! Oh no! We may have to think of energy efficiency, geothermal, and alternative fuels! The horror!
No wonder people are asking about the Shell connection. I don't think it's a big influence, but the analysis here is so poor that blaming money influence is the nice to avoid accusations of incompetence.
A real disappointment.
Posted by: Adrian | August 13, 2008 8:08 PM
I'm disappointed in you Adrian. Sheril's regular readers like me recognize she's not advocating one solution at all. Go Paul!
Posted by: Samantha | August 13, 2008 8:21 PM
oops. I mean John ;)
Posted by: Samantha | August 13, 2008 8:23 PM
Should solar power be subsidised? Yes. Since we want to cut down on CO2 emissions for environmental reasons, either low emission sources of power should be subsidized based on how little carbon they emit or carbon emissions should be taxed. (A carbon tax can of course be revenue neutral.)
Are local subsidies for private homes and businesses better than large-scale production involving transmission of electricity? Well there is no need to decide. The easiest solution is to clearly set subsidies and/or a carbon tax and then let the market determine determine the best combination of small scale solar, large scale solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear and other low emission power sources. If solar energy in Arizona and New Mexico, or Mexico itself, turns out to be cheap enough to merit long distance transmission, then the necessary power lines can be built.
Large scale solar power systems in US deserts will have an environmental impact, and sets may need to be taken to minimize it once the solar energy systems reach a certain size, but compared to using fossil fuels the impact will probably be quite minor.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | August 13, 2008 9:16 PM
Samantha,
Yes, I remember her earlier posts. She seems prone to tossing out ideas without thinking them through and to overlooking flaws, this post is no different.
I know she earlier advocated a multi-pronged approach so what in the hell could possess her to act like it's a huge failing of solar that it may "only" supply 69% of our energy needs? Instead of shouting a 'horrah', she acts like we should drop solar entirely. Perhaps it's this fixation with cellulosic biofuels which leads her to say these things but whatever the cause, it's ill-considered and scatter-brained. It's certainly a huge oversight for someone that placed herself up as a major thinker on "next generation energy".
Posted by: Adrian | August 13, 2008 9:48 PM
Adrain
As I read it, the line "But before we all jump on the solar bandwagon, do readers think this is the way to go?" refers to the idea of government subsidies for domestic PV installation, and not to the technology itself. Given the context of that sentence, I don't see how it is possible to interpret it otherwise.
Posted by: Dunc | August 14, 2008 5:44 AM
Adrian
It seems to me that your issues are not so much the science,
but perhaps some personal 'envy'.
This post is supposed to be open for discussion, not personal insults and attacks.
Try better.
Posted by: Sciencefan | August 14, 2008 8:10 AM
"I am very suspicious of this blog when all it seems to tell us is not to get too excited by emerging technologies."
Flippin, they should be telling us that more often, because there's way too much wishful-thinking about this stuff.
Hey, I'm all in favor of solar power. I keep seeing all those residential roofs that are now just wasted space. But when I start hearing expectations that we're going to get all - or almost all - of our energy from solar and wind, I've got to wonder how much thinking is going on,... and how much dreaming.
That does NOT mean that I wouldn't push solar power (and wind power) as much as possible, but let's be rational, shall we? Let's be skeptical. Let's keep a few brain cells going. Just because we really, really want something does NOT mean that it's even possible, let alone practical. Hope is fine, but let's keep our feet on the ground.
Posted by: WCG | August 14, 2008 9:08 AM
I think what keeps happening here is that it is easy to forget the first paragraph of Sheril's post while you are reading the rest of the post. The rest of the post is in the context of the first paragraph. All of her questions are directed towards the idea of a single, massive solar project described by Scientific American. I can understand the difficulty though, I think the post hard to handle because it throws out some huge, complex ideas in a simplistic fashion and then asks very simplistic questions. You could write entire books to answer her questions. For example, you'd expect to find a question like "Science fiction or science breakthrough?" on a tabloid paper describing something like a free energy machine.
The last question about solar assumes that the massive project has been completed and her only question about it at that point is to imagine what it would look like to see so many panels in the dessert... My answer is that it would look like a country that is getting 69% of its energy from the sun after completely a project that hopefully underwent the proper environmental impact studies and met any mitigation requirements. I'd then ask you to imagine what it would look like if you took 69% of the coal power plants in this country offline.
And the last paragraph is a very strange addition, this post is about solar, but at the very end a completely different potential energy source is thrown in having nothing to do with solar.
Posted by: mlf | August 14, 2008 9:52 AM
"And the last paragraph is a very strange addition, this post is about solar, but at the very end a completely different potential energy source is thrown in having nothing to do with solar."
Fourth generation biofuels, as Craig Venter describes them, could actually be a key way to convert the suns rays and carbon dioxide into energy. In this way it is a solar power source. If it works, the question will be whether or not we cover the desert with solar panels or vats of algae. Maybe both, as one could supply energy and the other a biofuel. But let's not forget about the wildlife in the desert that may be a victim of ambitious large-scale solar projects.
Posted by: tuatara | August 14, 2008 10:31 AM
I am confused, what would the country look like with 69% of its energy (I'm assuming you are discussing electrical energy only due to the tie to coal plants) being provided by (mostly?) solar panels? With the coal plants shut down, could our rail industry survive: or don't we want it to survive? If power generation is distributed more so than today, would society be more accepting of expanded distribution systems than they are today? And I'm sure it's been discussed, but how and where will the nighttime energy storage take place?
Posted by: jjw | August 14, 2008 11:55 AM
Re tuatara - "Fourth generation biofuels, as Craig Venter describes them, could actually be a key way to convert the suns rays and carbon dioxide into energy..."
I very much concur. But, even if you can't get bacteria to make good diesel, using photosynthesis as a carbon-capture (and oxygen release) method is a good in itself.
If you do need subsidy to provide distributed generation capacity to households, the money should be taken directly from energy companies and not from taxpayers.
Posted by: eddie | August 17, 2008 11:38 AM
Well, if you want to limit solar to photovoltaic solar, then yes, you have the baseload problem.
You can get around it by using solar thermal energy - focusing the sun's rays to heat up, say, a molten salt, store it in an insulated storage unit underground, and use the heat differential to drive a conventional turbine. That kind of setup can produce constant baseload power even if Lex Luthor decides to kill Superman by blocking out the sun for a week.
Posted by: Glazius | August 26, 2008 12:38 PM