Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them I spent the better part of a year back at the turn of this century living on a houseboat, and therefore off the grid, in Canada's Northwest Territories. I was spending half my work week as a freelancer in my home office, and my three housemates weren't interested in reading by kerosene lamplight, so we couldn't do without electricity. Fortunately, the houseboat was equipped with a 400-watt photovoltaic array, which was more than enough to power our lights, stereo, television, and my laptop.
Though that was just a few years ago the technology and affordability of photovoltaics has advanced considerably, and continues to do so. Conventional wisdom has it that solar PV will be cost-competitive with natural gas by 2015. So when I consider how well our little array worked in 2001 — even around winter solstice when the sun barely made it over the Yellowknife skyline for four hours a day, we had sufficient power for our needs and never ran the batteries dry — I am more than a little optimistic about what's available these days.
In fact, I remain a little puzzled by the naysayers, who are forever pointing out how long it will take PV to make a significant contribution to the nation's electricity mix, even at the phenomenal growth rates the industry is enjoying at the moment.
A Bavarian PV array (Photo from NYT)
First, no one's demanding that PV supply ALL of the world's electricity, just a decent share. Even the Grand Solar Plan, to which Sheril referred in her post on the subject, only aims for about 69 % of America's electrical grid by 2050. Second, if you just look at how fast other electronics-based products can go from zero to market domination, it should be readily apparent that today's growth rates are almost certainly far lower than what's possible should we make even a few modest breakthroughs in efficiency and price, both of which are affected by market demand as much as technological know-how.
I've also been scratching my head over the repeated refrain that PV's ability to get a serious toe-hold in that marketplace is so tenuous that it will only be possible with government tax breaks and subsidies. Consider New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's latest lamentations over the failure of Congress to renew the tax credits that have allegedly been driving the investment in alternative energy so far:
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas.... In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31 — when the credits expire — and most everything beyond that is now on hold.Not everything, it turns out. Two days after Friedman wrote that, news came that:
Companies will build two solar power plants in California that together will put out more than 12 times as much electricity as the largest such plant today, the latest indication that solar energy is starting to achieve significant scale. (New York Times, Aug. 14, 2008)We don't know the economics of those two new PV plants, to be built, if they survive the regulatory hearings, in San Luis Obispo County. But if they do come online, when the sun is shining they'll supply 800 Walmarts, I mean megawatts of electricity, which just happens to be equal to the new $2.4 billion coal-fired plant Duke Energy is building over here in Western North Carolina.
That would suggest that Friedman's assumption about the industry's need for government assistance is less than accurate. After all, if PG&E can afford to invest several billion dollars (whatever the actual amount, it's surely significantly larger than what Duke's spending on that old-fashioned coal-burner), absent the guarantees of tax credits, then maybe PV is a lot closer to competitive than we think.
It's the same with wind, by the way. Despite the uncertain regulatory and tax environment, the world's largest turbine maker, Vestas of Denmark, has just announced plans for a pair of manufacturing plant in Colorado.
Of course, this is no excuse for letting Congress off the hook. Whether or not clean energy industries need the help, they can sure put it to good use. Any assistance can only accelerate the drive toward improved efficiencies and economies of scale. If we can give billions to the oil industry, we surely can afford to help wind and solar. The point is, Congress needs to take advantage of the eagerness of the industry to get on with the job of saving us from ourselves, and give it all the help we can muster.
I'd hate to think that the year on that houseboat was the last time my laptop will be run directly off solar power.
(Incidentally, and in case you were wondering, our houseboat's heat, hot-water heater, range and oven used propane, which meant we weren't the lowest-carbon emitters in Yellowknife. The city uses mostly hydro power from a run-of-river dam. There is a standby diesel generator for when the power lines from the dam go down, but that means most city residents can claim almost no GHG emissions other than their cars.)
That's the place. The PV array is hidden, unfortunately.
Environment
Comments
The new PV stations in California are dependent on tax credits and California's clean power mandate.
The general arguments for how long it will take for solar power to make a substantial impact, without special policies to require use of solar, are fairly simple:
As long as solar is more expensive than conventional power, without political pressure solar will only appear on a small scale. Note that the cost of conventional power is location-dependent; solar is already cheaper than conventional for off-grid locations. Also note that solar power has high startup and low ongoing costs, so your assumptions about interest rate and amortization are important (this is also true for nuclear, btw).
If the cost of solar drops so building a new solar plant will produce power at lower cost than building a new conventional power plant, economics will cause a lot of new solar plants to be built (again, there's location effects). However, old power plants will not be shut down unless it's necessary to shut them down for other reasons, which is probably 1-2% per year.
If the cost of solar drops so building a new solar plant is cheaper than retrofitting an old power plant, old power plants will go away at several percent per year. If the cost of solar drops so a new solar plant is cheaper than the ongoing operating cost of a conventional power plant, utilities will build solar plants as fast as they can.
To actually reduce CO2 emissions (rather than simply reducing the growth rate) it's essential to actually shut down old power plants. The most promising methods I can see involve a carbon tax or a carbon capture mandate, either of which makes operating a conventional power plant considerably more expensive.
Posted by: Anthony | August 18, 2008 1:32 PM
I'm under the impression that two other key limiting factors for PV are that: a) cells deliver DC power incompatible with most existing appliances, and b) batteries remain bulky, expensive and inefficient.
Any comments on the prospects for either problem?
What are the existing and projected efficiency rates for solar cells?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2008 3:06 PM
@Pierce Butler:
a) Power inverters to turn DC into 120VAC have made great strides in recent years.
b) In the big picture, the intermittency of both PV and wind is a problem. However, for single-home installations (like the one we're going ahead with in the next few months), going grid-tied eliminates the need for batteries on-site.
So it's not a case of having to convert everyone and everything over to a new-fangled 48VDC (or whatever), and make us all live off-grid. Each building can generate at least part of its own power needs, while still drawing on the larger system, and keeping the existing AC end-use.
Benefits: lower carbon footprint AND lower load on the overall grid at peak times (hot summer days when everyone is running their A/C flat out).
I think the future is going to be a patchwork of solutions: small-scale generation using the best local resource, coupled with the existing continental grid fed by large-scale solar/wind/nuke/biomass/coal/whatever plants. (Yes, I expect it will take us a very long time to completely do away with fossil fuels. But we can start reducing).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 18, 2008 4:39 PM
There are two ways to help solar CSP or PV become competitive:
tax incentives (like in CA) and / or a carbon emissions tax. Providing these on a national level will cause new solar facilities to be built more rapidly than you might think. Things I'm reading keep talking about grid parity by 2015 or sooner. Add a carbon tax and its even sooner.
I think new nukes are less and less likely because of the rapidly dropping price of both PV and baseload solar. There will certainly be a patchwork of solutions and that is also a good thing.
...darth
Posted by: darth | August 19, 2008 10:15 AM
My local utility has built wind turbines, too, but it's entirely for the political benefit. Frankly, they're popular with rate-payers, and almost no one realizes that the amount of electricity received from them is inconsequential. Seriously, I used to schedule power for this electric utility, and I never knew, nor cared, if they were running or not, since their top production was less than my minimum wholesale purchase amount,... and far less than my ability to forecast. Yet most residents here seemed to think that our energy problems were over, and that we'd just build more wind turbines if we needed more power. It's made me a little skeptical about the whole thing.
And it's not until the bottom of your post that we hear what WASN'T powered by your solar array, which is basically everything that uses much power. I doubt if you had a big need for central air conditioning up there, either. I am all in favor of solar power,... but I can't help but think that a lot of us are just believing what we WANT to believe, which is, of course, oh so easy to do. IMHO, there's no reason we can't have hope while also maintaining a healthy, honest skepticism.
Posted by: WCG | August 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Jimmy Carter had the Army Corps of Engineers work up a plan that was one of the casualties of Reagan's October Surprise 28 years ago.
In brief: they listed the most remote military bases powered by generators using shipped-in fuel and calculated which ones would be cost-effective to power by the PV cells of the day. Hypothetically, buying solar panels for all of those would have spurred production enough to increase manufacturing capacity and lower prices.
PV-ing another set of remote bases cost-effectively at the new price-point would then have been implemented, leading to another round of greater capacity and reduced cost, at which point even more bases would have been eligible...
To try something like that in 2009, everything would have to be re-figured from scratch, but let's hope Pres. Obama orders the study next January.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 19, 2008 5:20 PM
Converting military bases, at this point, would have much less effect than it would have had in 1979; there's already a large enough installed base that adding the military isn't that huge an increase. However, the military is interested anyway; see http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07464384. This doesn't seem to have much to do with the military being concerned about global warming; solar power is useful in any situation where fuel supplies are likely to be unreliable or limited.
Posted by: Anthony | August 19, 2008 5:46 PM
One area where local, state, and federal government could do a lot to promote solar and wind without spending much money is in identifying and pre-approving sites. For wind a program to locate good sites (consistent winds and not in flyways) already exists to some extent.
Good sites on federal lands should be made available for sale/lease (obviously paying considderation to other land use issues). Same thing at a state level. Local governments should review possible good sites, and rezone them appropriately. Hell, even go so far pre-approving a general plan (type, size, ect) for the plant/facility and have all the public hearings and comment periods up front so that when a company/org comes in to actually build the thing the approval process can be streamlined (only have to deal with variances from the general plan). Tax incentives and such common enticements can also be offered up-front.
All these decisions are time consuming and potentially contentious, adding cost and uncertainty to the process of actually getting a new facility built. It would be much more enticing to say:
"For sale: 40 acre plot along ridge with XYZ windflow stats which is zoned and approved for 50 to 100 wind turbines."
Posted by: travc | August 20, 2008 8:44 PM
For the record, the 800 MW of solar PV contracts that PG&E signed with OptiSolar (now First Solar) and SunPower, were in fact contingent upon the investment tax credit being extended.
Posted by: Solar PV Analyst | March 2, 2009 8:35 PM
Wonderful post!
Posted by: Solar Products | April 28, 2009 7:17 AM