Cheap Solar

Dave Roberts watches Nanosolar shipping its first panels and proclaims that solar is now cheaper than coal power even if you ignore the environmental issues and the price of the coal itself.

That's not quite right, I think, because you can run a coal plant irrespective of the weather so a megawatt-to-megawatt comparison is kind of misleading. That said, the point remains that renewable energy is not some outlandishly expensive hypothetical alternative. If the much-poorer United States of 1957 could afford coal power, the much-richer United States of 2007 can afford solar (and wind, etc.) power. And if the rich world decisively commits itself to renewable electricity, the number of firms trying to find cost-effective ways to deliver this sort of electricity will skyrocket, developing the sort of methods and technologies that can be viable on a mass basis in India and China.

Comments

That auction appears to have been cancelled by Ebay. Note Ebay's explanation when you click over: "If the auction was ended by Ebay, consider it cancelled." Tony Soprano must be their web developer or something. Ebay is run by poorly trained chimps.

Posted by Slippery Pete | December 27, 2007 2:36 PM

From what I understand, peak electricity usage lines up pretty well with peak sunlight hours.

Posted by Ben | December 27, 2007 2:38 PM

Actually, I've sometimes heard claims that the main pricing-problem with Solar isn't so much the production as the storage and distribution expenses.

Don't know if this is/was correct since I'm not a specialist, but maybe some commenter here is...

Posted by RKU | December 27, 2007 2:39 PM

It's worth keeping in mind that the $1/watt figure is a number that Nanosolar thinks it can reach as production is scaled up, not one that it has already attained. Still, given that their supply can't keep up with demand, this is pretty exciting stuff. There's lots of good discussion of the related tech and relevant economics in the corresponding Slashdot thread.

Posted by Tom | December 27, 2007 2:45 PM

Actually, I've sometimes heard claims that the main pricing-problem with Solar isn't so much the production as the storage and distribution expenses.

That was somewhat true until relatively recently. Batteries were the main storage device for localized solar cell arrays and they were expensive, messy and not very efficient. Recently, though, many changes have occured (IIRC most of them political/policy, not technology) that allow solar cell arrays to store energy directly into the power grid. This solves both the local storage and delivery issues.

As for the timing concerns (need electricity at night to run lights, etc.) solar power should be considered just *one* of the sources of renewable, or non-carbon polluting, energy. Its analgous to a financial portfolio: only sub-optimal portfolios have 100% of their assets in one investment (or even one investment security type). An optimal energy portfolio would include multiple sources.

Posted by Edo | December 27, 2007 2:47 PM

At some point we're going to have to consider the environmental consequences of all the new solar mining we'll need.

Posted by El Cid | December 27, 2007 2:51 PM

Link to the David Roberts post (for those of you interested): http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/23/2919/8613

Posted by Eduardo | December 27, 2007 2:59 PM

I don't see transmission or storage as an issue. I believe most utility companies can buy back electricity from home-based solar collectors relatively easily. For homeowners, at least, all you're doing is selling electricity to the power company when it's sunny, to offset your usage and reduce your monthly energy costs.

Posted by Slippery Pete | December 27, 2007 3:03 PM

You'd think so, but there are still economy-of-scale issues. Look at Connecticut, which recently cut its initial endorsement of fuel-cell technology by 75% because the start-up costs were too high. 16.2 MW is a lot of power, but in terms of renewable energy resources, the options are really limited. We just don't want to spend the money.

Posted by Seth Davis | December 27, 2007 3:07 PM

I just want to relate an interesting anecdote related to the cost of energy in the 50s:

In the fraternity I stayed at in college during the late 90s, we had 40 guys living in two brownstones next door to each other. We had a cook who prepared lunch and dinner 6 days a week and lunch on Sunday. Of course, the house was always heated (aided by our monstrous computing usage).

In the fifties, the fraternity had only one of those brownstones, with far fewer guys living there. They did not heat the 4th floor to save money! Yet they had a cook working 7 days a week making dinner, lunch and breakfast to order! Plus the cook's wife frequently helped out.

Just a small picture in the shift in the costs of labor v energy. Yeah, we got by in the fifties, but there are reasons why we are all much wealthier now. Here's hoping solar and energy storage really helps out.

Posted by mpowell | December 27, 2007 3:17 PM

I should hasten to add that shortly after I graduated, the cook was let go as he was deemed too expensive. I think occasionally the board complains about electricity usage- but largely in vain.

Posted by mpowell | December 27, 2007 3:20 PM

Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun...

Posted by Mr. Burns | December 27, 2007 3:22 PM

I wonder if they're using their own product.

Posted by mark | December 27, 2007 3:25 PM

The problem no one wants to face is that population underlies all these problems. Our financial foundation, and therefore our civilizational foundation, is predicated on exponential growth. As Kenneth Boulding said, "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

Ultimately, the only solution is to move away from the indefinite exponential growth model, which means a plateauing of human population followed by a decline and finally stabilization at a truly sustainable population. Because as long as population grows, even if we find a way to meet our energy needs (fyi, we won't, and it will be clear to the world in the next 5 years), then eventually a shortage of some other vital resource will develop.

The real third rail of governance is overpopulation. In this country and the world.
http://www.energybulletin.net/38609.html

Posted by blah2 | December 27, 2007 3:31 PM

Funny nobody mentions fast neutron fission reactors. They consume the trans-uranium elements that have the long long half-lives, thereby mitigating much of the waste storage problems. Also, coolant system failures in these reactors render continued fission impossible, eliminating the "China Syndrome" potential.

Cost may be an issue, at least when the CO2 externalities of fossil fuel are ignored. That, and the usual reflex that occurs when the word "nuclear" comes up.

We ought to at least take a look.

Posted by kafka | December 27, 2007 3:32 PM

Oh and by the way, two of the metals used by Nanosolar for their solar cells--gallium and selenium--have passed their peak production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3086
I would say this presents a problem for solar as a long-term solution.

Posted by blah2 | December 27, 2007 3:34 PM

"From what I understand, peak electricity usage lines up pretty well with peak sunlight hours."

That might be true in some places where AC is a big part of electricity consumption, but in many places (European countries, Northern parts of North America), peak electricity demand is at the end of the afternoon in winter, when it is already dark an PV generation is nil.

Posted by fabrice | December 27, 2007 3:49 PM

*Getting* the lead in a *new* energy market is worth SOOOO much more than maintaining the lead in an *old*, about to be extinct energy market. If only the government's mouth wasn't so far down on American old-energy companies' dicks - we could actually capitalize on this.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | December 27, 2007 4:05 PM

Does the economy really depend on exponential population growth? Yes, economist hope for exponential economic growth, but these are not the same things.

Posted by mpowell | December 27, 2007 4:05 PM

@fabrice: yes, solar power is less efficient in the winter in the north. That said, Germany is one of the bigger users of solar power, and they aren't known for having the sunniest clime. That said, the Sunbelt is one of the most rapidly growing parts of the country, and very little of it's power comes from solar. Arizonz just passed a bill requiring a measly 15 percent of electricity production by renewable sources by like 2020.

Posted by Ben | December 27, 2007 4:10 PM

Solar power is, by far, the cheapest there is. We all use it to heat our homes from the universal background of about 3 Kelvin up to around 280 Kelvin or so, free of charge. Other forms of power just do the fine tuning.

Posted by Njorl | December 27, 2007 4:15 PM

I've always wondered what the cost and efficiency of solar technology would be today if every penny of government subsidies, incentives, tax-breaks, r&d grants, that have gone to the oil and gas sector since, oh I dunno the end of the Carter administration, had instead gone to alternative energy research. Thanks to the Reagans and Cheney's of the world, we are about 25 years behind Europe.

When I installed a solar hot-water system on my roof two years ago (with a little help from a Maryland State grant) the technology came from Germany. It may take 12 years to pay for itself fully, but it will then last for another 15 or so years of scott free energy.

-ji

Posted by John I | December 27, 2007 4:19 PM

The key, as someone said upthread, is to look at the big picture, the broad portfolio.

What we want is not to switch out coal for solar, like unplugging one widget and plugging in another. Solar won't be able to compete in the central-generation, externalized-costs, hub-and-spoke model of electricity that coal dominates.

The key is to replace the whole enchilada. That means radically improving the energy profile of (existing and new) buildings, putting more power generation on site, improving energy storage, etc. etc.

It's a whole new way of thinking about electricity -- intelligent rather than brute force. It is in that new paradigm that solar will excel.

Posted by David Roberts | December 27, 2007 4:32 PM

"Oh and by the way, two of the metals used by Nanosolar for their solar cells--gallium and selenium--have passed their peak production.
...
I would say this presents a problem for solar as a long-term solution.

Not really. Gallium is the limiting element. There is enough selenium being produced that we would have most of it left over if we ran out of Gallium.

Gallium is made almost entirely as a by-product from zinc and aluminum waste products. A peak in its production merely signifies a peak in profitability. If you saw peaks in both zinc and aluminum, that would indicate a true peak in gallium.

A little research would have shown that gallium refining capacity was overbuilt, creating a glut of gallium that caused the price to collapse. There are plenty of refinery tailings containing gallium that go unprocessed because the metal doesn't fetch the cost of refining now.

Posted by Njorl | December 27, 2007 4:48 PM

And for those who haven't noticed, the name of the company is NANOSolar.

As in "nanotechnology".

A minimal application of it, but noteworthy.

"Ultimately, the only solution is to move away from the indefinite exponential growth model, which means a plateauing of human population followed by a decline and finally stabilization at a truly sustainable population."

Don't worry. We Transhumans have that planned for you.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 27, 2007 4:58 PM

Well, this is totally what a past generation of futurologists would have called a paradigm shift.

Sure, solar doesn't make energy for you at night. But that's only part of a system that will, in the future, include conservation, economies and reliability from generating and storing on-site, putting back into the grid as well as taking from, and using components that are compatible, for example, charging your car battery when the sun shines and using it for power at night.

The fact that a solar panel isn't exactly right for doing what you do right now doesn't matter, because you'll be doing it different in the future. Unless you have a specific task in mind, it doesn't really make sense to get out your slide rule and calculate to 17 decimal points. If you do have a specific task in mind, you should probably rethink it.

Not an impossible dream- we already have several houses in my county that put power back into the grid. The PUD has a program ready to work with you if you want to do that, and the lenders will finance the equipment because it's capital improvement that pays for itself. We're just a rural county with no particular expertise, but we're still paying for the Washington WPPS nuke scheme that never generated any power, so we're motivated.

Posted by serial catowner | December 27, 2007 5:29 PM

The key is to replace the whole enchilada. That means radically improving the energy profile of (existing and new) buildings, putting more power generation on site, improving energy storage, etc. etc.
It's a whole new way of thinking about electricity -- intelligent rather than brute force. It is in that new paradigm that solar will excel.

All those exhortations mean nothing.

Electrical engineers have created new paradigms as technology matured, will do so in the future...but alas, your exhortations largely stand outside practicality or assume some new science can be turned on, on demand (improved energy storage).

Nor do any electrical engineers or scientists think of electricity as brute force. It is simple a power, a force in nature we can create and use in many ways.

Your cost estimate on solar panels neglects the alternate power generation investmen you will need the other 2/3s to 3/4ths of the day, or sometimes weeks running when it is cold and overcast or cloudy and hot.... The standby generation costs raises the solar option to far more cost than just "solar panels and their support equipment.

In high tech countries that have little oil or gas - solar has been pretty much given a low priority in favor of (1)allowing no immigrants so population can realize gains from efficiency and conservation that lower energy use, (2) Investment in gas, which is abundant and can meet increased demand, (3)Heavy investment in nuclear power. This last is the pattern of France, Japan, Taiwan, S Korea, Russia, and hopefully the US again and soon Australia and China....

In America, our biggest political challenges to lowered CO2 emissions is (1)ending Open Borders so we wont have 420 million people in 40 years vs the 300 we have now adding demand; (2)Figuring out how we get political support for a closed nuclear cycle that burns up all long-lived wastes and recycles 98% of a fuel assembly into new fuel sticks. We should also make nice noises about how wonderful it would be if "exciting alternate power sources" amounted to 5% of US energy sources by 2050.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 27, 2007 5:53 PM

Chris Ford, you might want to ask the Japanese about the benefits of closed borders. Hint: it's not looking good.

http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=102450

As for your paean for nukes, Amory Lovins points out that "In no new nuclear project around the world is there a penny of private capital at risk." The upshot of it is that governments are putting money in to nukes because of good ole' fashioned pork.

http://a4nr.org/news-and-events/10.22.2006-torontostar

Posted by Jeff S. | December 27, 2007 10:42 PM

Here's an interesting talk at Google about space-based solar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9YD9-_WTjk

Posted by Brian Will | December 28, 2007 12:46 AM

Re: Ultimately, the only solution is to move away from the indefinite exponential growth model, which means a plateauing of human population followed by a decline and finally stabilization at a truly sustainable population.

This is already in the pipeline. Fertility rates have dropped to or below replacement in all the richer countries of the world, and even in some Third World nations (e.g., Mexico)

Posted by Jonf | December 28, 2007 7:34 AM

@Chris Ford: Electricity generated via solar power can be stored, y'know -- its not as if excess energy produced can't be used during off-peak hours, or shunted around the electrical grid to less-sunny climes. Or should I assume you'll be putting a fast neutron reactor in your guest bedroom, as power transport is a fool's dream?

Also, you've mentioned the immigration/energy correlation in every debate about the latter -- give it a rest, and use that time to honestly mention the limits of the so-called 'closed' nuclear cycle. Although I support nuclear power, to claim that all long-lived wastes are recycled is absurd -- I don't believe the half-life of protactinium-231 (33,000 years) is short-lived on anything other than a planetary scale.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 28, 2007 9:59 AM

> Electricity generated via solar power
> can be stored, y'know

How, exactly? The electricity/energy storage methods I am aware of include:

1) pumped hydro (best, but requires a spare mountain valley, and also see Taum Sauk Mountain Disaster)

2) compressed air (requires large, reasonably leakproof underground caverns)

3) Electrolysis of water to hydrogen (tested but never used on a commercial scale)

4) Batteries - not even worth mentioning

5) Flywheels - never proven to be scalable to usable size

6) Magnetic ring - 99.7% pure theory

Which convenient, tested, efficient storage method am I missing here?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 28, 2007 10:09 AM

@Cranky: I applaud your ability to crib directly from the Pew Center. As it is, innovations in (5) make it a promising venture, and (1) shouldn't be discounted due to prior inept implementation. The latter already meets two of your criteria -- as for convenience, its not as if the pitfalls of nuclear power or the turmoil required to scare up other fuel sources could be considered convenient.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 29, 2007 1:35 AM