Solar Power continues to expand exponentially

Walt

Back To Reality
Today solar power is long past the toy phase. Panels now occupy an area around half that of Wales, and this year they will provide the world with about 6% of its electricity—which is almost three times as much electrical energy as America consumed back in 1954. Yet this historic growth is only the second-most-remarkable thing about the rise of solar power. The most remarkable is that it is nowhere near over.

To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today. This will not stop climate change, but could slow it a lot faster. Much of the world—including Africa, where 600m people still cannot light their homes—will begin to feel energy-rich. That feeling will be a new and transformational one for humankind.

To grasp that this is not some environmentalist fever dream, consider solar economics. As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further. This cannot go on for ever; production, demand or both always become constrained. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil or oil to gas—the efficiency of extraction grew, but it was eventually offset by the cost of finding ever more fuel.

As our essay this week explains, solar power faces no such constraint. The resources needed to produce solar cells and plant them on solar farms are silicon-rich sand, sunny places and human ingenuity, all three of which are abundant. Making cells also takes energy, but solar power is fast making that abundant, too. As for demand, it is both huge and elastic—if you make electricity cheaper, people will find uses for it. The result is that, in contrast to earlier energy sources, solar power has routinely become cheaper and will continue to do so.

Other constraints do exist. Given people’s proclivity for living outside daylight hours, solar power needs to be complemented with storage and supplemented by other technologies. Heavy industry and aviation and freight have been hard to electrify. Fortunately, these problems may be solved as batteries and fuels created by electrolysis gradually become cheaper.
 
When Greenpeace predicted in 2009 that the world would have 921gw of solar capacity by 2030, it seemed wildly optimistic. We hit 1,419gw last year(2023). Even the wildly optimistic predictions have not been nearly optimistic enough. If we continue at the current rate, we will be well above 10 times their wildly optimistic prediction.

trump cannot stop solar. The most he can do is stop America from benefiting from the unstoppable force that solar is.

 
It absolutely is a feature of using more solar and wind. Expect when these hit about 20 to 25% of generation capacity for your power bills to triple.
Pain is absolutely a feature generally for the WOKE Death Cult, sometimes called an extinctional movement.
 
Today solar power is long past the toy phase. Panels now occupy an area around half that of Wales, and this year they will provide the world with about 6% of its electricity—which is almost three times as much electrical energy as America consumed back in 1954. Yet this historic growth is only the second-most-remarkable thing about the rise of solar power. The most remarkable is that it is nowhere near over.

To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today. This will not stop climate change, but could slow it a lot faster. Much of the world—including Africa, where 600m people still cannot light their homes—will begin to feel energy-rich. That feeling will be a new and transformational one for humankind.

To grasp that this is not some environmentalist fever dream, consider solar economics. As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further. This cannot go on for ever; production, demand or both always become constrained. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil or oil to gas—the efficiency of extraction grew, but it was eventually offset by the cost of finding ever more fuel.

As our essay this week explains, solar power faces no such constraint. The resources needed to produce solar cells and plant them on solar farms are silicon-rich sand, sunny places and human ingenuity, all three of which are abundant. Making cells also takes energy, but solar power is fast making that abundant, too. As for demand, it is both huge and elastic—if you make electricity cheaper, people will find uses for it. The result is that, in contrast to earlier energy sources, solar power has routinely become cheaper and will continue to do so.

Other constraints do exist. Given people’s proclivity for living outside daylight hours, solar power needs to be complemented with storage and supplemented by other technologies. Heavy industry and aviation and freight have been hard to electrify. Fortunately, these problems may be solved as batteries and fuels created by electrolysis gradually become cheaper.
Piddle power is not going to cut it. Solar power is the most expensive method of generating electricity there is.
 
When Greenpeace predicted in 2009 that the world would have 921gw of solar capacity by 2030, it seemed wildly optimistic. We hit 1,419gw last year(2023). Even the wildly optimistic predictions have not been nearly optimistic enough. If we continue at the current rate, we will be well above 10 times their wildly optimistic prediction.

trump cannot stop solar. The most he can do is stop America from benefiting from the unstoppable force that solar is.

There is no benefit (other than certain restricted applications).
Solar is the most expensive method of generating power there is.
 
There is no benefit (other than certain restricted applications).
Solar is the most expensive method of generating power there is.
Actually, the opposite is true:
Since then, though, solar has proved the stand-out of the pack. In 2015 BloombergNEF estimated that the levelised cost of electricity (lcoe) for solar, on a global basis, was $122 per MWh, almost half as high again as the lcoe for onshore wind, then $83. The lcoe for coal in places without carbon prices at the time was $50-$75. Today both solar and onshore wind are in the low $40s, while coal remains much where it was.
 
Actually, the opposite is true:

Your propaganda isn't going to work. Solar is the most expensive method of producing power, watt for watt.
2nd is wind power.

BOTH are heavily subsidized by government.
 
Actually, the opposite is true:

No, it isn't true. What that essay, and every other person advocating for solar is looking at is the installed cost per KW of solar. That is cheap. I won't argue otherwise. The problem is, that ignores the SYSTEM in which solar is operating. The operative factor there is the Kilowatt-day, not -hour, or nameplate generation capacity.

When you look at that, the kilowatt-day, all of a sudden solar becomes grotesquely expensive. The thing to look at in terms of commercial solar is the capacity factor of the generating plant. This hovers between about 20 and 25% and isn't going to get much better--EVER! The capacity factor measures the average output per day, week, year, of the plant compared to its nameplate rating. That is, the plant puts out about 20 to 25% of its total generating capacity over time.

Of course, there are obvious reasons for this low capacity factor such as, solar doesn't generate at night, generates a fraction of capacity in overcast, etc. Then, even when it is generating, this varies with the position of the sun unless you add expensive solar tracking to the panels to move them in two axis to follow the sun's position. Even then, it doesn't add that much to output.

So, the result is you suddenly need expensive batteries (these are currently at about $225 a KWH, but even at $100 a KWH are unaffordable), or more solar to run pumped hydro, along with a dam or other means to hold the water, and of course, an added hydroelectric plant that runs when solar does not.

The other alternative is building something like a natural gas turbine plant to generate power when solar doesn't. What this means is you either have costly storage systems with solar that are unaffordable, or you duplicate the generation capacity. Of course, if you do that, then why not just dump the solar plant, build the natural gas plant and run that 24/7 instead eliminating all the duplication and lowering the cost of the system exponentially.

Also, with lots of solar and wind, another alternative is a "smart grid." This is unnecessary with reliable generation sources.

The bottom line here is that solar (and wind) add massive costs to generation systems and in turn raise the cost of electricity by several times over what sensible, reliable, generation systems like nuclear and natural gas do. Hence, why California the US leader in wind and solar, and Germany, a world leader in wind and solar, have the highest per KWH power costs in the world. It is also why they have unstable grids and unreliable power systems.
 
Your propaganda isn't going to work. Solar is the most expensive method of producing power, watt for watt.
2nd is wind power.

BOTH are heavily subsidized by government.
The Economist is a right wing British magazine. I can either believe them, and the multiple reputable sources they cite, or I can believe Night, someone who does not believe fossil fuels exist... Let me repeat that, Night does not believe fossil fuels exist.

And there are many, many other sources, on top there is what I have had to pay myself. And remember people are basing trillions of dollars of investment on this, so there is a huge incentive to find something wrong in the numbers.

Again, Night does not believe fossil fuels exist.

This really is not a contest in my mind. I might be wrong, but right now I see no need to discuss this further.
 
No, it isn't true. What that essay, and every other person advocating for solar is looking at is the installed cost per KW of solar. That is cheap. I won't argue otherwise. The problem is, that ignores the SYSTEM in which solar is operating. The operative factor there is the Kilowatt-day, not -hour, or nameplate generation capacity.
You could not be more wrong. What they are looking at is the cost per KWH produced. That is the cost including construction costs.

There is an additional problem that they delve into. The electricity from solar is produced on the sun's/weather's schedule, not based on needs. It goes deeper into the solutions for this, but suffices to say on cost per KWH, solar is among the cheapest, if not the cheapest.

When you look at that, the kilowatt-day

While I am not in electrical production, I do have a masters degree in computer and electrical engineering. I have never heard of anyone using a kilowatt-day. I suppose that you could multiple the cost of producing a KWH by 24, and come up with a kilowatt-day. Given that solar power beats others based on the KWH, it would naturally beat others based on 24 times KWH.

The one point you could have had was the solar does not produce the electricity on demand. That would have had some merit. Instead, you have come up with bizarre claims that all the businesses and experts in the world do not know how to price electricity production correctly, or that multiplying two numbers by 24 will change which is bigger.
 
Of course, there are obvious reasons for this low capacity factor such as, solar doesn't generate at night, generates a fraction of capacity in overcast, etc. Then, even when it is generating, this varies with the position of the sun unless you add expensive solar tracking to the panels to move them in two axis to follow the sun's position. Even then, it doesn't add that much to output.

So, the result is you suddenly need expensive batteries (these are currently at about $225 a KWH, but even at $100 a KWH are unaffordable), or more solar to run pumped hydro, along with a dam or other means to hold the water, and of course, an added hydroelectric plant that runs when solar does not.
I split off the part where you claimed to have easily outsmarted all the experts in a few minutes, to something that actually has some tangential link to the truth.

With the cost to generate a KWH of solar about half the cost to generate it through coal now, and reasonably forecast to continue to drop exponentially, let's say one day the cost is 1% as much as coal. What does that mean? It means we have basically free electricity, but only at some times. That creates a huge market force to solve that problem.

You mention batteries. That you claim are "expensive." The price of batteries has dropped by 99% in the last 30 years, and quite possibly could drop similarly in the next 30 years. Even today, it is $139 per KWH, not the $225 you mentioned it used to cost. And remember, we reuse batteries over and over again. At 10,000 charges/discharges, that adds 1.39 cents onto a KWH, which considering that solar saves about 5 cents...


Then we move on to transporting the electricity. We could just move around the electricity from the places with sunlight to the places with a need. There would be a huge incentive to do that, so it will be done.

And moving the manufacturing. There are many processes that over half the cost is energy. If you can get basically free electricity, then it starts making sense to move the manufacturing both in space and time to when and where you have the free energy.

Finally, with nearly free electricity, you can produce stuff that makes energy. Hydrogen is the obvious example of this. Another is that carbon dioxide can be sucked out of the air and converted into oil. The technology for cheap hydrogen is almost there, but the tech for carbon dioxide capture and conversion to synthetic fossil fuels is only suggested.

The point we keep coming back to is the cost to produce solar energy is dropping at such a speed that we are looking at nearly free energy in the future. The problems with it only being available sometimes will be solved, because again, we are talking about nearly free energy.
 
You could not be more wrong. What they are looking at is the cost per KWH produced. That is the cost including construction costs.

Are you fucking retarded? What part of 20 to 25% capacity factor don't you get? Solar requires either massive storage capacity or alternate generation sources because it cannot and NEVER WILL produce power 24 hours a day. That is physically impossible for a solar plant. That storage capacity or alternate generation source costs money and is something a RELIBALE generation source doesn't need.

So, while solar is relatively cheap to build, it is horribly inefficient and expensive to operate.
There is an additional problem that they delve into. The electricity from solar is produced on the sun's/weather's schedule, not based on needs. It goes deeper into the solutions for this, but suffices to say on cost per KWH, solar is among the cheapest, if not the cheapest.

There is no solution to the inefficiency and part-time nature of solar generation. It will never be a cheap, reliable source of power.
While I am not in electrical production, I do have a masters degree in computer and electrical engineering. I have never heard of anyone using a kilowatt-day. I suppose that you could multiple the cost of producing a KWH by 24, and come up with a kilowatt-day. Given that solar power beats others based on the KWH, it would naturally beat others based on 24 times KWH.

Well, my background is in electrical production. A kilowatt-day is the number of KWH used in a day, often taken as an average. But it is necessary to use it to demonstrate the problem with solar. That problem is it is an intermittent generation source. It doesn't produce at night or in poor weather.

That means to provide power for a complete day, you need alternate generation sources or storage to provide power when solar can't. That is where the massive costs are hidden. For battery storage, a large solar plant with say, 16 hours of battery capacity to make it possible to run it 24/7 ends up costing over $100 billion to build. That's something like 6 to 10 times what equivalent natural gas or nuclear generation would cost. If you duplicate sources, having say a natural gas turbine generation plant backing solar means you build two power plants to do the job of one.

The one point you could have had was the solar does not produce the electricity on demand. That would have had some merit. Instead, you have come up with bizarre claims that all the businesses and experts in the world do not know how to price electricity production correctly, or that multiplying two numbers by 24 will change which is bigger.
Solar is so unreliable as a source, it should be abandoned entirely.
 
Are you fucking retarded? What part of 20 to 25% capacity factor don't you get?
I am not retarded, nor are the huge numbers of experts that are saying you are wrong. Beyond you just being incorrect, there is a bizarre arrogance in you thinking you have outsmarted a lot of smart people who have spent their lives studying these issues. That somehow you have figured out something simple that everyone else in the world missed.... What are the odds? Amazingly, you do this several times a day, and yet are unable to make any money off your great genius...

Let's say a solar panel costs $700(installation and lifetime maintenances) for a theoretical maximum output of a KWH, actually produces 20% of that on average, and has a lifespan of on average of 20 years. That is $700/20/365/24/0.2 = $0.02 per KWH. Because most of that cost is front loaded, and money over time has a cost to it, that might go up to $0.04 per KWH.

Now I am just doing simple math here. There are experts out there really drilling down deep into this. They are spending their lives figuring out these costs, because tiny mistakes, if found, can give huge payoffs.

It suffices to say that you are completely wrong.
 
I am not retarded, nor are the huge numbers of experts that are saying you are wrong. Beyond you just being incorrect, there is a bizarre arrogance in you thinking you have outsmarted a lot of smart people who have spent their lives studying these issues. That somehow you have figured out something simple that everyone else in the world missed.... What are the odds? Amazingly, you do this several times a day, and yet are unable to make any money off your great genius...

Let's say a solar panel costs $700(installation and lifetime maintenances) for a theoretical maximum output of a KWH, actually produces 20% of that on average, and has a lifespan of on average of 20 years. That is $700/20/365/24/0.2 = $0.02 per KWH. Because most of that cost is front loaded, and money over time has a cost to it, that might go up to $0.04 per KWH.

Now I am just doing simple math here. There are experts out there really drilling down deep into this. They are spending their lives figuring out these costs, because tiny mistakes, if found, can give huge payoffs.

It suffices to say that you are completely wrong.

A irrelevant appeal to authority isn't going to cut it.





The problem with solar, in particular, is the combination of low capacity factor and highly variable output. The cost of the panels themselves is almost irrelevant here. The panels could damn near be free and solar would still end up more expensive to operate on the grid.
 
Back
Top