Ezra says, of the Bush administration on climate change:
In reply, the innovation will accelerate when it needs to accelerate, which is when carbon-intensive technologies grow economically unfeasible. That's why we need some sort of cap or tax: Because that's the only policy capable of sufficiently supercharging and incentivizing innovation. And China and India aren't going to take any action till we do, and will need our help, and the technology we produce, to wean themselves off coal.
That last is a very, very important point--so important that I think it should be driving our greenhouse gas policy, both on the public and the private side. A carbon tax is an excellent place to start. But more broadly, it means we should focus less on making incremental refinements in energy efficiency, and much more on improving alternative energy sources. Incremental energy efficiency refinements are generally intensive in both human and financial capital, which often makes them unattractive to developing countries, even though they save fuel costs. What we need to find is a cost-effective alternative to coal and oil.
Unfortunately, that sounds a lot like "what we need to find is the holy grail". But a hefty carbon tax, combined with a serious effort to remove the obstacles to nuclear, would be a very welcome start.
The best part is, Republicans should also be able to get behind this agenda, since one of the major obstacles to nuclear is a man named Harry Reid.
The Europeans have had high fuel taxes for a long time now. Couldn't we just copy the cheap alternative energy sources which they, per Klein's theory, must already have invented as a result?
All sounds sound what Mr Bush had to say?
The only thing that I feel uncomfortable with is that some people consider nuclear an emission-free alternative... it is not! It is an old, dangerous, technology that has been surpassed by others recently. (I was a fan of nuclear until the 90s because I reckoned that we can survive a dirty bomb in New York or DC but not an ecological disaster..)
There is a real problem with modeling the TRUE COST OF electricity. Almost ALL energy sources like nuclear, wind, hydro, coal, geothermal, etc. ARE REMOTE... Only solar is local!
Comparing the base load price of coal or nuclear to solar is therefore irrelevant and WRONG. The true cost is the retail price which includes GRID costs. The US grid sucks.. building two new nuclear plants in Texas will cost much more than the $30+ billion...
McKinsey has made the same mistakes when calculating the cost curve for emissions. In fact - as the former Banker Mr Bradford argues (and so does Germany and Japan) - this is the wrong modeling methodology.
But it is excusable - many people who now jump on the climate change bandwagon have not working knowledge yet (other than politics or economics or simple business..)...
PS: Megan - I have a problem with incremental energy efficiency refinements as well - especially the way that Chevron has been advertising it with oil all over the magazines for the past decade.. But housing insulations, etc will be a very big chunk of this new emission game. McKinsey has tried to quantify it (albeit not using the best available models yet?)
The Europeans have had high fuel taxes for a long time now. Couldn't we just copy the cheap alternative energy sources which they, per Klein's theory, must already have invented as a result?
The EU has as set goal to produce 20% of its energy from green alternatives by 2020. NOT nuclear mind you - most EU countries like Germany and Switzerland are fading nuclear out and there are many countries where nuclear is illegal by law - like Austria. It is mainly the Eastern European and Northern countries that are still into nuclear but they will come around soon when the realize that the rich Germany is even more cost competitive than the poor countries.. (the new Finish and Bulgarian nuclear constructions are a DISASTER and ridden with corruption and time delays, etc)
Germany is set to cover more than 20% from solar in 2020 (so is Spain and Italy).. The US could easily do the same and I believe that California will do so for certain!!! The question is more - how will those US regions that think like France act???
Pushing nuclear energy now due to climate change would mean a political disaster (Pakistan, India, China, Iran... who else should use nuclear: Zimbabwe, Korea,..). Everybody will want it - and it is not even economical (MIT study) anywhere compared to alternatives like solar or geothermal!!!
Paul Zrimsek brings up a good point: high fuel prices haven't spurred any "holy grail" technologies in Europe; the main effect has been to build tinier, ugly, and probably unsafe cars that use less fuel.
Hugo Pottisch -- I'll believe it when I see Germany get 20% of its energy from solar.
A question about coal though: before we give up on an energy source that we have the largest supply of in the world, can't we think of ways to use it that will appease global warming alarmists? What about building a large network of greenhouses around coal-fired power plants, and pumping the CO2 into them? It would spur the growth of plants and trees which would consume the carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.
What we need to find is a cost-effective alternative to coal and oil.
Poppy cock. There can be no alternative that is cost-effective. Cleaner yes. Cost effective no.
You require more energy to make energy cleaner. That's not cost effective.
That leaves you with solar power. Which is free energy with hugh capital infrastructure costs.
Yes, what you do need is a holy grail. We'll wait to see if Craig Venter can deliver and grow fuel.
Incremental energy efficiency refinements are generally intensive in both human and financial capital, which often makes them unattractive to developing countries, even though they save fuel costs.
True enough, but it still drives me up the wall the way they use air conditioning here in Vietnam. Doors open, uninsulated concrete housing, unsealed single-pane windows with leaky edges...and it's not like electricity is cheap! It still seems like you could save a lot of energy in the third world just instituting obvious things like sealed windows. I'm also curious what the CO2 savings would be from building another line of the SkyTrain in Bangkok.
What are you doing in Vietnam?
I can't say I'm surprised that they're not so energy efficient though: most communist countries were a little sloppy with this sort of thing.
The problem with Coal-fired plants is that they emit about 2 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for every ton of coal they burn. Unlike sulphur, there isn't any current technology such as flu-gas desulphurization (so called "Sulphur Scrubbers") that have been invented to clean up the emissions. Plus coal is cheap, very, very cheap. So it is a very attractive energy source for the developing world.
Solar, wind, etc. are decent sources of energy, but they're much more expensive. And it is unrealistic to think their cost will come down much in the future. So.... Do we deal with this as an air pollution problem? If so, then we do things like a carbon tax that raise the costs of coal-generated energy. But that will only work in rich countries, and CO2 emissions are a global problem. The best alternative I can think is a combination of a cap-and-trade system in the West, and a technology transfer process to the developing world. It isn't ideal, but I don't know what other system will work for this problem
And China and India aren't going to take any action till we do, and will need our help, and the technology we produce, to wean themselves off coal.
I see little political possibility of selling a program to U.S. voters (already half freaked out about trade with China -- Democrats especially) under which the U.S. institutes strong carbon restraints and China continues to build coal plants at a breakneck rate until some point in the future when the U.S. will transfer the technology developed under its carbon austerity plan to China. That was a deal-killer a decade ago. Yes, there is graver concern about global warming now, but there is also much graver concern about trade and economic competition with China. A decade ago, too, there was still the expectation that prosperity would lead China to democracy, but no longer.
Ask yourself this question -- are you worried enough about the effects of global warming that you would trade action in that area for turning an authoritarian China into the world's greatest economic power in relatively short order? China's leadership clearly would love that, but should we? I have to say, that I'd have to see effects coming out at the higher rather than lower end of the predicted range before that seems like a good deal (or at least one we'd have no choice but to take).
Why do I always get the feeling solar enthusiasts are Californians (or Arizonans or Nevadans) who don't quite understand that sunlight isn't quite as plentiful where most of us live as it is around their homes?
Here in the Great Lakes, you'd freeze to death if you tried to rely on solar for heat in the winter (why didn't people freeze to death in the 1800's? They burned lots and lots of wood and coal to keep warm). In Detroit in December, for example, there is an average of three sunny days (up to 30% cloud cover, iirc). So less than a day per week when solar can really get cranking.
I suppose there are two potential solutions -- all 30 million or so of us can move to the Southwest, or we can carpet the West with solar panels to supply the rest of the country with solar power. You don't mind, do you?
On the serious side, I'm not suggesting solar doesn't have a place in the energy supply of the future. It's silly to suggest solar is a panacea for the ills of the world, though.
Fred
I'll believe it when I see Germany get 20% of its energy from solar.
I am glad that people like you exists, solar doubters without real arguments, because that leaves the other entrepreneurs a much bigger window of opportunity?
Will you also believe that climate change is only happening when you see it?
Why do you think that the richest Chinese on the planet is a solar OEM? Why do you think that WalMart's stock has risen due to an investment in solar? Why, eh?
Mark and Fred
Please read the McKinsey cost analysis - they rightly argue (like the Lehman Brothers report) that making coal clean or using it.. is not very cost-competitive. Lehman Brother's estimates that the social costs of 1 tonne of C02 are between $40-50?
McKinsey argues that making coal cleaner has no economic reasoning compared to using other sources directly?
Dear Don K
Why do I always get the feeling solar enthusiasts are Californians (or Arizonans or Nevadans) who don't quite understand that sunlight isn't quite as plentiful where most of us live as it is around their homes?
Who are the two solar leaders worldwide? Germany and Japan... Why do you think that they are sunnier than California? they are not..
With today's technology you get about 1100 kWh from 1 Wp installed in Northern Europe.. that is enough for Germany to cover 100% of energy demand with only 2% of the land... compared to livestock agriculture this is nothing!!! Existing technologies that are not on the market yet - but that have been tested and developed by the US Gov - have even more efficiencies (1% of Germany = 100% supply)
We can not afford to have so much livestock agriculture or coal (due to economic and ecological reasons) - but we can have solar as much as we like/need...?
On the serious side, I'm not suggesting solar doesn't have a place in the energy supply of the future. It's silly to suggest solar is a panacea for the ills of the world, though.
See - I knew that you were not serious before!!! And you are right - when catch your spouse cheating - solar will not be there to help you, silly!
The problem with generating solar electricity in the West is that there is no way to get it to the East. Batteries are notoriously inefficient, and power transmission lines always run at a loss which prohibitively adds up over distance.
And solar technology is not at the point yet where you can recoup the manufacturing costs in any reasonable time frame.
Rex
The problem with generating solar electricity in the West is that there is no way to get it to the East. Batteries are notoriously inefficient, and power transmission lines always run at a loss which prohibitively adds up over distance.
What you are describing are the limits of nuclear, coal, oil, wind, etc but NOT solar?
Or - I am not sure I get what you mean?? Solar is LOCAL and you have not to transport it like oil, nuclear, coal, etc? The only thing that you have to transport once are the solar panels but that is it?
And solar technology is not at the point yet where you can recoup the manufacturing costs in any reasonable time frame.
Again - I am at a sheer loss... tell me about that magic energy source where you can recoup the manufacturing investment quickly..? Nuclear? Hahahaha.. you don't even know what it really costs you? Or a new oil reserve in Alaska or the North Sea? Or a new nation-wide grid? That was a good one Rex!
But seriously - solar has a nice steady annual ROI of about 7-11%. Perfect for 3rd party financing (especially since one gets 25 years OEM guarantee on the panels - one breaks even long before and the rest is 100% ROI.. it does not get much sweeter???)
Hugo Pottisch - Not all solar is local (somewhat large solar power plants do exist), not all other sources are non local (people have windmills, or gas or diesel generators, or other local means of generating electricity). As for Germany getting 20% of its electricity from solar energy any time soon. Well lets just say I'm highly skeptical. Its possible that Germany or the EU has such a goal, but having a goal isn't the same as achieving the goal, or even having the goal be realistically achievable.
re: "With today's technology you get about 1100 kWh from 1 Wp installed in Northern Europe.. that is enough for Germany to cover 100% of energy demand with only 2% of the land."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about the 2% of the land being enough. I don't want to spend the time to do the research about it. Using your own figures you show that 100% of the energy demand is impossible with today's technology. 2% of Germany's land is about 7100 km². Do you have any idea how much 7100 square km of solar cells would cost? Or if your using solar thermal generation do you have an idea how many solar thermal power plants that would represent and how much they would cost?
I can see the headline next year all over the journals:
"Solar Energy: Not for hippies anymore"
Come on guys - admit it. Nobody of you has experience with solar and knows what they are talking about? It reminds me of the Time's article about the first PC in the 1980s... When the CEO of IBM, Xerox etc all thought it's a hippie game...
There is obviously "emotional" hesitation involved here and not "rational"?
"Healthy food: not for hippies anymore"
"Sex: not for hippies anymore"
I love it... here some more:
"Female equality: not for hippies anymore"
"Anti-Bully: not for hippies anymore"
"Out of Iraq: not for hippies anymore"
"Personal Computers: not for hippies anymore"
Come on.. who can add some more..?
"Soy Chai..."
Come on, come on, join the hippie game, don't be shy...
Tim
Not all solar is local (somewhat large solar power plants do exist), not all other sources are non local (people have windmills, or gas or diesel generators, or other local means of generating electricity).
There are no local windmill except for some small non-grid tied remote systems. Wind is too loud to be residential and the best sites are not close to the cities. Wind has good cheap base load but has to be transported? Gas and Diesel too have to be transported to the consumer?
It is true that not all solar is as local as it could be - in the past there has been a lot of centralized development (mainframe approach and NOT Google). This is why all heavy investors in solar (Germany, Italy, Spain, Czech Rep, Greece, Japan, etc.) are NOW subsidizing small local plants MORE than the big plant outside the city (mind you - even a big plant is usually closer to the consumer than any nuclear or wind park)
Smart Think Tanks agree that the shift will be like with the computer revolution. Away from expensive remote big plants (mainframe) towards distributed, local (internet) architecture. Please - be my guest and play John F Akers, will you? PCs are for children?
Do you have any idea how much 7100 square km of solar cells would cost?
Yes - approximately I do.. so do others. Do you?? Do you have any idea how much 100% nuclear would cost? how much time it would take?
Please tell me - how much will a new grid cost which would be necessary to carry nuclear, coal, wind, etc?
Hugo,
Repeat after me.
"Just because I say it doesn't mean it's true."
I'll repeat it too if it makes you happy.
If solar is on the verge of being the next big thing, the market incentives are alread there for it to be the next big thing.
If what you're saying is we have to tax the hell out of everything else in order for solar to be economical, that's unacceptible. You're free to donate all of your money to the solar development, but don't expect everyone else to. On one hand we have democrats talking about the gap between rich and poor and then in the next breath they harp on about how we need to tax energy more, which will ONLY SERVE to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Except for now if you're poor you have to turn the lights off in your house at 8pm, and can barely afford to drive yourself to work.
If solar can be done effectively it will be done. Now you can go hang up your solar missionary badge and stop worrying that you have to convert the world, lest we all perish from our wickedness.
I'm holding out for the holy grail. Without it, we're gonna be in trouble.
Funny thing is, nuclear fusion has been so disappointing over the last 30 years that everybody's dropped it off the list of possibilities. This is (hopefully) a mistake.
An odd pathology has arisen in the fusion research community. All the money is going towards tokamaks. (For the non-geeks out there, tokamaks are huge magnetic doughnuts that confine a hot deuterium/tritium plasma so tightly that the nuclei fuse, throwing off much more energy that was used to support the heating and confinement of the plasma.) The result of this has been the international ITER project, to which the US contributes about a billion dollars a year. But even if ITER is successful, the type of power plant derived from its research will be so large and so expensive that it's unlikely to be deployable as a general solution.
It's really dumb to put all of our fusion eggs in one basket. The stranglehold that the tokamak faction has on the DOE is preventing other possibilities from being explored. And there are actually other viable options.
No, I am not a cold fusion crazy. That appears to be mostly (but not quite completely) discredited. But there are other "hot fusion" concepts beyond the tokamak that need to be investigated.
My favorite class of these are what is known as "intertial electrostatic confinement." One of these, developed by Robert Bussard, is described in a Google tech talk entitled, Should Google Go Nuclear? (The link is to a prettified PDF version of the talk--the link to the actual very long video is here.)
I have no idea whether Bussard's IEC thing will work or not. (It's apparently promising enough that the Office of Naval Research has resumed funding it.) But something may work and, if it does, it really is the holy grail--a genuine solution to the world's energy needs that produces virtually no environmental damage. (Yes, deuterium-tritium fusion produces neutrons, which in turn radioactively contaminate their reactor vessels over time. But hydrogen-boron-11 fusion, which will never work in a tokamak, is completely clean, producing nothing but 3 helium-4 nuclei.)
On the risk-to-reward curve, fusion is way out on the edge of the plot. But we need to have some bets out there.
For $49,000 (with tax credits), I can get a solar power system that will reduce my electric bill by $39/month.
If I paid for it with a 10 year home-equity loan at 5.75%, it would cost me about $540/month.
Solar power doesn't look cost effective to me as a homeowner. Not even close. Now there may be government subsidies and rebates and the like that would reduce the cost, but then I'd just be getting everyone else to help me pay for my non-economical system.
FWIW, that's a BP system.
EI
Hugo--
Solar can be placed close to consumption, but you're missing two important points:
1) Massively distributed solar also requires huge grid investments, because you have to synchronize the local power produced on everybody's rooftop with the grid. The infrastructure to accomodate this and--more importantly--to manage the load is tricky and requires hefty investment.
2) What happens when it's cloudy? You then need to import electricity from other regions, so there goes your short-haul/long-haul argument. Advanced batteries can mitigate this problem, but they can't solve it. Also, nobody's really thinking about the environmental cost of deploying the batteries.
I'm a big fan of solar. It warrants a lot of investment. But it's really, really, really not a panacea. It's still an unproven, high-risk-to-medium-reward technology. Nuclear fission has quantifiable risk and it works. If you're serious about solving the problem and expecting to be successful, you need to start thinking about radioactivity as just another poison that needs careful management. All power plant technologies produce them--so do semiconductor manufacturing processes.
"What about building a large network of greenhouses around coal-fired power plants, and pumping the CO2 into them? It would spur the growth of plants and trees which would consume the carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. "
You'd need to generate about 10 times the mass of the food your customers eat to break even. It is not a viable solution in and of itself, but it can help, and is being done.
I haven't heard of greenhouses being used, but there are more efficient mechanisms. Algae pools work best from what I hear. In the long run though, we'd have an awful lot of algae on our hands.
szr: "Unlike sulphur, there isn't any current technology such as flu-gas desulphurization (so called "Sulphur Scrubbers") that have been invented to clean up the emissions."
Your wrong. As a matter of fact, those plants, if we so chose, wouldn't even have to have "Smokestacks". Why we choose to combust the stuff in an open environment v. pyrolysis is a different Q. Simply, with parasitic(on-site) electricity usage, the exhaust stream can be cryogenically fractionated into its constituent components. Bad news for AirProducts (APD:NYSE), to be sure, but then we wouldn't have, ex post, their draw from the grid( the Industrial Gas 'industry' are huge users of electricity ).
This, from Detroit-dude: "Here in the Great Lakes, you'd freeze to death if you tried to rely on solar for heat in the winter (why didn't people freeze to death in the 1800's? They burned lots and lots of wood and coal to keep warm). In Detroit in December, for example, there is an average of three sunny days (up to 30% cloud cover, iirc). So less than a day per week when solar can really get cranking."- is truly epic.
He may want to understand GeoThermal HVAC technologies. GeoThermal= Stored Solar.
try:
http://www.informedbuilding.com/Geothermal/Main16/Geothermal-HVAC-Systems/
If solar is on the verge of being the next big thing, the market incentives are alread there for it to be the next big thing.
...for this is the best of all possible worlds!
Hugo Pottisch,
"I am glad that people like you exists, solar doubters without real arguments"
My doubt with respect to Germany is that it's not a particularly sunny country so it seems a stretch for it to get 20% of its energy from solar. You do need sun to get solar energy, right?
"Will you also believe that climate change is only happening when you see it?"
I believe the climate may be getting warmer by some tiny, though I'm not convinced that this is something to panic about.
"Why do you think that WalMart's stock has risen due to an investment in solar? Why, eh?"
Go look up a five year price chart for Wal-Mart (I originally included a link to one, but that post got snagged by Megan's filter. Just go to Yahoo). Its stock is trading for less now than it did five years ago. Since you are completely wrong about this, might it not be worth revisiting the rest of your 'facts'?
Or we could just remove some of the obstacles to nuclear power without imposing new taxes. That seems more like an agenda Republicans could and should get behind.
No brookfoe,
Apparently the climate in the 90s was the best of all possible worlds. No wait, that's the hottest decade in the last 10,000 years right? So that's not good. Apparently the 80s was the best of all possible worlds based on its climate. But then again, that's just a mere 5 or 6 years after we came out of our industrial revolution induced ice age.
I don't claim that all things are ideal. I do suggest that any attempts at this stage to "force" the market to deal with it through -additional- government intervention is a bad idea.
Has anyone ever done a quantifiable cost benefit analysis of the top 100 federal government spending programs? Maybe then we could get a better look at some programs we could trim the fat from to fund some research. But even then we have a huge debt we have to pay. So perhaps before we taxpayer money left and right on a variety of ill conceived projects, from military to welfare to health care we put our government in order.
Then you can go back to suggesting ways we should ruin our government in order to save us all again...
You’re right to be doubtful, according to an article in the May 5, 2007 edition of the Washington Post (click on my name for the link) on Germany’s use of solar energy:
And they only managed to get that much by requiring power companies to purchase the power generated at marked up rates. But hey, maybe they will figure out a way to make solar power something other than an expensive boondoggle. If/when that day happens, the United States and other countries can simply improve on the technology at a fraction of the R&D expense without having to hamper our own economic growth in the process.
Harry Reid is a continuing major obstacle to nuclear development primarily because of Jimmy Carter. Reprocessing "spent" nuclear fuel rods makes eminently good sense from an energy efficiency and operating cost standpoint; and, reduces the mass of radioactive material to be stored.
For now, we do not have the answer primarily because we have not asked the question. However, the answer is not "blowin' in the wind".
Re: Local windmills. You overstate your case. A more accurate point would be that local windmill electricity production is insignificant. Other local sources probably are insignificant as well, but your statement that they didn't exist at all is inaccurate.
Re cost of solar cells. Your talking about high efficiency solar cells the cost would be very high. It would come down from astronomical, because you would be ramping up production and achieving economies of scale but still it would be incredible. Also just the land cost would not be insignificant. 2% of a country is an awful lot of land. I don't know the exact cost. I might not be able to estimate it closely, but its far more most sources of electricity.
The cost could be $1000 per sq meter.
The consortium members are just as adamant about lowering the cost of the process to $1000 per square meter, but they admit that it is going take more than extending the architecture from five to six layers and optimizing the design, as it did for the 50-percent-efficiency goal.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201202573
Lets say you could get the cost down to 100 dollars per square meter. It would still be $710 bil to put out that much solar cells (and the current cost is over $1000 per sq. meter so the cost would be tens of trillions of dollars or euros), plus installation and maintenance costs, plus cost for storage or distribution because you don't have every spot sunny all the time. (This is Germany not the Sahara, and even the Sahara has nighttime)
Ok so you have googled around a bit and all ready to go nuclear?
1. WalMarts stock has declined over the past 5 years and I am therefore either a liar or an idiot?
2. Germany will NEVER reach 20% by 2020?
3. Solar is too expensive!!
4. Solar needs a grid too, etc.
Well – so be it… But before I leave the experts to go back to their coal and nuclear plans - a few elaborations:
1. I never claimed that WalMart’s stock has risen in the past 5 years or declined.. what I meant was that only a few weeks ago the stock jumped because of an investment in solar (I thought that it was all over the news and that everybody had somehow heard about it? I mean what stocks raise in less than 1 year by 425% to reach 7 billion market cap? Not even Internet stocks!). The Walton’s have been at it for quite some time and seem to know what they are doing?
2. Regarding - Germany will NEVER reach 20% by 2020. I know where our problem is – we all can’t predict the future and arguing about it is esoteric. Sufficient to say that the EU has a LAW in place (since some time) that demands 20% green alternatives by 2020 (See Lehman Brothers Report page 77-81). Germany has started with Wind – but has recently promoted solar as the only green technology that can cover all demand. First – PEAK LOADS (as discussed so often in the past) – then the rest.
3. Solar is too expensive. Compared to??? Currently almost every government in the world has been pouring billions into the grid, nuclear, hydro or whathaveyou. In case one would invest some similar amount or simply redirect support to green alternatives like solar.. solar would be economical even beyond peak loads. It does not matter if your local utility or electricity bill is not transparent – believe me – peak load pricing does exist. Solar today can cover those peal loads best and economically BECAUSE it is most active during the same times AND does not have to stretch long-distance transportation and the grid. This is why Germany and others are passing on these costs to solar utilities – we are hence NOT even talking about real subsidies like nuclear and utilities have enjoyed – just transparency.
Please also bear in mind that solar panels can convert sunlight into electricity for more than 30 years. The Panels have OEM guarantees for 25 years but since they were built for space – where maintenance is tricky – they are very difficult to break, etc.
IF we also trust Lehman Brothers with their calculation that CO2 carries a social cost of at least $40/tonne.. then those solar subsidies from the Government perspective are net income generators?
Here some real present day numbers: Germany pays about € 0.55 / kWh (for at least 20 years); 1 kWp is ca €3500… you do the math!
4. Solar needs a grid too. There are many models for the future! In fact – there is a 3 phase model that is being promoted by the DC Think Tank Prometheus Institute. 1st phase (present) – most solar energy in homes is producing more than the household requires during the day. Hence the grid is used instead of local storage. Solar is used for peak loads only. 2nd phase – solar is still used for peak loads but starts to service off-peak too. solar is distributed via so called local mini-grids from residential to commerce (commerce uses more peak load energy. Not as much as industry but much more than residential). Slowly electric cars arise (quota in California and Europe) which can also tack on local storage. 3rd Phase – solar services more than peak loads. Local storage (cars, mini-grids) for night and off-peak times.
IF we wanted to switch to electric cars.. it would be hard to imagine to find a better distributed model. Google, the Internet, Bit-torrents, etc have the most distributed and hence most stable uptime architecture we know of. Nuclear & grid causes black-outs.. mainframes have blackouts.. distributed, local architecture far less. I could find quotes from IBM and other mainframe players – they argued like any of you regarding the costs, the viability, etc of PCs.. It does not matter really – Lenovo, Microsoft, Google…
Ok.. so I WAS wrong! Germany does not want 20% by 2020 from solar but rather 27%... Sorry!
Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power
By Erik Kirschbaum | July 29, 2007
BONN, Germany (Reuters) - It rains year round in Germany. Clouds cover the skies for about two-thirds of all daylight hours. Yet the country has managed to become the world's leading solar power generator.
Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.
So far just 3 percent of Germany's electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent.
It is a thriving industry with booming exports that has created tens of thousands of jobs in recent years, posting growth rates that surpassed the optimistic forecasts made by the fathers of a pioneering 2000 renewable energy law.
This law, known by the acronym EEG, has helped this cloudy, rainy country on the northern rim of central Europe become a solar giant.
"The EEG was the single most important vehicle to boost the solar energy market," Frank Asbeck, chairman of SolarWorld AG, told Reuters. The law, which offers cash incentives to people introducing renewable energy sources, was designed to help fight climate change and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
"There has also been an enormous interest for solar power from the public in general," added Asbeck, who in 1988 started his Bonn-based company making and marketing PV products. Its 1,350 staff have doubled in number in the last two years.
"Germans have a fondness for inventing and developing technologies -- especially when it might lead to big export rates. Helping fight climate change is a bonus," said Asbeck, who plans to nearly double the staff again within two years.
LEGIONS OF HOMEOWNERS
There are now more than 300,000 photovoltaic systems in Germany -- the energy law had planned for 100,000.
Spread out across the country, they are owned by legions of homeowners, farmers and small businesses who are capitalizing on the government-backed march into renewable energy.
By tapping the daylight for electricity -- which power companies are obliged to buy for 20 years at more than triple market prices -- they are at the vanguard of a grassroots movement in the fight against climate change.
"It's grown much faster than anyone thought it would," Juergen Trittin, the former Environment Minister who masterminded the scheme, told Reuters. He was mocked at the time for his claims it would create jobs and not hurt the economy.
There are now 250,000 jobs in Germany in the renewables energy sector. Asbeck expects the number of jobs in solar power alone to double to 90,000 over the next five years and hit 200,000 in 2020.
The law has also since served as a model for other countries including Spain, Portugal, Greece, France and Italy.
GUARANTEED PAYMENT
Germany's photovoltaic systems generate about 3,000 megawatts of power -- 1,000 times more than in 1990.
Asbeck said political decisions in the 1990s made it easy and even lucrative for ordinary people to put the systems on their roofs.
At the heart of the scheme is a "feed-in tariff" giving anyone who generates power from solar PV, wind or hydro a guaranteed payment from the local power company. The power firms are obliged to buy solar electricity for 49 cents per kilowatt hour -- or nearly four times market rates.
This can work out at a better return than putting money in the bank. So despite the cloudy weather, the investment pays for itself within 10 years.
There are some critics of the solar power incentives who want the government to phase out the program faster than now planned. The lucrative feed-in-tariffs are, however, guaranteed for 20 years for all existing owners.
Gerhard Mueller-Westermeyer, a climate researcher at the German national weather service (DWD), said most of Germany is covered by clouds between five and six eighths of the time and there are only a handful of days each year with no clouds at all. Many German towns have annual sunshine of some 1,500 hours -- about half as much as in Spain.
"Obviously, there would be a better return on solar panels set up in sunnier places like Africa," he said. "But the energy would have be transported and that's difficult. So it makes sense to build solar panels where people need them."
I'm interested in the newer reactor designs, like the pebble bed reactors that China and South Africa are deploying. It will be interesting to see in coming years if they can work out the bugs and come up with some solid designs that can be built to replace coal plants.
re: "Sufficient to say that the EU has a LAW in place (since some time) that demands 20% green alternatives by 2020"
That doesn't mean it will actually do so. In any case "green" doesn't equal "solar".
Re: "Solar is too expensive. Compared to???" Compared to oil, gas, coal, hydro, nuclear... And yes that includes the cost of the grid. Not that solar doesn't have advantages, it does, but those advantages have to be weighed against the additional costs, and other disadvantages, and right now it amounts to solar being a niche provider. Will it get a bigger niche? Probably, but to go from "a bigger niche" to "one of the top sources of power", you need to change the game a lot and have something like solar power satellites (which after beaming their power to earth do rely on the grid), and they probably only make sense with much lower launch costs.
Re: "Solar today can cover those peal loads best and economically BECAUSE it is most active during the same times AND does not have to stretch long-distance transportation and the grid."
Right now its more expensive than other peak load solutions even including losses to the grid. In most cases much more expensive.
If solar is going to go off the grid, than you reduce economies of scale in production (which may not be as great for solar as for other sources, but which still exist for solar, esp. solar thermal generation) and you add the inefficiency of the storage (often resulting in more loss than the losses normally experienced to the grid).
I'm not trying to knock down solar. I'd like to see it provide a larger percentage of our power, when and where it does make economic sense, and over time I think it will produce a larger percentage, but not 100%, and not 20% for the foreseeable future (in a century who knows, but not by 2020).
Hugo...you've got to let me in on these high quality shrooms you've somewhow accessed. Okay, so you're hoping to cover the earth with solar panels. Do you have any idea where those panels are going to come from?
Hint: They have to be manufactured, along with the conversion and storage infrastructure to make them practical. Details: glass making, metalurgy, semiconductors, plastics, ceramics, and a few other things besides; this represents an enormous input of energy, a massive consumption of water resources, and a lot of nasty chemicals, too. Then you've got to deal with the fact that over time, your solar panels and battery will decay (assuming you manage to avoid a good, pounding hailstorm, in which case kiss those panels goodbye much sooner). Portions of them can be recycled...requiring the consumption of more energy.
Basically, you want to destroy the environment to save it, because my sense is that if you were actually considering the environmnetal costs of producing all these neat toys, the net result is closer to a wash. IMO a far better approach involves centralized solar facilities like California's Solar One and Solar Two, which use sunlight to drive a conventional steam generation process.
Also, your zealous comments in opposition to the grid are laughable. The reason we have a grid in the first place is that far fewer resources are required and the efficiencies are much higher when power is generated on a very large scale at limited locations, then distributed to a very large customer base whose net consumption at any given time tends to follow predictable models. Transmission and distribution efficiencies can be very high on a well-designed, well-maintained network. The reason portions of the grid are sometimes overloaded and poorly maintained was because the United States severely underinvested in its power infrastructure for about 25 years even while load continued to grow.
Comments like yours merely reinforce my prejudice that the average citizen has no clue or even a vaguely accurate conceptual image of the scale of bulk power. Any pie-in-the-sky energy magically feasible because it's "alternative" or "not coal", but speaking as someone who has some actual experience with the equipment you dismiss so flippantly, your ideas would leave us freezing in the dark.
anony-mouse
of all the comments here all you wanna know is if I am aware that solar panels must be manufactured... NO - I thought they grow on trees like burgers!!! It is not rocket science to calculate the ecological footprint of certain technologies and solar will not destroy the solar system. Please also tell me - how do you envision a future without storage, eg. cars?
Did you notice that some commenters here have made the most ludicrous claims about solar or German adaptation? One of them claimed that the Germans wanted 3% by 2020 when in fact they have 3% here and now? First - it would make sense that there others here with much better sources to nuclear shrooms and second - 3% installed base is more than an "idea". It is prove of concept (you really can do your math on the ecological footprint and on economics and Germany has! They have INCREASED their quota for 2020!!!) Not only that but the learning curve is great. Installation costs are equal to zero with new estate development and 1/5 of prices in the US for so called retro installations.
I apologize if my "attack" on the grid sounds "zealous" to you.. I have no personal quarries with the jolly good but old chap. I just pointed out that it is all splendid talk about new nuclear power plants - but that there is a grid challenge ($$$) that nobody seems to mention?
I am not for "killing the grid" - I am not certain how you have understood my comments. All I am saying is that we have an old grid in the US - but also long distance transportation. Producing more locally can ease the burden the old grid has to endure.
I highly recommend you watch a lecture provided by Microsoft (they are in a solar war with Google): Solar Revolution
Comments like yours merely reinforce my prejudice that the average citizen has no clue or even a vaguely accurate conceptual image of the scale of bulk power. Any pie-in-the-sky energy magically feasible because it's "CO2 intensive" or "monumental nuclear", but speaking as someone who has some actual experience with the equipment you dismiss so flippantly, your ideas would leave us boiling in hell?
Hugo...optimism is a commendable trait, but it doesn't make technologies and the means to implement them fall out of the sky. On one hand you insist that you know this, but then you turn right around and scrawl out wondrous visions of a solar-powered future even while some of the actual engineers in the discussion continue to point out that there are serious limitations to this, notably the part about the sun being generally unavailable to productive ends for more than half of any given 24-hour day, and often further reduced in intensity by lattitude, time of day, time of year, ambient humidity, and cloudcover.
I also observe that over the course of this discussion, you've reduced your talk about German solar energy from "20%! Realliez!" to "20%" sometime soon!" to "well, they've mandated it at 20% eventually!" to, in this most recent post, "they're at 3%!". Someone else presented evidence that it's actually less than 1% at present. So which is it? Could it be that the Germans, in spite of having the breath of a Kyoto Dragon down their neck, are as incapable as anyone else of making the sun shine more than it does, and directly converting that delicious 1kW/m^2 into a form of energy useful for human purposes?
Here are your two most useful forms of solar energy for the forseeable future: wind, and hydro. What you're really drawing on there is a natural battery, since the sun makes the air and the water move around the clock, and we can capture energy out of that motion far more quickly and efficiently than any magic carpet ride about photovoltaic cells, up-converters, and giant battery packs that make Gaia cry. As it happens, the US has relatively few suitable hydroelectric sites and has already exploited many of them. We're in much better shape on wind power, since we have lots of open areas with winds falling into an exploitable range of speeds; if you read the business section of any large US newspaper these days, you'll probably find a blurb somewhere about FPL Energy, which is installing wind farm capacity at a rate of about 1000MW a year and is looking to push upward to 2000MW. Thanks to the efforts of FPLE and others, lead times are beginning to rise on supplies of equipment, meaning that manufacturing capacity is maxed out. Assuming the wind blows somewhat frequently, every 1000MW of windfarm capacity provides similar output to one or two large coal-fired baseload plants -- which is nice, but IIRC US consumption in any given year is on the order of 5-6 terawatts. The bulk of that is pulled by large commmercial and industrial loads, often running around the clock or in not-so-sunny climates, in quantities that would quickly reduce any feasibly-sized man-made battery pack into a nuclear afterglow.
Solar can supplement, but it cannot replace or displace. Wind can supplement, but it cannot replace or displace. Hydro can replace or displace, but only in countries saturated in giant rivers, such as Brazil, Bolivia, etc.
You have good ideas and no doubt good intentions, but it's clear that you really don't understand the magnitude of the energy problem that you think direct-converstion solar can confront.
anony-
Was Hugo really purporting that Solar PV could sustain Industrial draws? IOW be the 'total' solution?
And, with this: "Here are your two most useful forms of solar energy for the forseeable future: wind, and hydro." Personally, I like the Fish and the Birds a little too much to believe that these are really good solutions, though, what about Geothermal as a 'useful' solar energy, especially for HVAC?
Also, please clarify, aren't you in the Electric Utility field?
Agreed, something else to consider – Germany has set a goal to have 20% of its energy within the next 13 years come from “renewable” resources of which about 3% is supposed to come from solar energy. I’d be curious how they plan to make up the other 17% while at the same time providing for the increases in energy demands that will come from population (e.g. immigration) growth and economic growth over the next thirteen years.
Mark E Hoffer
Hugo was suggesting that while we try to move our energy mix to more emission free sources and jump on nuclear – we should not overlook solar. as solar can cover peak loads locally and economically it would make sense to envision 20% from it sooner rather than later (please see all the links above). Germany is aiming at 27% from solar by 2020 and China at 15%.
Hugo claimed that in theory solar can cover 100% in contrast to wind (which could cover only 50%). It is not clear that hydro can cover that based on ecological implications ( and not enough sites?). Geothermal comes close to 100% based on known sites but the economics are less stable compared to other sources? Oil is running out – so is eventually gas. Coal could cover 100% for almost 60 years but there is simply not enough atmosphere for that. Nuclear, fusion, fission are hence the only other sources, besides solar, that could provide 100% until the end of the century and beyond… What will 2050 look like?
Has anybody ever pondered about what the IAEA is trying to do? How does that focus make you feel?
Another question: Why has the US not build a nuclear plant in almost 30 years? What is the shelf life of a nuclear plant? How many plants would we have to build just to cover the soon obsolete old plants (and at what cost)? And finally, again, how much will the grid improvements cost us? Who will pay for it?
Thorley
At least 3% of ALL German energy TODAY is covered by solar. Most of it was added over the last 1-2 years alone. Please see the article above to learn that they are now aiming at 27% of ALL energy from solar by 2020.
The EU (not Germany) has the goal of 20% of green non-nuclear energy by 2020 (solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal, etc.) I am certain that it will be revised upwards soon!
I sometimes wonder how people follow the discussions on here? Or if I am really writing in Swahili? Maybe I should keep it simple like most here:
"Yeahh.. "taxes" and/or "cap & trade" but watch those bastards China and India.. we shouldn't necessarily wait for them.. but watch them. Otherwise - let's go nuclear.. (and magically forget about cost discussion there and that little IAEA/Iraq/Iran/NK incident recently... it never happened! Shhhh!)"
There.. happy everybody? See - I can also have a good, informative, well argued, well rounded discussion!
Hugo,
the 'links' to the IAEA info don't seem to be active.
could you post those again?
Mark H wrote: And, with this: "Here are your two most useful forms of solar energy for the forseeable future: wind, and hydro." Personally, I like the Fish and the Birds a little too much to believe that these are really good solutions, though, what about Geothermal as a 'useful' solar energy, especially for HVAC?
Hyrdo needn't kill fish if the inlet to the penstock is properly screened -- in fact, for a high-head Pelton wheel setup it's kind of imperative. (An unscreened inlet to a Francis turbine or a propeller setup might act a lot like a food processor, though.) As for fish headed the other direction, haven't salmon ladders been fairly successful?
The funniest thing I ever read about the birds argument is that our current best estimates for wind turbine bird deaths in the States has them being chopped at a rate of something like 1/5 that of deaths perpetrated by domestic cats. Although in fairness, cats only snag smaller birds, while wind turbines are somewhat less choosy. I don't exactly see the problem, though; birds also die from smacking into plate glass windows, yet we don't stop buildling high-rises and multi-story office complexes, because such buildlings are very necessary and their ability to kill birds is well below than the bird replacement rate. I view wind turbines the same way, provided a developer isn't, say, attempting to build a wind farm adjacent to known bald eagle nesting grounds.
Geothermal is interesting and I should like to see more of it, particularly in commercial installations where energy demand will be high due to the typical use of continuous positive-presssure HVAC, and where some of the economies of scale begin to shift in favor of digging a deep hole for sinking the exchange tank. Also, unlike photovoltaic solar systems, the environmental costs of resource extraction and manufacturing are not substantially greater than whatever would otherwise be installed in the building. IMO the big problem there seems to be system availability and awareness -- geothermal solutions require some research to obtain and some customizing to the application, whereas a dozen big air handling units can be ordered from anywhere and completely set up on the roof within a couple days of delivery.
Also, please clarify, aren't you in the Electric Utility field?
Consulting engineering. Substations, mostly, with some transmission and distribution. Also some field inventory/surveying type work.
Everybody in this industry is phenomenally busy right now, partly because there are a lot of wind and oil-related projects underway all over the US in the present energy climate, and partly because a lot of utilities in this region (Colorado front range) are seeing substantial load growth, and exapnding to accommodate.
anony-
with this: "As for fish headed the other direction, haven't salmon ladders been fairly successful?" is an interesting Q. The answers found seem to depend on which side of the dam your on. This site: http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer
has a pretty balanced discussion on river usage.
I know that, locally, Shad,returning from the Atlantic via the Delaware R., don't do a very good job getting over the fish ladder into the Lehigh. And, that seems thegeneral experience, somefish get through, though,not in the previous, pre-dam, numbers.
This: "The funniest thing I ever read about the birds..." might be less funny given an understanding of what loose cats have done to indigenous bird populations in places like Hawaii, even the chickens are learning, in gradual response, to fly!
The saddest thing, to me, is that, given known conservation practices and utilization/investment in efficiency upgrades, the amount of ecological destruction we are causing( apart from GHG induced AGW ) would be quite less.
Also, this: "digging a deep hole for sinking the exchange tank" isn't the only way about it. Geothermal energy can be extracted from ground water, via wells, and returned to adjacent bore holes (aka 'open loop').
This: "IMO the big problem there seems to be system availability and awareness -- geothermal solutions require some research to obtain and some customizing to the application, whereas a dozen big air handling units can be ordered from anywhere and completely set up on the roof within a couple days of delivery."
Is without question, too bad more cube clones don't wonder where 'sick buildings' come from.
And, given your knowledge of the current scene, hopefully you're Long Copper and its Miners :)
MEH
How does that read (from the IAEA)?
IAEA Illicit Trafficking Database Releases Latest Aggregate Statistics
11 September 2007
From January 1993 to December 2006, a total of 275 incidents involving unauthorized possession and related criminal activities were confirmed to the Agency´s Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB), according to information released by the Office of Nuclear Security. Fourteen such incidents occurred in 2006. Incidents included in this category can be described as "illicit trafficking." They contain common "illicit trafficking" elements such as illegal possession, movement, or attempts to illegally trade in these materials.
A break-down of the 275 incidents of unauthorized possession and related criminal activities shows that 55% of the cases involved nuclear materials and 45% involved radioactive sources. Of the incidents with nuclear materials, 15 involved the seizure of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from individuals or groups who possessed them illegally. Some of these incidents involved attempts to sell these materials and smuggle them across national borders.
In addition, 332 reported incidents involved the theft or loss of nuclear or other radioactive materials (85 occurred in 2006) and 398 involved other unauthorized activities, such as the unauthorized disposal of radioactive materials or discovery of "orphan sources" (51 occurred in 2006). Most of these incidents involved radioactive sources, including high-risk "dangerous" sources (as defined in the IAEA Categorization of radioactive sources, RS-G-1.9., for example, caesium-137 and cobalt-60). In about 67% of cases with lost or stolen materials, the materials had not been recovered at the time of reporting. In 75 incidents reported during 1993-2006 the reported information was not sufficient to determine the category of incident.
"Information reported to the ITDB shows a persistent problem with the illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials, thefts, losses, and other unauthorized activities," the latest ITDB report said.
The ITDB facilitates the exchange of authoritative information on incidents of illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities involving nuclear and radioactive materials. Currently, 96 States participate in the ITDB Programme. In some cases, non-participating Member States have provided information to the ITDB.
_______________
Here some additional info:
Theft or loss of nuclear materials by year:
1993: 6
1994: 3
1995: 6
1996: 1
1997: 2
1998: 12
1999: 23
2000: 29
2001: 21
2002: 26
2003: 35
2004: 34
2005: 48
2006: 85
The reported information for the entire 1993-2006 period shows that in about 67% of the cases, the
lost or stolen materials have not been recovered.
I was also wondering how you feel about the general focus of the IAEA: Iraq / Iran / Pakistan / NorthKorea / etc.
I somehow do not like the trend (in fact – most press releases by the IAEA scare me somehow)? I do not like the idea of “angly lettels flom Ml Blix”. I do not like the idea of “war”. If we think that it is the only emission free energy source we’ve got.. so be it. Nuclear is better than oil or coal or even large scale hydro? We can survive Chernobyl and Hiroshima and also a dirty bomb in DC or NY.. but we can not survive an ecological catastrophe that easily? Still, I do not want to deal with crazies with some active radios! I am also sick of depending on some tyrant who is sitting on some oil (which takes care of itself by vanishing reserves). Radioactivity has a lot of good scientific applications as in medicine, ecological monitoring, etc. but maybe we should fade out of the dodgy areas and eras?
I prefer solar for economical (no major transportation costs and good peak performance) and socio-political reasons. Call me a skeptical nuclearist.
Hugo - Re: "At least 3% of ALL German energy TODAY is covered by solar."
Doesn't look like it.
"Renewable energy accounted for 5.8 percent of primary energy consumption in Germany in 2006"
http://www.german-renewable-energy.com/Renewables/Navigation/Englisch/root.html
Note that is all "renewable energy" and they are counting such things as biofeuls as part of the 5.8%
"Analysts estimate that solar cells in Germany now generate about 2 TWh of electricity per year, or nearly one-half of one percent of German electricity consumption."
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47322
Tim
Are you stoned?????
From your own 1st link - first paragraph:
"..in 2006 and the share of renewable energy in total gross electricity consumption rose to 12 percent."
From your 2nd link:
"Renewable sources of energy provided a total of 71.5 TWh in 2006 or nearly 11.5% of German electricity consumption. "
If the point your trying to make is that 11.5% or 12% is much higher than "nearly one-half percent" well "renewable energy" does not equal "solar energy".
If the point your trying to make is that one link says 11.5% and one says 12%, I don't consider that a significant point. Rounding, estimates, and measurement at different parts of the year could easily explain the 4% (note 4 percent not 4 percentage points) difference between those two figures.
If your point is the 5.8% figure vs. 12%, those are measuring different things. 5.8% is "primary energy consumption". 12% (or perhaps 11.5%) is "electricity production".
In any case the important point related to solar is "Analysts estimate that solar cells in Germany now generate about 2 TWh of electricity per year, or nearly one-half of one percent of German electricity consumption."
In other words whatever percentage "renewables" account for solar is less than one percent, possibly less than one half of Germany's electricity production (and of course even less of its total energy production).
And note, that "nearly one-half of one percent of German electricity consumption" figure comes from a site trumpeting the success of Germany's alternate energy programs. Its relatively unlikely that the source is dishonestly or even carelessly under reporting the percentage.
Tim
One distinguishes in solar accounting regarding TWh from Thermal Solar installations and grid-tied electric systems. Solar Thermal is about twice as strong in Germany and was at 4 TWh last year.
Grid-tied systems in Germany alone produced 2 TWh last year but as I have stated - growth was exponential and the TOTAL installations have doubled in not much more than a year.
Please see the statement of a former German minster, now head of the solar funds, Juergen Trittin, that I have quoted above. It has the latest numbers and we are now talking about at least 3 TWh from grid-tied systems in Germany and probably 6 TWh from thermal - locally.
But Germany is also the largest investor in PV in Spain and Italy where the economics are even better than in Germany. All this together reaches impressive numbers (which I will try to find for you in English) for the prove of concept argument that I was making in this context.
But I am interested, Tim, what is the point of this exercise? We want to find out if 1 PC can lead us to billions of PCs right? Prove of concept and economics? Germany, last year let alone this year, has produced TWh from solar.. the difference that we are quarreling about is obviously in degree and not kind?
Have you watched the Solar Revolution lecture provided by Microsoft Research (linked above)? What are the arguments that you have beef with?
Do you claim that solar is not economical at peak loads? do you claim that nuclear is politically save? Would you tax CO2 - cap & trade? Would you invest in new technologies and how? Research and development or subsidies of existing solutions? You know so much about me and I do so little about you?
Hugo -
re: "One distinguishes in solar accounting regarding TWh from Thermal Solar installations and grid-tied electric systems. Solar Thermal is about twice as strong in Germany and was at 4 TWh last year.
Grid-tied systems in Germany alone produced 2 TWh last year but as I have stated - growth was exponential and the TOTAL installations have doubled in not much more than a year."
Both solar cells and solar thermal generation can be grid tiered. It doesn't make a lot of sense to break it down in to "solar thermal" and "grid tiered". It make more sense to break it down either in to "non grid connected", and "grid connected", or to solar cells, and solar thermal (or perhaps in to 4 slices representing the combination of these two criteria.
As for exponential growth - That's not two hard when you start at such low levels, but it can't continue for long.
re: "We want to find out if 1 PC can lead us to billions of PCs right? Prove of concept and economics?"
That doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of this conversation. It seems like you cut off your point before fully making it.
re: "Germany, last year let alone this year, has produced TWh from solar.. the difference that we are quarreling about is obviously in degree and not kind?"
The difference between the size of the Earth and the size of the solar system is also a matter of degree, or more to the point the difference between eventually getting several percent of Germany's power needs from solar, and getting scores of percents (perhaps 100%) is a rather important difference in degree. Its not easy to go from one to the other.
Re: your questions
I don't think solar is yet economical as a major power source. Its economical for specialized applications. Do I think nuclear is politically safe? I guess you mean to point out the political opposition to nuclear power. I recognize that it exists, but to the extent we are to move away from relying mostly on fossil fuels its something that needs to be overcome. Would I tax CO2, or institute a cap and trade policy? Well I'm somewhat dubious about the merits of both ideas. Would I invest in new technologies? I might, but your not really asking about my personal investment, at least I don't think you are. I do think new technologies will receive investment money, and I don't oppose that idea. How should this investment be generated? Primarily through the normal market for investment capital.
Yhanks you
4898bc4b904c5212fd1b3c319deeeec7