Are we near a solar energy tipping point?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/52290/are-we-near-a-solar-energy-tipping-point

Are we near a solar energy tipping point?

Program #5523 of the Earth & Sky Radio Series
with hosts Deborah Byrd, Joel Block,
# Lindsay Patterson and Jorge Salazar.

...

Ray Kurzweil: A tipping point is that it’s more effective and less expensive than the alternatives.

That’s Ray Kurzweil – inventor, writer, futurist, CEO of Kurzweil Technologies – and part of a blue ribbon panel that explored engineering challenges for the 21st century. He said he believes the tipping point for solar energy will come soon.

Ray Kurzweil: It’s going to be economically attractive. Even if nobody cares about environment, or let’s say particular organizations don’t care about the environment, they’re going to go with the least expensive solution. Solar energy has the added benefits that it’s renewable, it’s friendly to the environment, and we have plenty of solar energy. We have 10,000 times more sunlight that we need to meet all of our energy needs.

...

Ray Kurzweil: In energy, the tipping point is well defined, that is the cost per watt. Right now, using these old traditional solar panels, the energy per watt is 3 or 4 times more expensive than fossil fuels. But, solar energy cost is coming down, whereas fossil fuels are doing the opposite. And based on those trajectories, a crossing point where solar energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels is definitely within 5 years, maybe sooner.

...

(Follow the link to listen.)

[Imperialism Inc.]

1. You may have already seen it but I thought I'd add a link to the

Scientific American article about a "Grand Plan" for solar energy.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1

[phantom power]

2. I admire the zen of it all.

Forever poised on the cusp of the eternal now.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Hardly

Kurzweil is famous for plotting curves, and seeing where they intersect.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

The Law of Accelerating Returns

by Ray Kurzweil

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

Published on KurzweilAI.net March 7, 2001.

...

The Intuitive Linear View versus the Historical Exponential View

Most long range forecasts of technical feasibility in future time periods dramatically underestimate the power of future technology because they are based on what I call the "intuitive linear" view of technological progress rather than the "historical exponential view." To express this another way, it is not the case that we will experience a hundred years of progress in the twenty-first century; rather we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress (at today's rate of progress, that is).

This disparity in outlook comes up frequently in a variety of contexts, for example, the discussion of the ethical issues that Bill Joy raised in his controversial WIRED cover story, Why The Future Doesn't Need Us. Bill and I have been frequently paired in a variety of venues as pessimist and optimist respectively. Although I'm expected to criticize Bill's position, and indeed I do take issue with his prescription of relinquishment, I nonetheless usually end up defending Joy on the key issue of feasibility. Recently a Noble Prize winning panelist dismissed Bill's concerns, exclaiming that, "we're not going to see self-replicating nanoengineered entities for a hundred years." I pointed out that 100 years was indeed a reasonable estimate of the amount of technical progress required to achieve this particular milestone at today's rate of progress. But because we're doubling the rate of progress every decade, we'll see a century of progress--at today's rate--in only 25 calendar years.

When people think of a future period, they intuitively assume that the current rate of progress will continue for future periods. However, careful consideration of the pace of technology shows that the rate of progress is not constant, but it is human nature to adapt to the changing pace, so the intuitive view is that the pace will continue at the current rate. Even for those of us who have been around long enough to experience how the pace increases over time, our unexamined intuition nonetheless provides the impression that progress changes at the rate that we have experienced recently. From the mathematician's perspective, a primary reason for this is that an exponential curve approximates a straight line when viewed for a brief duration. So even though the rate of progress in the very recent past (e.g., this past year) is far greater than it was ten years ago (let alone a hundred or a thousand years ago), our memories are nonetheless dominated by our very recent experience. It is typical, therefore, that even sophisticated commentators, when considering the future, extrapolate the current pace of change over the next 10 years or 100 years to determine their expectations. This is why I call this way of looking at the future the "intuitive linear" view.

But a serious assessment of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential. In exponential growth, we find that a key measurement such as computational power is multiplied by a constant factor for each unit of time (e.g., doubling every year) rather than just being added to incrementally. Exponential growth is a feature of any evolutionary process, of which technology is a primary example. One can examine the data

...

[phantom power]

6. A curve-plotting celebrety, eh?

Well, I challenge him to a curve plotting and intersection duel. I pity da fool who try to intersect curves better than me!



Actual picture of me as captain of the varsity math club:

[greenman3610]

3. in the southwest, that tipping point is already crossed

large scale solar concentrators with onsite energy storage
being built right now with expected cost less than 10 cents/kwh
which is the magic number.

all that's needed is an expanded electrical grid to move this
around to where its needed.

wind has also hit the critical value.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. I thought 2 cents per kwh was the magic number

End users pay 10 cents per kwh for electicity available on demand. But purchasing supply from a generator is only around 2 cents per kwh IIRC.

[kristopher]

13. Maybe from a 50s era coal plant

grandfathered against pollution controls, or a 70s era nuke plant that has been through half a dozen bankruptcy proceedings?

Modern coal with required technologies is nearly 7 cents kWh.

[Finishline42]

7. Big difference between Solar and fossil fuels...

Solar panels for home owners are one time investments - 25 yr warranty which means they should last around 50 yrs. Buying a solar array locks in energy prices and once you reach the payback point - you get free electricity. That will never happen with a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant. Those costs will only go up.

This is one of the main reasons utilities are so against solar and wind. Large scale adoption will bring in improvements in effeciency and through economies of scale a reduction in cost and effectively reduce their customer base.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I don't think they're very worried about that aspect

There will always be a demand for large-scale generation. A large portion of the population lives in places where a personal solar array simply isn't practical.

Whether it's wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, people will turn to utility-generated electricity. That's how economies of scale are best recognized.


Solar and wind operate differently from virtually every other power source they have experience with. If demand goes up on a coal-fired plant, you shovel more coal in the boiler. If demand goes up on a solar plant, you can't turn up the intensity of the Sun a notch...

If demand goes up on a hydro plant, you route more water through the turbines. If demand goes up on a wind farm, you can't just increase the intensity of the wind a bit...

So, they need to find different ways of doing business to incorporate alternative sources of power. (Whether that's the use of batteries, or dynamically balancing generating capacities, it's a change from standard operating procedure.)

[BeFree]

9. Demand is pretty well fixed and/or predictable.

Solar can be used to supply the demand increase during the day.


Note that street lights were favored by power companies so that the demand drop off at night was lessened and they power companies could keep the generators spinning, raking in more dough.

So, solar during the day and turn off those damned street lights at night and emissions are decreased across the board.

Problem is the big boys lose money.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Please don't turn off my street lights

I go walking at night on streets that are lit and streets that are not lit.

If you want to convert them to solar-charged LED's, I'm all for it; but let's not ditch them. (Okay?)

[Finishline42]

10. Agree in part

Calif is spending nearly $4 billion in a program to help consumers install solar on their homes deals logically with the PEAK demand issue. Instead of building power plants just to deal with peak summer demand, spend the money instead to help finance customer installation of solar panels, because when the highest peak demand is encountered, the sun is shining. And plus, the cost of power in Calif is pretty high - easier to justify the investment.

Building a peak power plant in Calif would take approx 10 years, start to actually producing power. This plan starts dealing with the supply side quicker. Side benefit is the building of plants in state to deal with the increase demand of PV panels. I think a better economic model than building large-scale centralized plants.

[kristopher]

12. That is just silly

And what if your coal plant is operating at maximum capacity and demand goes up?

Exactly the same as with wind and solar, by design generating capacity exceeds projected peak demand.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Give me a little credit, okay?

Demand increases and decreases throughout the day.

Typical Solar Cell Power Curve vs. Actual California Demand Curve on July 12, 2003

[kristopher]

15. Your link is locked but I don't need it

The point is a red herring. No single form of generation is a natural match to the demand curve. It's the mix that's important. When you have a coal plant with 3 generators available but only two in operation and there is a sudden demand for power, what do you dd? Crank up the 3rd generator? Not unless you have 10 or 12 hours. To keep coal power available for peaking loads you have to maintain it as spinning reserve - burning fuel just to be on standby.

There are lots of problems associated with grid operation. To focus on wind or solar as if they are uniquely problematic isn't a valid picture of the situation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. I guess you haven't read many of my posts

I'm a great supporter of alternative energy, and distributed generation.

However, we cannot simply wave our hands and make the associated technological hurdles vanish overnight.


At this time wind and solar are not providing "base power" (that's not to say they cannot, they can.) However, if I was running a power company, and I was used to operating base load power plants, I would be more than a little hesitant to jump into wind and solar.

I'm all for going ahead and rolling out as much alternative power as we can using the current technologies. I'm trusting that given time we will address these problems, and efficiencies will improve, and (in the meantime) every watt generated using wind or solar is one that won't be generated by burning coal.

[kristopher]

17. There, you nailed it.

"However, if I was running a power company, and I was used to operating base load power plants, I would be more than a little hesitant to jump into wind and solar."

I think it is the grid operators more than the power plant operators. In grid operations, I believe the historic experience and training of the operators conditions them to believe that anything requiring action is associated with a big "DANGER" sign. So even if the variability is easily manageable, the fact that it even requires management means that it meets visceral opposition and mistrust.

[phantom power]

18. Or, maybe it's a hard problem, and they have liability for failures.

[kristopher]

19. Precisely

What I question is how much of the resistance from the operations sector is based on unbiased risk assessment vs an assessment that is biased by conditioning.
Put it this way - when an alarm goes off, it requires an evaluation of risk and responsive action. In an operations center you'd prefer that the alarm never go off. If someone wants to integrate a new component of the system that frequently sets off the alarm the operators reject it out of hand. It never even gets to the point where the actual failure rate induced by the new component is a factor.
Kind of like having a smoke alarm that goes off every time you fry something in oil. Over time, (presuming you don't change the alarm) you tend to avoid frying things in oil.

[phantom power]

32. Yes, I imagine there will be a sort of business-culture resistance.

In addition to various "big" problems, it will simply be a pain in the ass for them, requiring them to adopt new habits.

[Finishline42]

21. Utility Companies -

Ingersol in Rockford, IL was going to build a co-generation plant for plant electricity and the local utility signed them to a long term contract at a lower rate and they dropped their plans. I wonder how many times this happens?

Just like in LA in the early 1900's, the gas company gave good deals to consumers to replace solar water heaters with gas water heaters. Initially, losing money but keeping the alternative from getting an economic foothold.

[Finishline42]

20. good point - but...

I hadn't thought about the heat build up during the day.

Tracking systems can improve output by 20-30% on either side of the peak.

How about Prism Solar Tech's new system?

"Prism Solar Technologies, Inc. manufactures a new type of photovoltaic module that uses transparent holographic optical elements in its design. This innovative, patented holographic technology, collects and spectrally selects useful wavelengths from the sun and focuses them onto the cell to create electricity."

http://www.prismsolar.com/technology.html

Plus it diverts the part of the spectrum that creates heat thus keeping the solar cell cooler and more efficient. Uses concentrators so that you don't need as much PV material.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. Sure, fine

There are all sorts of ways to make energy from solar and wind a more constant souce (at least in theory.)

In practice, there's not a lot of this being done (right now.)

[losthills]

23. The solution to that is to have redundancy

in the system. More windfarms and solar stations than you actually need and situated in lots of different sites. It'll take awhile to develope an integrated nationwide system like that, but that should be the goal. Also, with wind and solar it's better to have lots of small installations than a few big ones. Lots of smaller ones means that you can always take advantage of the best features of each geographcal area through the seasons, and it makes it easier for the system to evolve with new inovations in the technologies.

[NNadir]

22. Another one? This is only the 832,040th time I've heard this.

It would be useful if the believers in solar energy actually once announced that solar's day has arrived.

But that would sort of like religious people informing us that Jesus came back last week and is staying at the Marriot Hotel in New York.

[kristopher]

24. Relax Marivn, all good things to those who wait...

...

[NNadir]

25. Yeah, let's just wait for the dumb fantasies until 2050 and 500 ppm CO2.

I'll be dead, and the little kiddies on this site will be old men saying "Solar's just around the corner."

DEATH comes to those who wait long enough, big boy.

The really, really, really, really, really immoral thing about your "do nothing" rhetoric is that 37 years after the dip shit Walmart executive Amory Lovins announced the "dawn of the solar age" more than 700 billion tons of carbon dioxide were dumped into the atmosphere.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

If you're over 12 - and one hopes you aren't - and you can't see the cost of indifference and wishful thinking - you have a real perceptual problem.

Are you trying to be delusional or does it just come naturally?

[Finishline42]

26. Interesting that you bring up Wal-Mart and Alt Energy

Did you see the speech that the CEO Scott made in Jan? Just a bit if not...

"Imagine your customers pulling into your parking lot, and seeing wind turbines and solar panels, and being able to charge their cars while they shop. I think that would make them feel good about shopping at your stores. It would also make them feel good if they could save money in the process. What if we fed the power generated by those wind turbines and solar powers back into the electrical grid? Just imagine the impact of our customers being able to buy eco-friendly energy at the unbeatable Wal-Mart price."

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=57467

Amory Lovins works for Wal-Mart???

No doubt he's been ahead of the curve.

[kristopher]

27. Well, frankly, 500ppm CO2 worries me less than, say, unmanagable nuclear proliferation

There are uncertainties with climate change; and there are uncertainties with addressing the problem with nuclear energy. You don't know the future and you certainly can't say with a better that 1% certainty that the course you advocate is the best over the long term for humanity. You may believe it, but you cannot substantiate your belief.

The endless criticisms you offer for those who disagree with your recommended course of action are based on, at best, specious claims of imminent cataclysm that are not born out by the research on the possible consequences of global warming. Sure, an outlying <5% scenario may be the one to come to pass and the deep ocean currents will shut down with rapid release of the methane hydrates on the sea floor, killing all sea life and devastating the rest of the food chain as it shoots the temperature up another 5C.

Yeah, it could happen.

But we are still going to address the problem first with wind and solar.

Sweet dreams, Marvin.

[NickB79]

28. 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 will kill billions of people

The same can't be said of nuclear REACTOR proliferation.

Hell, if EVERY reactor on Earth went into Chernobyl-style meltdown today, they wouldn't kill as many people as 500 ppm CO2.

[kristopher]

29. You don't know that, Nick.

You are talking about effects that require us to peer several hundred (or more) years into the future.

And for all you know building several thousand plutonium breeder reactors and a network of reprocessing facilities could result in any number of nightmare scenarios of global scale. It is very conceivable that some nation (that would otherwise have used solar/wind/bio) will get access to large quantities of easy to process into weapons grade plutonium and start a worldwide nuclear war that wipes humans off the planet.

I don't know what will happen either way. What I do know, though, is that neither does anyone else. What we have to do is evaluate all the risks and make the best decisions we can day by day. Right now the best knowledge we have (incomplete as it is) seems to say that if we move with deliberation and if we start the process now, we can make enough major alterations to our energy infrastructure that we can - maybe - avert climate change without resorting to the risks of proliferation and wastes.

Things are moving incredibly fast in the world of technology, so if we can buy a little more time to work on the downside of nuclear, and if we don't find some holy grail of energy like a Mr. Fusion for every home, then we can always go to nuclear.

In the meantime we work on refining the climate models and hope for the best.

[NickB79]

30. Not hundreds of years into the future

At the rate we're going, we'll hit 500 ppm by 2050 or so.

[kristopher]

31. Right, but there is a lag between that and the actual effects we might experience.

For example best guess for Greenland melting is on the order of 800-1000 years. I realize that 500 represents an accepted tipping point, but that is a hypothetical that is based on the premise that we can't or won't find a way to address the problem with technology.

We are already experiencing species lost and shifting habitats, ocean acidification and altered weather patterns with probable population dislocations; so I don't want to underplay the near term consequences. But the real lesson of all this to me is that we need more data - especially of the deep ocean currents. Hopefully the next administration will put a priority on it.

We REALLY need to refine our models and reduce the uncertainty.

I once went in to the emergency room for a sharp pain just under the breastplate. The doctor scheduled me the next day for a endoscopic exam and sent me home with the warning that I might have pancreatic cancer.

I see that as the point we are at now.

It is too soon to start chemo, let's be sure it isn't just pancreatitis first.