Developed by engineers for engineers.
Why isn't solar a more prominent electricty resource?
I often wonder, what does the future of the solar industry look like and how can solar compete with the much more efficient, utility-scaled wind turbine? I certainly don't have the answer to either of these thoughts/questions, but I do have some theories of my own.
I perceive the solar industry as a small-time electricity generating and heat-supplementing industry. I recently put together a list of all the solar projects in the U.S. as well as a list of all the wind projects in the U.S. And what did I find? The largest of the solar projects (excluding SEGS I-IX) is less than 75 MW, yet the there are over 230 wind projects that are larger than 75 MW. In total there is over 40 GW of wind installed in the States and less than 2 GW of solar.
However, I recently attended a webinar with a speaker from Germany who stated that Germany has 3x more installed solar generating capacity than the U.S. with significantly lower resources. This presentation was enlightening and it raised my expectations for solar power. If Germany can do it with such poor resources, than why can't we? (that's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know)
Furthermore, is solar's destiny to be a supplemental power source for your water-heater? As I attend shows, it seems to be dominated by solar thermal systems that are designed for the residential markets. Why is it that we have such a powerful energy source, but we can't find ways to harness it on a utility scale (I know that we have utility scale projects, just not nearly as many as I think we should/could).
I'd love to read some enlightened thoughts, does anyone have any ideas?
Tags: power, scale, solar, thermal, utlity
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Passarelli on -
Lots of reasons:
small PV can't reliably meet the needs of American lifestyle
small solar heating is perceived as "3rd world"
big solar thermal expects hot-desert locations and ignores the other 85% of the globe.
PV is sexy, but too damn expensive.
perception, perception, perception.
shall I go on?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Taylor Johnson on -
Paul, that's exactly my point. But wouldn't you think that people who are actually involved in the industry, developing the plants, and profiting from their production would have the foresight to look past perception? Also, they would know better than to think that hot deserts are the only place to put a solar project (see my Germany example stated above).
Paul Passarelli said:
Lots of reasons:
small PV can't reliably meet the needs of American lifestyle
small solar heating is perceived as "3rd world"
big solar thermal expects hot-desert locations and ignores the other 85% of the globe.
PV is sexy, but too damn expensive.
perception, perception, perception.
shall I go on?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Passarelli on
-
You would think so, but that's the problem... isn't it? It's been said: "No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- Mencken But many have starved waiting for that intelligence to kick in.
Face it, we're crippled. Just look at the Obamacare arguments going on as I write this. The government has crippled business' ability to make decisions, to take risks, to innovate, and to reap "outrageous" (as they're now referred to) profits.
So, can I interest you in a modest 1MW Concentrating Solar Power system for your facility?
Taylor Johnson said:Paul, that's exactly my point. But wouldn't you think that people who are actually involved in the industry, developing the plants, and profiting from their production would have the foresight to look past perception? Also, they would know better than to think that hot deserts are the only place to put a solar project (see my Germany example stated above).
-
-
Permalink Reply by Curt Caveney on -
High intensity energy demands. Diffuse energy source. The two do not play nice together very well.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Taylor Johnson on
-
But Curt, it seems Germany has been able to make it work? They have a largely inferior resource yet in 2009 alone they installed 2,800 MW's of solar power capacity. The way I see it is that the U.S. just doesn't want to make the effort to move toward a cleaner energy portfolio (my perception is likely skewed). Any thoughts as to why this might be the case? Is it that the federal government needs to make a longer term commitment? Is it that oil & gas moguls are just too influential?
Curt Caveney said:
High intensity energy demands. Diffuse energy source. The two do not play nice together very well. -
-
Permalink Reply by Rowan McMurray on -
high system costs. Of course, since you wrote this, system costs have dropped enormously...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Mattsson-Boze on
-
Germany isn't that inferior to us in terms of resources. They are 4th in the world and just behind us in GDP per capita. They have the resources. They are also the economic stronghold of Europe. Without them Europe would be having more serious problems. So I wouldn't say they are significantly lower on resources.
An article in Technology Review recently asked the question, "Will Germany's clean-energy gamble sink Europe?". The question answers your question. This is a gamble that Germany is taking. Can they attain a critical mass of renewable energy before they run out of money?
Take a look at how much energy is generated using renewable sources compared to oil and gas. It is miniscule. Yet the amount of money that we spend on renewable sources is in the trillions of dollars. The cost per MW output is huge. Without subsidization that industry will collapse under its own weight.
I think Solar has some value, such as augmenting home energy costs. If solar becomes unsubsidized the costs will be out of reach of most home owners.
Why is it that we can't harness such a powerful energy source? It is diffuse. If it were more intense we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't be here. It requries large areas or intensification to produce the amount of energy we are looking for.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Rowan McMurray on
-
Daniel, I think in the context of the discussion the resource being talked about was the solar resource, i.e. how intense the solar radiation in that region is. As an engineer designing solar power systems in Germany as well as the rest of the world (and more focussed on Germany, because that is where I sit) I can tell you that the best solar resource in Germany is significantly inferior to the solar resource in many parts of the USA.
On the topic of subsidies, Bill Clinton recently said "the United States pays $22 in subsidies to oil, coal and nuclear power for every $1 invested in renewable energy" and also "We’ve had oil subsidies since 1916, but they sink dry wells and still get the tax credit.” (http://ases.org/2012/09/spi-report-bill-clinton-talks-solar-sense/). I haven't checked his sources or even seen an original transcript, but I don't need to, these numbers are typical of what I have seen proven in other countries and frankly I am not that worried about relative levels of subsidies anyway. I know there are a great number of German solar power companies that were built (usually badly) in a market with a lot of subsidies that are now struggling to survive in a market with poor resources as subsidies are cut dramatically, but the long established fossil fuel subsidies remain. Working internationally allows me to see the competitiveness of various technologies under a range of different subsidy structures, and I assure you that solar is already cost competitive with no subsidies in a number of markets. That number is still fairly small, but the price of solar is still coming down and the price of oil and gas is still going up, so the number is growing.
In terms of the space required, you are correct that it requires more space than fossil fuel sources, but not so much more as you may think. For example, an area the size of the Australian Capital Territory in the right location could provide enough power to run the whole of Australia. If you are not familiar with the sizes of those two spaces you can find a map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_Australia. The ACT is the little bit in the bottom right corner of New South Wales that is mostly covered by the dot showing the location of Canberra.Hope this helps.
-
© 2013 Created by Marshall Matheson.
