SOLAR SUPERPOWER: Photovoltaic and concentrated solar power could account for 22 percent of global electricity production by 2050 under the right conditions, the IEA reports.
Image: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solar panels could produce electricity at the same price as coal- and natural gas-burning power plants by the end of this decade if countries direct resources at this rapidly advancing corner of the energy industry, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
IEA, composed mostly of European nations and the United States, found in twin studies released yesterday that solar photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) together could account for about 22 percent of global electricity production by 2050 under the right conditions.
Today, solar power meets a tiny fraction of the world's electricity needs, but that could change in the next decade, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said at a conference in Valencia, Spain. "Long-term-oriented, predictable solar-specific incentives are needed to sustain early deployment and bring both technologies to competitiveness in the most suitable locations and times."
Countries such as Japan, Germany, Spain and the United States and other potentially major markets should focus on creating more incentives that can foster technology advancements, urged Tanaka and the IEA report. Building better solar panels that drive down the upfront cost of a roof installation and the cost of erecting big solar arrays to feed electric utilities are major challenges for the industry.
Solar panel manufacturers and service companies in the solar power business have increased in numbers and strengthened their balance sheets in recent years. U.S. government support in the form of loan guarantees and grants out of the Department of Energy also are helping certain corners of the sector.
In Europe, a rapid expansion of residential and commercial solar power use in the past five years stimulated the global industry. Last year, however, solar ran up against political scrutiny of lavish public subsidies. That has put the brakes on the expansion this year.
To navigate the turbulence, which IEA sees as a short-term blip, and to compete with China's heavily subsidized manufacturers, analysts expect to see more consolidation in the industry.
North America expected to lead world's production
In February, the U.S. government announced a $1.37 billion conditional loan guarantee for Oakland, Calif.-based BrightSource Energy Inc. to build three utility-scale solar thermal power plants in the Mojave Desert. If the project secures permits from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the California Energy Commission and is built, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project could be the world's largest concentrated solar power system.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentLess than a decade ago, typical efficiency of photocells was under 20%. Today, there are a number of advances that have pushed them over 40%, with some showing promises of even higher gains. If we could get the efficiency to around 80%, we could pretty much do everything with solar. Some nanotechnologies point to this being a significant possibility within the next 20 years...if the investments are made now. We cannot continue to pump money into failed technologies like oil, coal and natural gas (yes, they're failures. They've provided benefits, but the costs significantly outweigh what we've gained.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this talk about solar and wind from the IEA is really a effort to sell more natural gas, boosting profits for their big Oil sponsors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real cost of nuclear power is already far cheaper than NG and Coal based on Asian builds and with sufficient current orders to start mass production, it promises to drop even more to the under $1B/Gw 1.5 cent a kwh level. Current solar is 35 to 50 times that cost without storage.
Studies have shown it would produce less GHG's if the not so renewables and associated fast spooling NG plant were scrapped and high efficiency CCGT gas generation was used instead.
Peter Lang does a thorough analysis of the cost of supplying all of Australia (one of the best locations on Earth) with Renewables. Conclusion:
Solar PV with Pumped Hydro storage: $2,800 billion
Solar PV with NaS battery storage: $4,600 billion
Solar Thermal with storage: $4,400 billion
Nuclear Power: $120 billion
Just the cost of the Power Transmission TRUNK lines (500kv AC - not superexpensive superconducting ) to supply Australia with Wind & Solar Energy is $180 billion -- 50% MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR OPTION!!
CO2 emissions for all of Australia for 30 days:
Solar PV: 71 million tonnes
Coal: 219 million tonnes
Coal with CCS: 33 million tonnes
Nuclear: 3.3 million tonnes
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_v2.pdf
It's no contest - nuclear wins hands down.
I've been hearing about these advances in solar tech and CSP efficiency for the last 20 years, just as I have about nuclear fusion.
With Focus Fusion, and Polywell, now achieving breakthroughs every month, and the Thorium based LFTR reactor, all promising costs under a quarter of a cent a kwh, within ten years, cheap high efficiency solar is a really poor bet.
Largest solar installation in the US at Arcadia Florida
42 Gwh/annual $150M,$32B/Gw or 50 cents a kilowatt hour at Florida Power's discount rate.
So far nobody has been able to get solar CSP under the PV price and most especially not with thermal storage added in.
A mass produced no tech single pane skylight at Home Depot costs $200 a sq meter.
A 120 watt solar panel is really nothing more than a sq meter of solar cells worth maybe $120 today glued to that skylite.
Until super efficient solar cells gets down to a reasonable price, the current ones even free glued to that skylight will keep prices above $2 a watt. 35 cents a kwh average.
sethdayal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you say is not true.
The storage of the spent material for life...$$$$!
The wasted money of the four near meltdowns...$$$$!
The cost and threat of a disasters... just moving the stuff around the country.$$$$$$!!!!
We have had accidents...you think that they were cheap?
Who pays you to fib? Or, are you one the smart people, who has a problem using common sense?
Where do you live?...lets put a waste storage site near your home! Which is better solar, toxic waste or ugly wind turbines. Long term storage is not even worked out as safe yet.
Right now I am paying a ton of money on my electric bill. With anything other than solar power, that can be placed on my roof, I will always be paying a ton of money on my electric bill. Once they get the full-spectrum solar panels built, the electric company will be paying me a ton of money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to stop destroying the earth in digging up these dangerous fossil fuels and radio active fossils. Anything that is on this earth and produces radiation is too dangerous to use as a fuel. I think solar power is the only way to go...safe, clean, cheap, and worth my time in installing it on my home to produce enough power to run anything I have in my home and on my garage to charge my new electric car.
What a crock. IEA, once again a mouthpeice for the fossil fuel industry and their subsidiary - the renewable energy scams dept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToxic Solar Waste:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
Please bury that in Bops yard, I will bury my 1 cubic inch of Nuclear Waste, that would supply my lifetime's ENERGY needs, from natural thorium burnt in a GenIV reactor. Or 35 cu. in. from a standard once through LWR.
Desert Solar Thermal power is inexcusable stupidity. A total scam. The latest & greatest Ivanpah Solar Thermal plant in the Mojave desert is $1.37B for 392 MWpk, 125 MWavg. 30% of that comes from NG used as an adjunct to the Solar Energy. So that's $15.6k per kwavg Solar Electricity. Add to that the quadruple oversized long distance power transmission line and peak output NG pipeline, both paid by the public, and we are up to over $18k per kwavg.
And now we still need fossil fuel guzzling NG or Coal to supply the balance of the Electricity or about 70% of the total. Again paid by the public. Add another $3k per kwavg for that. So we are up to $21k per kwavg. Plus O&M costs for the Solar Power plant, about 2 cents per kwh, plus NG fuel costs for the Solar Power plant, about 2 cents per kwh at certain future NG prices, plus O&M for the Coal or NG shadowing power plant of about 4 cents per kwh.
So here you have it, $21k per kwavg capital cost plus 8 cents per kwh O&M costs, for a GHG belching, unreliable, ecologically destructive power source, that requires huge quantities of precious desert cooling & washing water:
"...To maintain the efficiency of the process, all of the 40-foot-high mirrors-ten million square feet of mirror surface-must be washed every five days or so, plus a high-pressure wash every ten-to-twenty days..."
"...[Andasol 1] It will use 560 million litres/year of fresh water, [20 MWavg] mostly for cooling the steam circuit, drawn from local ground water..."
Compare this with Nuclear, $4-6k per kwavg, for First-Of-A-Kind power plants, with a 90% capacity factor. Reliable 24/7, rain or shine, winter or summer power with only recycled ocean water needed for cooling. Short, fully utilized, power transmission lines straight to the major load centers. O&M costs are currently 1.7 cents per kwh. Nuclear produces 71,000 GWh/HA of Land Area vs the Solar Thermal of 31 GWh/HA. Minimal Environmental impact for the Nuclear. And Factory production hasn't even been done yet for NPP's. That would bring capital costs down to $1-2k per kw.
sethdayal, you seem to be happy to completely ignore where the fuel used in nuclear reactors comes from. Uranium 235 isn't exactly just lying around. Massive open pit mining operations are required and to make matters even worse U-235 only accounts for 0.7% of the Uranium recovered with 99.3% being U-238.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would have to be nuts to built reactors now, our supply of U-235 is shrinking faster than our oil supply.
More problems with Solar Thermal power, from Ted Rockwell and William Tucker:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tedrockwell.typepad.com/files/nuclearenergyfactsreport-2010jan22.pdf
http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
"...On August 31, 1986, 240,000 gallons of therminol caught fire and burned, destroying the tower and its equipment. A new tower was built, and the system ran until it shut down permanently in 1988. Solar One had no way to store either heat or electricity, so it had to shut down every time the sun went under a cloud. Literally..."
"...On January 10, 1990, a series of explosions rocked one of the cooling towers and ignited large quantities of therminol. Thirteen engine companies needed 1500 gallons of foam to quench the flames. Then on February 27, 1999, almost a million gallons of therminol caught fire, destroying considerable portion of the facility. The flames released toxic fumes, and a half-square-mile had to be evacuated. The Federal Aviation Administration also set up a no fly zone around the facility..."
Chuck Devore, a state assemblyman from California said this about solar thermal power:
"...And you need to honestly take a look at what's happening out in the desert. I've visited the solar fields out at Cramer Junction. They produce as I recall about 135 MW of power. They are solar thermal fields that have been up probably for about 20 years now. In other words not very much power. And they cover about 1000 acres or so. And what I was struck by when I went out to visit them was the fact that there was no plant or animal life whatsoever underneath those panels. The entire 1000 acre area was a dead zone, because the plants are a fire hazard for the parabolic trough mirrors. And they spray, like an herbicide to keep the plants from growing and to keep the dust down because the dust and sand abrade the mirrors and increases their maintenance costs. And so what I found somewhat interesting was that in that entire area it was devoid of any life. Now people who don't live in the desert may think that's all well and good, there's no life out there anyway, but as a guy who has spent a lot of time out in the eastern High Sierra I can tell you there's a lot of life out there...How much of the desert are we willing to cover? Because the energy density of solar power is so minimal compared to the energy density of something like nuclear power where you can produce hundreds of times the amount of electricity on a much smaller imprint on the ground..."
And the panels do effect desert climate adversely, in uncertain ways.
Natedog, Uranium mining is often done in Situ, unlike all the vast materials needed for Solar & Wind Energy. Go on Google Earth, and take a look at the area north of Fort McMurray (75% of North America’s and 97% of Canada’s Oil Reserves are right there), at a resolution of about 1 km per cm, and check out the torn up Earth and Environmental Destruction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow do the same to McArthur River in Northern Saskatchewan, which produces double the Energy of the Tar Sands, burnt in the exceedingly low efficiency, once through LWR, with no fuel reprocessing. And compare the environmental damage - at 1 km per cm you will have a hard time seeing any sign of the Northern Saskatchewan Uranium mines.
Total LIFETIME ENERGY consumption per capita, in the USA would be met with 0.26 kg of natural uranium or thorium with ~0.26 kg or < one cubic inch of waste products, burnt in a GenIV reactor, like a LIFTR, IFR or Accelerator Driven Subcritical Reactor. Just the current US store of Depleted Uranium waste from enriching Uranium for the current Light Water Reactors, burnt in GenIV Reactors, would fuel the entire current US electricity demand for 1150 yrs.
Current one-pass LWR's in the USA use about 250X more mined uranium and 35X more 3.5% enriched uranium fuel than the GenIV above so you have 30 cubic inches of lifetime waste per person or 12 cubic inches of lifetime electricity per capita share.
You would need 1180 tons of Coal or 2770 Barrels of Oil to supply the lifetime per capita Energy Consumption of USA. And Coal solid waste would be 260 tons. And 2540 tons of CO2 or 1.1 million cubic meters.
This site compares the environmental footprints of an open pit (worst case) Uranium mine with a Coal Mine. The Uranium Mine produces 9X the energy of the Coal Mine, burnt in an exceedingly low efficiency GenII LWR, from an area 1/3rd the size. So get your priorities straight.
http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/the-environmental-footprints-of-coal-and-uranium-mining/
Lowest material consumption Solar Thermal requires 13X the concrete & 69X the steel of a GenIII NPP. Not including the inescapable backup power plant, and extreme distance, oversized transmission lines, for the Solar. Transported way out to the desert, where water is scarce. See:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
I saw no mention of environmental impact assessments. Are we going to repeat the mistakes of the past by making assumptions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear is an unsustainable energy source, by the way.
James,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are currently paying "a ton of money" for electricity, you will be paying 3 tons of money if you switch to solar. That is unless Uncle Same pours some of my money into it.
While I love the *idea* of renewable energy, and hope some 'magic' storage mechanism comes along that can solve intermittency in a far cheaper way than is now possible, I think we need to GET REAL about clean, baseload power that can run the world for millions of years... until something better comes along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nuclear power is cheaper than power from renewables and soon will be cheaper than coal. A nuclear plant costs more up-front to build than a wind or solar plant, and they take longer to build, but they have low operating costs and they last 60 years or more making them a far better financial investment than renewable power typically by a factor of 2. For example, if you use this calculator to compare an AP1000 to GE 2.5 MW XL wind turbines with pumped storage for load management, in North Dakota you get $13 billion/GW for the wind option vs. a max cited figure for a US AP1000 (a new nuclear reactor from Westinghouse) of $7 billion. If the AP1000 lives up to its promises of $1000 per KW construction cost and 3 year construction time, it will provide cheaper electricity than any other fossil fuel based generating facility, including Australian coal power, even with no sequestration charges."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/01/brave-new-power-for-the-world/
IFR's can burn the old 'waste' which is now fuel that can run the world for the next 500 years. The reprocessed waste is so 'hot' it burns itself out much faster, and only has to be stored for 300 years!!!
I have loved renewables for years, but now think we need to get serious. Only nuclear power can do this. Today's plants are safer, cleaner, cheaper, and solve the waste problem not by burying it, but by burning it.
If I ran the world I'd keep DARPA and some companies working on Solar PV for space etc, but would massively roll out IFR nuclear and fast-rail on a HUGE scale to solve peak oil. Smaller modular IFR's can be built on a factory line, and delivered to site, intact, from the back of a truck! This will bring costs down enormously.
Then gradually I'd roll out New Urbanism to really solve oil dependence, and many public health and beauty of public space issues as well.
Bops, Seth has common sense and is not fibbing. So far as I know no one is paying him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatedog, I've driven by a uranium solution mine, not much to see. Look up what a uranium solution mine is - a few well heads, very little surface support. There is more environmental mining damage implicit in the manufacture of your car than there is in the uranium mining that would power you and your family for many, many lifetimes. Many people just don't get the extreme power density of uranium. Very little mining has to happen for a large amount of power obtained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe efficiency of solar panels is not relevant. What matters is the cost per Watt. This cost is falling, but this has been accomplished with less efficient solar panels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with people that want to continue using traditional energy sources, such as coal or uranium is that, sooner or later, they will definitely run out forever. Before we drive humanity into a blind economic and environmental tunnel, it is NOW that we must start developing the sustainable alternatives, as many technical solutions took a very long time to put in place. Nuclear fusion reactors are the obvious example.....Ostrich politics will not work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this