MIT Study suggests current solar power tech is good enough

[FLPanhandle]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/09/current-solar-power-tech-is-good-enough/



The standard line about solar power is that while good in theory, the technology just isn't there to keep our lights on and our Netflix streaming. But a new study from MIT (PDF) suggests that's not the case. According to the massive report (an epic 356 pages) current crystalline silicon photovoltaic technology is capable of delivering terawatt-scale power by 2050. That would be many times larger than Topaz facility California that generates 550 megawatts. While there is certainly room for improvement in efficiency, the MIT study says that the biggest hurdle isn't tech, it's investment.

The authors called out the lack of funding for research and development, but focused more on poor governmental policies. Subsidies generally go to other energy sources, like oil and natural gas, and trade policies set by the federal government have driven up prices by restricting imports of cheaper solar parts in order to boost domestic production

Full MIT Study: http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/MIT%20Future%20of%20Solar%20Energy%20Study_compressed.pdf

[Brother Buzz]

1. In my opinion, as soon as the technology to store power catches up we're good to go.

And I've been reading about significant breakthroughs that are just now emerging.

[djean111]

2. Our government is owned by corporations who do not make money from solar, who do not control solar,

who have invested in fossil fuels and nuclear plants. They will wring the last dime out of us, and extract the last drop of oil and shard of coal and litter the country with nuclear waste and poison all the water by fracking, before they will permit our government to subsidize solar.

[DirkGently]

3. We could there much quicker if we made it a priority. n/t

[FLPanhandle]

4. Imagine where we'd be if Jimmy Carter had beeen re-elected

His investment plans in solar would have us 30 years along by now.

[Igel]

5. Much quicker in what way?

In investment--by which they mean build-out, not R&D?

We'd have repeated the mistakes with the Internet and credit-card technology. We're where we are because we built out our infrastructure with developing tech. If we'd waited a few years, we'd have invested billions in building out using better tech. Now we have the infrastructure and the incentive to replace it is outweighed by the cost of duplicating the effort. In the case of the Internet build-out, it was subsidized. Perhaps waiting a bit would have been wiser. In the case of the credit-card tech infrastructure, that was mostly privately funded, but regulated to enforce inter-compatibility and reduce the amount of diversity and innovation as it came along. Even now we'd probably need new regs for chip technology.

As for R&D, I was told when I was a kid that in 10 years we'd have fusion. Others want ponies or flying cars. I want fusion. It's been 43 years since I was excited about having fusion by the time I finished college. Now I'm 56. A couple of milestones, predicted to be reached by the time I was 15 or 16, have been passed--mostly in the last 5 years. But dozens of milestones were to have been passed by 1985 and simply weren't--and couldn't have been. You pour billions into R&D and, well, there are only so many labs, so many researchers, and so many novel ideas that can be tested--and they all take time to test. in the '70s there were far fewer labs, researchers, and novel ideas for both fusion and for photovoltaics than there are now.

[DirkGently]

6. Infrastructure. Grants. Roll outs. Everything.

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

We subsidize oil companies with billions that could start powering the country with renewables. There is no reason for Germany and India to be ahead of us there.

We don't need a fusion reactor or a super capacitor. We only need to DO it.