Mow much solar power would $700 billion buy?

[tinrobot]

Anyone want to do the math?

I'm curious as to what $700 billion would buy and whether or not it would make a dent.

[ladjf]

1. I don't know those numbers. But, a 1.5 MW wind turbine that will

supply electricity for 300 homes cost about 1.5 million. (Under realistic wind expected, the number of homes would be less than 300.)

Anyway, there are lots of wind turbines for $700 billion.

[snappyturtle]

2. That's so odd you should say that. At lunchtime my hubby asked

me the same question but his included solar panels too!

[lapfog_1]

3. Already did the math

when I proposed that we increase the "bailout" to include and additional $1.2T dollars to add solar to 100 million rooftops (no EPA impact study needs to be done).

4KW per rooftop, includes installation costs (300,000 workers / management for at approx 10 years).

4KW x 100 M roofs equals 400 GW of addition power or around 100 to 200 nuke plants (actually less, since the nukes produce power at night as well as day).

It would be enough, if coupled with some the wind projects similar to T-boone's, to eliminate our foreign oil imports and turn off a bunch of coal fired power plants (but not all fossil fuels).

Actually, since there isn't anyway to immediately install some 2,000,000 solar panels right away (not enough trained installers), I need to do a spread sheet and see what the actual max "loan amount" really is (should be a lot less than $1.2 T)... because my plan would sell the energy to the home owner / grid for $.10 KW/hr and recoup our investment in under 20 years. When the homeowner has "paid" for his/her solar panels, they own them, thus making their homes more valuable (thus reverses the downward spiral of home values that is the core of the mortgage problem... along with some very stupid loan practices).

I could write this up as a business plan and generate real numbers. Would immediately employ (within 6 months) 200K to 300K workers at avg salary of $60K per year and health / retirement benefits.

It would be like a depression era TVA project, only for the entire nation.

Puts people back to work.
Improves infrastructure.
Eliminates dependence on foreign oil.
Is a very green solution, contributes to a global warming solution (but does NOT solve it completely)
Improves the value of peoples homes (and, yes, investment owners of office/warehouse/factories/apartments, etc)

Is a very distributed solution to electric power, may not need huge investments in grid.
Leads directly to electric powered vehicles or at least plug in hybrids.

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. $3/Watt Installed?

Thats preatty good as I can't even find Solar Panels for less than $5/watt nevermind paying for installation, inverters etc. I would have expected a minimum of $9/Watt probably higher due to the demand pressure of putting up so many installations at once.

[lapfog_1]

24. Actually there are $5/watt single panels available right now.

http://www.firemountainsolar.com/solarpanels.html

Sanyo HIT-200 BA3

Anyway, I was figuring that the government would go into the solar panel business, as we would need some 20 panels per average install or 20 x 100,000,000 or 2 Billion panels. Even contracted out to a consortium of manufacturers (like war material in WWII), I figured we could drop the price per panel by 50 %. The raw materials per panel is certainly much less than this amount. And, yeah, the installed price has an inverter and meter included (since we are billing either the grid or the homeowner $.10 per KWhr). Probably some sort of communication package as well to upload the meter stats (not priced in). I was fairly generous on the install as well, figuring 2 days for 3 engineers to install 20 panels.

The real number is the maximum "draw down" amount, which is the point at which, because of the installed base revenue, we quit needing to "borrow" money to continue the build out. Since I gave the project 10 years to complete, I'm guessing that the max loan for the program is much less than the $1.2 or $1.3T cost. Possibly under the $700B number from the original post. Operated for 20 years, the program actually makes money for Uncle Sam... not to mention that we are buying fixed price electricity NOW for 20 years into the future. Fuel for other non-renewable systems is only likely to go up (clean coal, natural gas)... not to mention that this will likely substitute for gasoline to drive your vehicle. Commuting on electricity at $.10KWhr is, I believe, a *lot* cheaper than gasoline today and will be much much cheaper than gasoline in 2028.

Oh, one other global warming thing...

2 billion panels at 1.21 sq meters per panel is a total area of 2.42 billion sq meters of reflective material. I don't know enough to know if this amount of reflection helps with global warming, but it might.

[kristopher]

47. Thanks.

I enjoyed the link and the thoughts. I agree that a war footing with direct government investment is the most productive approach. Innovation is good, but we aren't trying to drive innovation; we are trying to build a new framework that gives innovation directions and establishes parameters within which it can flourish.

[kristopher]

4. Better to spend it on infrastructure

700 billion STIMULUS would completely effect the transition to renewables. The current proposal by Obama is to spend 150 billion over ten years.

Here is a news release from a plant that makes solar production facilities and using their growth as a guide, a back of the envelope sketch of the growth of the industry overall. This was posted previously:

Despatch Industries Sells Over 7GW of Photovoltaic Production Capacity

Minneapolis, Minn. (PRWEB) August 27, 2008 -- Despatch Industries, the leading process technology provider for the solar industry, proudly announces that the company has sold over 7GW of photovoltaic production capacity worldwide. Despatch partners with solar industry leaders to provide the process technology expertise for integrated solutions that make solar power a viable and affordable energy option.

"This is a tremendous achievement for Despatch," says Steve Oman, Director of International Sales and Corporate Business Development. "A year ago we were celebrating our success in supplying 2GW of production capacity. The incredible rate at which we are growing is evidence of our critical role in the industry as a valued process technology expert and innovative equipment provider."

A year ago we were celebrating our success in supplying 2GW of production capacity. The incredible rate at which we are growing is evidence of our critical role in the industry as a valued process technology expert and innovative equipment provider.
Despatch products are consistently recognized for exceptional performance and process quality, optimal cell efficiency, maximum equipment uptime and reduced operating costs.

Despatch's expanded photovoltaic product portfolio includes the recently introduced 60MW dual-lane firing furnace, the integrated in-line diffusion system and the flagship metallization firing furnace..."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/8/prweb1247214.htm

From that we can extrapolate:
2008: original plant produces 5 plants each capable of producing 1GW of panels each year.
2009: first 5 plant produce 5Gw of panels, 5 new plants come online.
2010: first 10 plants produce 10GW of panels, 5 more new plants come online. Panels from first 5 plants produce electricity for full year.
2011: first 15 plants produce 15GW of panels, 5 new plants come online....

So by the end of 2018 we would have 50 plants, each producing 1GW worth of panels each year. Using a conservative 14% capacity factor, that is 7GW of full time production equivalent. That means that the panels produced in JUST 2018 will ACTUALLY produce 61,320,000,000,000 watt hours of electricity.
Add to that
the 45GW of panels produced in 2017,
the 40GW of panels produced in 2016,
the 35GW of panels produced in 2015,
the 30GW of panels produced in 2014,
the 25GW of panels produced in 2013,
the 20GW of panels produced in 2012,
the 15GW of panels produced in 2011,
the 10GW of panels produced in 2010,
the 5GW of panels produced in 2009

And we have a cumulative installed nameplate capacity of 275GW that actually produced in 2018 (at a c.f. of 14%) a total of 337,260,000 MWh of electricity or about 1.2141359999999999 EJ. (feel free to check my math)

And what happens if we concentrate on building several of the plants producing the machines to build panels?


The PRIMARY energy resources consumed in the US is about 100 exajoules per year (2000), so the actual energy consumed by user is about 35EJ.

Since solar and wind don't suffer the thermal wastes those numbers represent, with storage, we need only produce the lower number, not the higher. And if we single out coal and petroleum as the commodities to replace, we are even lower. Add in improvements in efficiency and conservation and in ten years that one factory has laid the groundwork for meeting about 5% of out total power needs.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. About 70 GW, or the equivalent of 18 typical coal-fired plants

Typical large PV instalations tend to roll in at $10/W (or more), and the capacity at 26% (at best). This doesn't include any storage or back-up for night time, of course.

That would get you ~1.6 PJ/day, out of 292 PJ/day total energy production (0.55%): I'll leave it up to you to work out how big a dent that is.

[kristopher]

6. The price isn't right.

Two problems with your prediction besides the fact that you are making up the price number out of thin air. First, we are talking about injecting 700 billion into the process. That is a huge demand that will result in dramatic price reductions. I know you nukenuts understand economies of scale, but apparently the only thing you think it applies to are custom built nuclear power plants. You persist in ignoring the obvious price effect such a scale up would have on production of solar panels. Flat panel HD TVs started at about $10K each. Now they are about $600.
Currently panels cost about $1 a watt for thin film and $3 a watt for crystalline and the factories are running at maximum and expanding. ROOFTOP homeowner installation runs about $4-5 a watt, which is another number begging to be slashed.

Second is the implicit idea you are using that solar is going to be the only renewable technology employed. The combination of energy efficiency, high levels of V2G penetration, CAES storage for wind and a smart grid provide an undisputed means of meeting the goals of a renewable energy infrastructure.

If there is a government program directing 700 billion dollars to the end of revamping our energy infrastructure it will easily structure the flow of money towards getting the job done in its entirely - a task expecting to require somewhere around 3 trillion total.

[TheWraith]

8. Solar cells have been in bulk production for decades.

Economies of scale have already effected them, just not enough. Furthermore, every dollar that you invest in V2G, efficiency, and CAES, is money that's no longer put into solar generation.

$700 billion is nowhere near enough for a comprehensive solar system. You're talking several trillion to do that.

[kristopher]

10. No they haven't. Not even close.

Existing infrastructure is geared to serve what is essentially a luxury, niche market. That gives absolutely no indication of what the price would be under a policy commitment to massive demand. The entire cost of moving to a renewable infrastructure is about 3 trillion.

[TheWraith]

22. It's a luxury market because mass production can't help the price.

Again, they've been trying to bring down the price for decades, and it hasn't worked, because absent a breakthough in technology--and none of them have been viable outside the lab--there's only so much that can be done to reduce the price on a silicon PV panel.

[kristopher]

26. your "arguments" are those of a six year old.

If you want to ignore the basic laws of supply and demand, then go for it.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. lol

Quick, that dead horse just moved! Beat it some more!

[XemaSab]

45. .

[bananas]

44. They have been bringing the price down for decades

And they do work outside the lab.
Prices have followed an exponential decline,
and installations have followed an exponential increase.
From Earth Policy Institute: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007_data.htm

[Dead_Parrot]

14. The price...

...is based on dozens of articles Jpak has posted on utility scale solar projects. I suggest you go and read some of them.

Your claim that "panels cost about $1 a watt for thin film and $3 a watt for crystalline" is simply untrue: http://www.solarbuzz.com track these prices pretty closely, and they give $4.30/Wp for Monocrystalline, $4.26/Wp for Multicrystalline, and $3.47/Wp for thin film.

They also list home installations as $8-12: Again, you're simply wrong.

Your belief that the price only goes down is not born out by reality:



Yet again, wrong.

And I have no idea why you think I should be talking about CAES or your millions of plug-ins when the question was, "How much solar power would $700 billion buy?". I know you have a pathological inability to give a straight answer to a straight question, but I don't.

[kristopher]

18. Ok I can see why you're confused.

I'm talking about production costs, not retail costs.

I'm talking about long term trends, not short term fluctuations.

I'm talking about a market where huge demand is driven by policies designed specifically to attract investment to infrastructure, not a market dominated by fossil fuels were alternative energies are a niche market.

" PV Costs to Decrease 40% by 2010
Washington, DC

The solar industry is poised for a rapid decline in costs that will make it a mainstream power option in the next few years, according to a new assessment by the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C., and the Prometheus Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

"To say that Chinese PV producers plan to expand production rapidly in the year ahead would be an understatement. They have raised billions from international IPOs to build capacity and increase scale with the goal of driving down costs. Four Chinese IPOs are expected to come to market this month alone."

-- Travis Bradford, Prometheus Institute, president

Global production of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells has risen sixfold since 2000 and grew 41 percent in 2006 alone. Although grid-connected solar capacity still provides less than 1 percent of the world’s electricity, it increased nearly 50 percent in 2006, to 5,000 megawatts, propelled by booming markets in Germany and Japan.

Spain is likely to join the big leagues in 2007, and the U.S. soon thereafter.

This growth, while dramatic, has been constrained by a shortage of manufacturing capacity for purified polysilicon, the same material that goes into semiconductor chips. But the situation will be reversed in the next two years as more than a dozen companies in Europe, China, Japan, and the United States bring on unprecedented levels of production capacity, stated the assessment.

In 2006, for the first time, more than half the world’s polysilicon was used to produce solar PV cells. Combined with technology advances, the increase in polysilicon supply will bring costs down rapidly -- by more than 40 percent in the next three years, according to Prometheus estimates.

“Solar energy is the world’s most plentiful energy resource, and the challenge has been tapping it cost-effectively and efficiently,” says Janet Sawin, a senior researcher at Worldwatch, who authored the update. “We are now seeing two major trends that will accelerate the growth of PV: the development of advanced technologies, and the emergence of China as a low-cost producer.”

The biggest surprise in 2006 was the dramatic growth in PV production in China. Last year, China passed the U.S., which first developed modern solar cell technology at Bell Labs in New Jersey in the 1950s, to become the world’s third largest producer of the cells -- trailing only Germany and Japan.

China’s leading PV manufacturer, Suntech Power, climbed from the world’s eighth largest producer in 2005 to fourth in 2006, and PVs have made the company’s CEO one of his nation’s wealthiest citizens. Experts believe that China, with its growing need for energy, large work force, and strong industrial base, could drive dramatic reductions in PV prices in the next few years, helping to make solar competitive with conventional power even without subsidies.

“To say that Chinese PV producers plan to expand production rapidly in the year ahead would be an understatement,” says Travis Bradford, President of the Prometheus Institute. “They have raised billions from international IPOs to build capacity and increase scale with the goal of driving down costs. Four Chinese IPOs are expected to come to market this month alone.”

In the meantime, supply shortages have led manufacturers to find ways to use polysilicon more efficiently, and have accelerated the introduction of new technologies that do not rely on purified silicon and are inherently less expensive to manufacture. So-called thin film cells can be made from amorphous silicon and other low-cost materials, and companies developing these technologies have recently become the darlings of Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

Although in the past, thin film cells have not been efficient enough to compete with conventional cells, today over a dozen companies -- including Miasole, Nanosolar, and Ovonics -- are competing to scale up production of low-cost solar modules that can be churned out like rolls of plastic.

“The conventional energy industry will be surprised by how quickly solar PV becomes mainstream -- cheap enough to provide carbon-free electricity on rooftops, while also meeting the energy needs of hundreds of millions of poor people who currently lack electricity,” Sawin says."

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48624

[TheWraith]

23. They've been making predictions like that for decades, too.

Back in the early 90s they were saying that PV was going to be 40% of the country's energy by 2000. Those press releases are intended to stir up positive press and investment, not reflect real-world logistics.

[kristopher]

25. I don't believe that is true.

There has been no move to renewables until 1 thing happens: the price of fossil fuels increase dramatically. There was a move in the late 70s that died with the expansion of petroleum production that started pumping in the early mid80s. There has been another upswing since 2000 with the price rise brought about by increased demand from developing nations. Now, we not only have the increased global demand for energy, but we also have a strong indication that the next administration will be an active participant in the effort to revamp our energy infrastructure.

That press release is based on solid numbers from an analysis of solar production capabilities and relative prices of energy.

Why is it the nukenuts on this forum ALWAYS resort to false statements? ALWAYS.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. I'm talking about reality

As Wraith said, predictions like this have been around for decades (what you believe is irrelevant): I'd draw your attention to the minor fact that US PV prices have been rising for the last few months, and European ones stable, despite what your 18-month-old article predicted.

[kristopher]

31. No, you're talking about a slice of reality

and ignoring that which you find inconvenient. Your assertion that "predictions like this have been around for decades" is so general that it isn't possible to actually address it. The general pattern of events based on the essential characteristics of these technologies are pretty evident. Renewbles are clean and good as long as the sun is there, the raw resource is more than ample to meet our needs; and fossil fuels and are dirty and finite. So sure, since we started worrying about running out of gas, there have been people predicting (correctly) that renewables are going to replace fossil fuels.

What that misses is that the people who actually are trained to evaluate the different technologies from within their technical, political and economic contexts HAVE NOT made ANY claims such as you are attributing to them.

Makers of panels are adding capacity as fast as they can and new players are jumping into the solar market. The industry is simply not as you are attempting to portray it. It is attracting unprecedented levels of investment and still cannot keep up with demand. Nanosolar is SELLING their 14% CF panels for $0.95/w (production costs are supposed to be around $0.30) and yet there product isn't on the retail market at all because they are devoting 100% of their capacity to municipal level projects. This is only one approach that current energy prices are providing the initiative to bring to market.

The fact is that the options for our energy infrastructure are now being put into place. Independent of the realities of the competing technologies you've decided you WANT nuclear energy to be the technology pursued. To that end you routinely make these poor, half-baked "assessments" of renewable energy technologies. You can ignore the forward looking view if you want but is a conscious decision on your part that invalidates your understanding of the current and future status of these different industries.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. It's only impossible...

if you haven't been following energy news for years...

In fact, many of that country's scientists anticipate that once the technology has matured, the cost of such cells could drop to 70¢ per watt by 1985... and to as low as 25¢ per watt by 1990.http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1982-11-01/Solar-Generated-Electricity.aspx

...and can't be bothered to do any research....

With a coordinated 18-month engineering effort... UPG would be able to manufacture PV modules at a cost of under $1.25 per watt by 1994. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5767575

...and use google...

SMUD believes that with a sustained, widespread collaborative effort, PV system prices could drop below $3 per watt by 2000... http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/chap07.html

...or go back a few years in the E/E archives...

"How close are we? John Thornton, leader of PV applications at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, calls $3 per watt by 2002 "a realistic number. Many things have to happen .. but technically it's possible." http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/sdsolar2.htm

But if you really don't want to know what you're talking about, I can't help you.

I note, BTW, that Nanosolar have announced they're building their own array in Luckenwalde - at $4.27/watt. If the panels only cost them .30/watt, what are they spending the rest on?

[kristopher]

37. Your 'evidence' supports what I've said

Your first link is from 1982. I specified that the first push for solar didn't end until "early mid 80s". Read that as 83, 84.
As you can see by your citation, the technology isn't speculative.

******************

Your second citation is from 1991 and states specifically: "it also projects the cost analysis of a future production facility based on a larger module area, a larger production rate, and the elimination of several technical obstacles. With a coordinated 18-month engineering effort, the technical obstacles could be overcome. Therefore, if solutions to the financial obstacles concerning production expansion were found, UPG would be able to manufacture PV modules at a cost of under $1.25 per watt by 1994."

With a coordinated 18-month engineering effort, the technical obstacles could be overcome.


if solutions to the financial obstacles concerning production expansion were found, UPG would be able to manufacture PV modules at a cost of under $1.25 per watt by 1994.


This is one piece of the "technical, political, economic" set of criteria that the technologies need to be evaluated by. The fact is that you read the first cite without knowledge of the significance of the date; and even though the second paper itself specifies its own limits, you read it without understanding that it is only one facet of an analysis. Your failure to see these properties in your argument doesn't speak well to your ability to make an argument or do an analysis.


**************************************

From the third link:

According to green-eyeshade analysts, $3 per watt is the figure at whichPV becomes "competitive". Translated: at three bucks per watt it will be just as cheap to mount a PV panel on your roof as to deliver juice through the wires. Subsidies could become irrelevant and PV will be competitive with fossil fuels on price alone even ignoring its phenomenal environmental advantages.

How close are we? John Thornton, leader of PV applications at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, calls $3 per watt by 2002 "a realistic number. Many things have to happen .. but technically it's possible."

In other words, the solar millennium could arrive shortly after the chronological one. Within five years, it will be just as cheap (in sunny locations) to use solar power as conventional electricity. Yet experts warn that capacity will be unable to meet demand.

And $3 per watt is not magic. As mass-production improves, PV's will increasingly be made with techniques of the glass and plastics industries. John Bigger of the Utility Photovoltaic Group says $1 per watt is a reasonable price projection at some point after 2010...

You think this is a gotcha because, I suppose, because the writer (not exactly peer reviewed) has mistaken the production cost for the retail price and written a popular press piece around that mistake. In fact, the beginning of the paper notes the relevant factors correctly, but puts them together improperly. The production cost was approaching $3/w by 2002. The author then goes on to note that production will be unable to keep up with demand - true. What the author failed to do was connect those two statements. The profit generated by high retail prices related to production costs has attracted a great deal of investment and the price is on schedule for the "after 2010" date mentioned.

Where is the contradiction?

************************************

The EIA analysis likewise. Where is the false or overly optimistic "claim"? It isn't there. It is an analysis of what is possible given different constraints and possibilities. That is what analysis is all about.

***************************************

Finally your brilliant riposte of throwing that Nanosolar price at me. You must be terribly proud of yourself for that one, but perhaps you'd clarify for me exactly what that $4.27/w buys? Is it a refutation of the panel production cost of $.030 that I spoke of? Or is it actually a final project cost of installed per watt price?

You do understand those are two distinct metrics, don't you?

[Dead_Parrot]

40. Lol. Whatever, dude

As I asked, perhaps you can explain why Nanosolar are charging themselves a 1657% margin for their own array.

We'll let Your assertion that "predictions like this have been around for decades" is so general that it isn't possible to actually address it. stand on it's own merits. Or lack thereof.

[kristopher]

42. Why do you make me think of Jethro Tull?

As noted, your "question" is another example of you not knowing WTF you are talking about.

Tell you what, the next time you take your car to the shop for a repair tell them to do it without charging you labor. I'm sure that the cost of parts is all they need to recoup.

Poor little feller ain't got a single brain cell sociable enough to talk to another...

[Dead_Parrot]

43. Yea! Kris gets a clue!

Yes, Kristopher, there are labour costs. Well done.

There are also transport and connection costs, incidentally, and the costs of the mountings, and if you're building a utility array, land & facility costs. So Nanosolar's project, even though they have practically zero panel and transport costs and land already provided still have to pay millions to build a fairly small array because they still have to pay the other installation costs

Unless you plan on using slave labour, the cost of the actual hardware is less than half the total array cost: Shaving a few cents on a production line does not make the end price dramatically go down, no matter how hard you concentrate on an ideal curve from "Economics with Spot".

Even if the panels cost 1 cent per watt, you still wouldn't get more than 120 or 130 GW for your $700 billion: As it is, typical large PV instalations tend to roll in at $10/W, which I think is where we started.

[kristopher]

46. What a joker you are...

You begin your post by describing an all in price of $4+change for a PV plant and end your paragraph repeating the completely disproved claim that the price is $10.


<Que Eddie Murphy belly laugh>

I still don't think your preference for calculating how much effect could be wrought from $700 billion is an accurate way to measure it. Regardless of the per watt price you want to get this done with a single line equation. That doesn't cut it. Given the many variables at work the one extremely safe bet is that your straight line simplistic approach is more likely to be wrong than almost any other conceivable way of looking at the problem.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. ...and loses it again.

You missed the bit about the land and the transport, didn't you?

Sigh.

[TheWraith]

7. Yes and no.

Solar power is the wrong question to ask. Even with that kind of investment, you're talking about at most a couple percent of our energy demand, which isn't enough to seriously affect things.

If you want to get an interesting answer, you need to look to more cost-effective options. So put it this way: that amount of money, split between wind turbines and nuclear reactors, would eliminate the use of coal in the United States and save around 40,000 lives a year from decreased air polution.

[kristopher]

9. Nuclear energy is a waste of money.

It is permanently toxic, and it encourages the spread of nuclear weapons.

Also, your statement about solar being able to meet "at most a couple percent of our energy demand" is a knowing and deliberate falsehood. It is also an incredibly obvious and stupid falsehood.

[TheWraith]

21. Sorry, but what you say is false.

Simple numbers prove you wrong. Current solar panels cost around $4 per watt. Now, at $700 billion, that's about 175 GW of nameplate capacity, or ~44 gigawatt/hours per day. In comparison, that's about the same as is produced by a single nuclear plant per day. Now, our total electrical production is 1100 gigawatts, so those solar panels wouldn't meet real-time demands at noon on the sunniest day of the year.

Even if we postulated that we magically produced solar panels at $1 per watt, completely ignoring storage, installation, and maintainence, you're still talking about only 200 GW/h per day of generation, and 700 GW of peak capacity.

Oh, and that 44 GW/hours a day? That's around 1 percent of all US electrical demand.

Just randomly accusing anyone who tells you a fact you don't like of lying doesn't make it so.

[kristopher]

28. As if the current pricing would prevail under such a scenario.

If you want to pretend that such an investment is just business as usual, that speaks to your understanding, not to the actual way events would shake out.

[lutherj]

11. Here's a simple calculation that Richard Heinberg did on this subject:

" . . . just what $700 billion means in terms of our nation’s energy infrastructure. America has about 130 million private homes, so that’s about $5,400 per home—not quite enough to put a one-kilowatt photovoltaic system on every roof. I use that as a standard, because that’s what my wife and I have on our own house, and it basically zeros out our electricity bill for the year."

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46694

[kristopher]

12. That is overly simplistic.

Can you imagine ANY electronic product that when a couple of trillion dollar's worth of demand (the $700 billion would be a *stimulus* not an all in number) suddenly manifests itself, the price remains stable?

[lutherj]

13. True, and of course you couldn't just allocate all that money to the nations

home owners.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Well, quite

The run on high-grade silicon would push the price through the roof.

[Nihil]

16. Shush with that negativity!

The price *only* *ever* comes *down*, remember?

I bet you never clapped to save Tinkerbell either ... :spank:

[kristopher]

17. Which in turn pulls investment into facilities to manufacture

High quality silicon.

Right, that's the way it works. And you end up with products like $100 laptops. My first cost $3600.

[One_Life_To_Give]

20. Is that like subsidizing the cost of oil makes it cheaper?

When China and India invest billions in subsidizing the price of gas and diesel. Makes the price of oil on the global market drop?

Actually in the case of computers it was stiff competition and a limited market that drove down prices.

[kristopher]

27. The funds from the government are a part of the picture

They are used to encourage investment in conjunction with policy changes that make the goal of a renewable infrastructure clear.

In some ways it is the same as subsidizing oil, in that the subsidy is aimed at facilitating the growth of associated infrastructure by encouraging growth in the use of X commodity. We've been subsidizing fossil fuels heavily for a long time; both directly and indirectly. Part of the program would be ENDING the subsidies that support the harmful infrastructure and subsidizing the growth of the infrastructure you DO want. Eventually (hopefully soon), the playing field will be one where renewable energy sources have the same type of inherent advantage over fossil fuels aas fossil fuels currently have over renewables.

In the case of renewables we now subsidize largely by production. A better method with such a large sum of money ($700 Bb) might be to provide greater and more rapid depreciation for the money spent on plants to build equipment to harvest solar or wind.

Increased demand will bring increased prices which brings increased profits which attracts increased investment which causes increased competition which reduces prices via both increases in manufacturing efficiency and improvements in technology.

The results you see from a few tens of millions of dollars per year to hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few years would be pretty dramatic.

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Like it did in 2003, you mean?

The shortage then caused a spike in price which still hasn't recovered - even though a number of plants have been built solely for solar silicon in the meantime.

This is one of things you need to work on, Kris - you're attempting to make decisions based purely on theory, with no regards for real data. It makes a world of difference.

[kristopher]

32. That is your image, not the reality

Show me one place where I've dealt with supply demand events for solar over the past 10 years. I haven't. I've consistently defined the parameters of what I'm talking about - starting with strong policy support for a shift to renewable energy infrastructure. Looking at isolated points on the continuum of solar product development does little to support your case. In this case, we have increased demand brought on by high energy prices and global warming fears. This has maxed out our current infrastructure adding a premium to prices. That price premium is what attracts more investment and "take it to market" innovation. That is the phase we are seeing now. This isn't going to change in a year or two. In fact it is liable to get worse before it gets better.

If the next president and congress enshrine the shift to renewable infrastructure into law, then the final market mechanism will have been laid - long term market stability for renewable demand. Once that is in place there will be a sharp spike in demand. As manufacturing capacity chases this demand the price will drop as efficiency is also pursued. When manufacturing finally catches up to this demand and manufacturers become price takers, then we will have seen the same trend we see with ALL other consumer electronics.

The more money we channel into renewable investment, the sooner we get to that state of market equilibrium (where solar is 'cheap').

So you see, you've been so busy trying to promote nuclear and trash renewables that you really haven't taken the time to listen to what I'm actually saying. I'd say that is a much better demonstration of someone with little regard for real data than the false one you thought you'd found.

[Dead_Parrot]

35. You're damn right you haven't dealt with it for 10 years

You're not making any attempt to catch up, either.

[kristopher]

38. Talk about getting the facts screwed up...

You wrote of an economic event occurring 5 years ago. I said I haven't addressed economic events for solar of the past decade. So are you easily confused or deliberately obtuse?

[Dead_Parrot]

39. I'm pointing out you're clueless. nt

[kristopher]

41. You're slinging trash

You're slinging trash and you THINK that is the same as making an argument.

It isn't.

[NNadir]

33. Not much, althought the environmental fuck up would become crystalline clear.

The low energy density of solar energy has huge environmental consequences, all of which are missed because solar energy is as bad a failure as say, Lehman Brothers.

Throwing 700 billion dollars at solar energy would be about as useful, but it would generate a huge toxic waste problem, notably in heavy metals and acidic fluorides.

No doubt though, it would be popular with a lot of people who don't know very much about science.