What's Raining On Solar's Parade?

[jpak]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_06/b3970108.htm

Sometimes it's possible to be a little too successful. The solar power industry has been on a tear, growing at more than 30% per year for the last six years. It's poised to reach a surprising milestone within two years, when it will gobble up more silicon for its electricity-generating panels than semiconductor makers use in all their chips and devices. The onetime "'tree-hugger' industry is not a niche business anymore," says Lisa Frantzis, director of renewable energy at Navigant Consulting Inc.

So what's the problem? "Global demand is stronger than the existing supply," says Lee Edwards, president and CEO of BP Solar (BP ). His company and others can't buy enough of the ultrapure polysilicon now used in 91% of solar panels. The raw material shortage has slashed growth for the industry from more than 50% in 2004 to a projected 5% in 2006.

The shortage has caused prices for polysilicon to more than double over the last two years. As Economics 101 teaches, that should prompt producers to expand capacity. But for suppliers such as Michigan-based Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., the world's largest producer, the decision hasn't been easy. For one thing, the company was badly burned in 1998. It had just built a new facility in response to pleas from semiconductor makers when Asia went into a slowdown. Demand for silicon plunged, and the factory had to be shuttered. Now the U.S., Germany, and other nations are offering subsidies for solar power -- but governments can take away incentives as easily as they put them in place. "We did a lot of soul-searching," says Hemlock President and CEO Donald E. Pfuehler. "Would the incentives go away? Is the solar industry real or just a flash in the pan?"

Hemlock finally decided that the industry is real, but only after solar companies agreed to share the risk by signing contracts to buy the future output. So in December the company began an expansion worth more than $400 million that will increase silicon production by 50%. Competitors are following suit. On Jan. 12, Munich-based Wacker started construction on a silicon manufacturing plant. The new supply, however, won't be onstream until 2008.

<more>

[donsu]

1. thanks for info - hoping demand brings down the cost

I've used solar on a boat. worked great

I just got a wind up flash light - neat!

[phantom power]

2. The problem is: demand keeps the cost up!

Now, large demand allows for larger volume production. Volume production, all things being equal, drives cost down. But if, say, production volume doubles, but demand also doubles, then there's no incentive for the producers to lower the price.

[donsu]

3. true and the demand will keep going up by leaps and bounds

just a hope for a decent price

[phantom power]

4. I did forget one motivation for producers to lower cost...

undercutting their competitors, for market share. Even if every solar company could sell their stuff (for instance) at a 50% profit margin, a company may be motivated to sell theirs at 10% profit margin, if it means they can grab market-share. It's not unheard of for a company to sell at a temporary loss, if it means they can kill off a smaller competitor. However, I have no idea what kinds of dynamics will end up playing in the solar industry. It should be interesting to see what happens, as the market heats up.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. A good example of what we could do if we were serious

There is no reason why the government couldn't step in and help with loan guarantees to these manufacturers to increase capacity. We spend billions annually to secure oil fields, we can spend money to eliminate constraints on the growth of solar technologies.

[NNadir]

6. Gee, imagine what would happen if they needed to produce an exajoule.

The solar PV industry has yet to produce a single exajoule and already production is nearly topped out and we need to establish a race to produce capacity.

In 2003, the world consumed 440 exajoules of energy, and did not need to overcome the efficiency loss connected to batteries.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablef1.xls

What is that they say in latin about at the end of an argument? Oh yeah, I remember: "quod
erat demonstrandum."

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Shhh...

...every time someone mentions grid storage, a solar fairy dies...

[jpak]

8. Yawn

Storage won't be needed until renewables exceed ~25% of grid generating capacity...

...and the Danes and Norwegians are developing grid-scale hydrogen storage systems to support their wind power systems.

The future of solar is quite sunny thank you - rain on...

[Dead_Parrot]

9. In the meantime, we can just burn more coal

while we wait...

[jpak]

10. Are any of the 6 new GOP-subsidized nucular plants in the US

actually going to replace a coal-fired plant????

Nope.

Until they do, we burn more coal while we wait....

BTW: Grid inter-tied PV actually does reduce daytime domestic electrical demand - as does conservation (the cheapest quickest way to reduce fossil-fired electrical demand).

[NNadir]

12. There are no "GOP financed" nuclear plants planned.

I would love it if GOP resources were expropriated to build nuclear power plants.

The thirteen new nuclear plants proposed in the United States will displace coal plants that would otherwise be built.

Given the surge in natural gas prices, there are only two forms of energy that are economical to provide new base load capacity, nuclear and coal. Both have similar production costs, less than 0.03 kw-hr busbar costs, with nuclear being slightly cheaper than coal. Nuclear however has higher capital costs up front, although the fuel costs are trivial over the long term. As I often note the external cost of nuclear energy is trivial when compared to coal.

www.externe.info

I am perfectly willing to see all of the world's coal plants replaced by nuclear plants and would be thrilled at a government proposal to do just that, 100% financed by tax money, according to the TVA model (FDR's) that I so admire. As I noted in another link in this thread, the US thermal power production amounts to 10,364.83 billion kilowatt-hours or about 37.3 exajoules. The average power represented 37.3 exajoules (31,556,700 sec-yr^-1) is about 1.2 trillion watts, or 1.2 million megawatts. This is the power output of about nine hundred 1300 MWe ABWR of the type that have recently been built in Japan. (Examples include Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units 6 and 7, each 1315 MWe (1996 and 1997 commercial operation dates), Hamaoka-5 (startup 2005) and the Shimane-3 reactor now under construction. Japan will build 6 new AWBR's in the next decade with construction of Higashidori 1 & 2 as well as Fukushima I - 7 & 8 to commence next year.)

The cost of such an investment would be about 1.2 trillion dollars, less than many of the projections we are now hearing for the total cost of the war in Iraq which is now claimed, in some quarters, to have cost 3 trillion dollars. The difference between Iraq and 900 nuclear power plants is that after spending the money on nuclear plants, the country would actually have something to show for it.

[jpak]

13. Those 13 plants are scrambling for 6 plants worth of GOP goodies

7 will lose and cancel.

Under ChimpCo's nuclear subsidy program, however, taxpayers will take most the financial risks and the utilities swinging for the GOP-nuke-pinata will lose very little money.

Before the GOP's nucular subsidy program was passed, there were ~100 new coal plants (~62 GW) in various stages of planning or construction in the US.

After the GOP's nucular subsidy program was passed, there were ~100 new coal plants (~62 GW) in various stages of planning or construction in the US.

None have been canceled and none of the utilities considering new nucular plants have any plans to shut existing coal-fired capacity after their proposed nucular plants come on line.

...and all that I'm aware of are planning to increase their coal-fired capacity...

When people try to sell you nuclear - they are really selling coal.

How immoral.

:rofl:

[NNadir]

14. I have stated very clearly the nature of baseload power.

I note that no full scale power plant of any type has ever been replaced by solar energy.

The entire world capacity for solar PV energy is comparable to a single large coal fired plant.

Energy is still measured in exajoules, and coal waste is still measured in billions of metric tons...

Chimpco.

LOL.

What a crock.

:rofl:

...and all that.

One can mistate facts as often as one wishes and repeat the same phrases in an attempt to distract, but the numbers remain unchanged. Here they are:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table_5b.xls

The number for solar PV power (2004 - 50 years after the invention of the solar cell) is very clear: 0.066 exajoules (0.063 quads).

Again, significant energy is measured in exajoules. World demand is 440 exajoules. US demand is 105 exajoules.

Solar PV energy production is smaller than US demand by a factor of 1,590.

:nopity:

[jpak]

16. The units are Pg C (or Tg C if one prefers)

If these new GOP-subsidized plants do not replace existing fossil-fired capacity - then they do not reduce carbon emissions.

period.

[NNadir]

22. The problem, although some don't believe it, is to avoid increasing

emissions.

In spite of what Amory Lovins told his friends in 1985, electricity production has not remained flat. His predictions were wrong.

China and India have not condescended to become vassals of rich westerners and neither will, I expect, any other impoverished people. This conceit that poverty is OK, as long as it doesn't mess with our heads is probably not acceptable to the impoverished themselves.

If we are going to raise the living standards of Nigerians, who have per capita power use use of 8 watts, we will need electricity.

No environmentalist with a brain wants endless repeats of the coal based bootstrapping of China and India. I note that even China and India do not really want it, which is why combined, they have more than 60 nuclear reactors in various stages of development.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

There is only one technology in the world that is known to be able to replace base load coal power that is scalable. That is the risk minimized form of energy, nuclear power.

I will be perfectly happy to discuss the relative merits of forms of energy that have replaced fossil fuels when they have done so, but nuclear power will come out on top then too.

www.externe.info.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. No, they're filling new demand

Because, let's face it, there is absolutely fuck all chance of solar meeting the need.

Yes, solar has the potential to meet some of the peak requirements, which is why I have nothing against solar power. What I do have something against is the morons who think solar (along with wind) will magically eliminate the need for any base power production - a need that can be filled cheaply and safely with nuclear power now without having to wait another 50 years while the entire fucking biosphere collapses.

I have a daughter. I would like it if my daughter could visit the great barrier reef when she's old enough to scuba-dive. At the current rate of carbon emission, the fucking thing will be dead long before she's old enough: We cannot afford to sit around with our thumbs up our arses waiting for some magical new power source while we kill the whole fucking planet. The sooner the anti-nuke retards at Greenpeace and elsewhere understand the fucking urgency of the situation the better.

I don't like nuclear power. I don't trust it, but I admit this is as irrational as my fear of big spiders. What we - as a civilisation - need is a source of cheap, readily available power

It's not solar, it's too damn expensive and has storage problems
It's not wind, it's cheaper but the storage problems are magnified
It's not hydro, it's too limited by geography
It's not geothermal, for the same reason
It's nuclear. It's the only option we can make work in the few years we have.

I won't appologise for the language, because this is fucking important.

I'm not pro-nuke. I'm pro-environment, and pro-humanity. I have no idea what the hell you are.

[jpak]

18. Morons????

Just who are these morons????

:)

[NNadir]

11. Fossil fuels provide more than 65% of the world's electricity, not 25%.

I note that fossil fuels currently supply more than 65% of the world's electricity. The exact numbers are readily available:

Nuclear: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

2,523.11 billion kilowatt-hours. (15.9%)

Thermal (fossil): http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table61.xls

10,364.83 billion kilowatt-hours. (65.3%)

Hydroelectric: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table26.xls

2,654.37 billion kilowatt-hours. (16.7%)

Other Renewables (Geothermal, Solar, Wind, and Wood and Waste): http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table28.xls

310.10 billion kilowatt hours. (2%).

In the latter case, solar PV energy represents a tiny percentage of the already small 2% provided by renewable energy. (Further I question whether garbage burning should really be considered "renewable," but the matter is unimportant in this context.)

All figures are for 2003. The percentages are my calculations based on the sum of the totals in the 4 spreadsheets, 15852.41 billion kilowatt-hours.

Therefore the very dubious claim that solar energy can address global climate change which a serious immediate issue is further diminished by the claim that it can only provide 25% of the world's energy without batteries. The solar PV industry, according to the opening link, cannot even supply a tiny fraction of the world's energy supply, never mind a fraction that also requires batteries.

I do not believe that renewable energy will, in fact, provide 25% of the world's electricity in my lifetime but I am perfectly willing and would happy to be proved wrong on that score. Very few people make the claim that it will be prepared to represent 25% of world demand for electricity in less than four or five decades, and those who do are, in my opinion, confused and engaging in wishful thinking of the type I have recorded and referenced here in many threads.

Thus the contention that solar energy is clearly insufficient to address the immediate crisis of global climate change is supported by the remark, "Storage won't be needed until renewables exceed ~25% of grid generating capacity..." Solar energy, while it may be useful in addressing peak loads, is not a viable strategy for the production of base load energy. One certainly hopes that solar energy will be able to eliminate a substantial portion of the peak loads now addressed by natural gas, but one would be a fool to rely on such an outcome, given the failed promises of the past.

This is why I have not bought into the dangerous myth that nuclear power can really be replaced by solar power. I contend that we must wake up to the matter of scale and the immediacy of the crisis of global climate change. The matter is too serious to leave in the hands of the somnolent.

[jpak]

21. A number of states have established Renewable Portfolio Standards

Most of these RPS call for 20% of their electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020 - and they will achieve these goals.

Maine has the highest RPS (30%) and currently generates ~50% of its electricity from renewables (~1050 MW).

Maine Governor John Baldacci (D) has called for a 10% increase in the state's renewable generating capacity by 2017.

As there are ~900 MW of new wind generating capacity currently in planning at various sites around the state, this is a reasonable goal.

Maine's modest solar rebate program is also oversubscribed and has spent all of this year's funds...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=34187

Dirigo etc...

Those wail and gnash their teeth about renewable energy are wasting their time.

[NNadir]

23. "Percent talk" is always a clue that a whopper, big as a Maine whale, is

coming.


OK, let's talk "percent." In October of 2005, Maine generated 1,485 Megawatt-hours of electricity out of 315,034 Megawatt-hours generated in the United States as a whole.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_6_a.xls

This is 0.4% percent of US energy production. Thus 50% of Maine is 0.2% of US electricity production.

21% of Maine's electricity in October of 2005 came from hydroelectricity which is really not a surprise. Some states, particularly small states with mountains, produce lots of hydroelectricity when we talk "percent talk."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_13_a.xls

Now let's look at the "other renewables." Wow! Oh Boy Oh Boy! Jesus! Jazzam! Whoopeeeeeeee!!!!! Wow oh Wow oh Wow oh Wow!

Maine produced 20.8% of it's electricity production from "other renewables!!!!"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_14_a.xls

Solar power?

Wind farms?

Well no, actually.

Mostly its wood burning, with a little bit of garbage burning thrown in on the side.

Last year over 4 million people worldwide died from air pollution connected to burning wood. Here is the NRDC complaining about particulate pollution from wood burning: http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbreath.asp

There is a movement to install wind power in Maine. Here's a project opposed by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy:

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.839393/k.8DFF/Maine_Wind_Farm.htm

Here's some indication of the tiny existing and proposed wind projects:

http://www.awea.org/projects/maine.html

It also helps that Maine imports electricity from Canada and from the grid in nearby New Hampshire. As of 2001 Maine imported about 10% of its electricity, stopping each electron at the border to make sure that it wasn't powered by Seabrook nuclear station just a few kilometers from its border. In 2003, Seabrook alone produced 9,276,288 Megawatt-hours of electricity. This one power plant, all by itself, produced 41% as much electricity as the entire State of Maine produced in 2002, 22,535,033 Megawatt-hours of electricity. Unlike the wood fired plants of Maine, Seabrook did not release any particulates into the air at all.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/maine.pdf

There is as usual, great talk about renewables in Maine 2020. In 2020 there will be great talk about renewables in Maine 2035. People will say, "Look at Maine! Look at Maine!" and Maine, in the main, will not be the main problem since Maine is, from an energy standpoint not main. It is tiny.

Significant energy is still measured in exajoules. The entire State of Maine does not generate an exajoule of electricity in a year.

[jpak]

17. The next generation of US nuclear plants won't be "made in the USA"

http://www.energybulletin.net/5950.html

The US does not have the wherewithal to produce major reactor components - how can we establish a race for new capacity???

I note that there were no new nuclear plants were built in the US last year or the year before.

I also note that 86 MW of new PV capacity (62 MW grid connected) was installed in the US in 2004 and that 2500 MW of new wind turbine capacity was added in 2005.

The race IS on and nuclear is "loosing"...

:rofl:

[donsu]

19. I'm thinking of solar on a more personal basis. our personal grid

using solar for the water heater as example. not having to pay to heat water. I'm thinking of our personal pocketbooks and solar can help that - right now - some people in Vt. have been doing that for years.

[GumboYaYa]

20. That's one reason Shell sold their solar division.

They are going to CIS thin film. It is getting about 20% efficiency now, as good as most crystalline silicone.