We're almost there with PV Solar price/performance.

[eppie]

I've always been hopeful that the day would come when PV solar cells would be affordable enough to compete evenly with fossil fuels. I still have concerns about limitations (1000w / square meter), but where possible it will become more common if it can compete with the cheapest of fuels.

Hello, it has been a while.

The way I see it is the main problem at the moment still is that poltics are not willing to support change as fast as it should happen. One country doesn't want to 'spend'more because it is scared it loses it edge over other countries. And the fossil fuel lobbies are much to powerful of course.

There are so many ways of storing energy for when there is no sun or wind. I was at a solar energy fair a few weeks ago, and there were already several commercial options for storing.

I think in a few years from now peopl will have their own reactors to generate either hydrogen or ethanol or something which then can be used in solid state fuel cell (for driving your car for example).
I bought a new hous and I will start putting PV panels on my roof soon......really looking forward to that.

[kandrathe]

The way I see it is the main problem at the moment still is that politics are not willing to support change as fast as it should happen. One country doesn't want to 'spend'more because it is scared it loses it edge over other countries. And the fossil fuel lobbies are much to powerful of course.

I think it is a problem to depend on politics or in other words, government to force the change. People can and will oppose government coercion like that. Wouldn't it be the more prudent course for governments to "invest" their efforts in enabling the economics to be right. That is to say, promote beneficial research, to champion example projects, etc. Much of it is chicken and egg stuff, but you can imagine that without a NASA, there might not be a SpaceX. But also, that with NASA out of the space launch industry, it paves the way for the need for a SpaceX. It is the same with solar, or wind, or fusion. The government can do much to pave the way for the economics to catch ahold, but at some point they need to know when to fold up the socialist tent and get out of the way.

Another consideration is that as more, and more of the generation and consumption goes to renewable sources, the cheaper fossil fuels will get making leaving them an increasingly harder case to make. Imagine a Europe and USA fully using renewable energy, with the rest of the developing world inheriting our carbon footprint. The point being, that we need to ensure the path forward is economically accessible for everyone, not just the USA and Europeans.

There are so many ways of storing energy for when there is no sun or wind. I was at a solar energy fair a few weeks ago, and there were already several commercial options for storing.

There is not enough being built. I watched a Q&A with Elon Musk at MIT this week. He was talking about their big battery building plant. They need to build a battery manufacturing facility that will equal the combined battery building capacity of the rest of the world just to meet their demand for new auto batteries. To meet the needs of a fully electric car world, they will need at least 20 more plants just as large.

Solar, and wind power storage is yet another unfulfilled need for capacity.

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='210776' dateline='1414273867']
I think it is a problem to depend on politics or in other words, government to force the change. People can and will oppose government coercion like that. Wouldn't it be the more prudent course for governments to "invest" their efforts in enabling the economics to be right. That is to say, promote beneficial research, to champion example projects, etc. Much of it is chicken and egg stuff, but you can imagine that without a NASA, there might not be a SpaceX. But also, that with NASA out of the space launch industry, it paves the way for the need for a SpaceX. It is the same with solar, or wind, or fusion. The government can do much to pave the way for the economics to catch ahold, but at some point they need to know when to fold up the socialist tent and get out of the way.

Another consideration is that as more, and more of the generation and consumption goes to renewable sources, the cheaper fossil fuels will get making leaving them an increasingly harder case to make. Imagine a Europe and USA fully using renewable energy, with the rest of the developing world inheriting our carbon footprint. The point being, that we need to ensure the path forward is economically accessible for everyone, not just the USA and Europeans.

[quote]

You are looking at things very much from en economical and a liberal perspective. If you don't put 'damage to the planet'in the cost calculation it is easy...we stay with fossil fuels. But that is not fair. Single people can never make a 'good' and 'smart' decission about such things at energy change, they just can't. There is a part that embraces renewable fuels, and understand what is going wrong with the planet, but truth be told, those are most of the time people with the money to do something else. SO yes you need a government to push here.


Also let's not forget all the hidden support for fossil and nuclear by the governments of the world. You don't want government push for renewable.....then you should stop supporting the old industries.

[kandrathe]

You are looking at things very much from en economical and a liberal perspective. If you don't put 'damage to the planet' in the cost calculation it is easy...we stay with fossil fuels. But that is not fair. Single people can never make a 'good' and 'smart' decision about such things at energy change, they just can't.

You are right, I am. People will make decisions with their pocket books, and act for their own selfish, short sighted interests. I am saying however, the appropriate use of "government force" is to work to make the alternatives at least as affordable. All of this can be done without mandates or taxes on the choices people are making. If you want wind and solar power to be cheaper, then figure out how to get more of it cheaper (supply). This requires research and investment into a panoply of technologies. This is why I brought in the example of NASA. Given a solid mission, and the support of the people, we can accomplish radical changes. But, once the goal is reached, the bureaucracy should be dismantled to make way for entrepreneurs to figure out how to package the new commodity, such as in space flight.

There is a part that embraces renewable fuels, and understand what is going wrong with the planet, but truth be told, those are most of the time people with the money to do something else. SO yes you need a government to push here.

Unless you have a dictatorship, there is a limit to government intervention, manipulation and coercion.

Also let's not forget all the hidden support for fossil and nuclear by the governments of the world. You don't want government push for renewable.....then you should stop supporting the old industries.

In the US, there are powerful people with money who invest heavily into the politics of the fossil fuels economy. When it comes to the exerting power in the US, the government while larger than it should be, is still a minority opinion. Because of the international nature of the power of economics, it is not only US citizens who control the US economy, and its addiction to fossil fuels. In that regard, the US government can work to help them to transition away from exploiting fossil fuels, but it also needs to be in their interests. You need to do all this radical change, while also keeping the current plates spinning. Wars, recessions, and social strife will undo it all. If we can't drive to work, due to enforced shortages, then we can't eat. Whatever the plan, it needs to be a transition that does not overly disrupt the current economy.

A good example is coal.



We are nearing all time lows for the % of the electric grid powered by coal, but nearing all time highs for the % powered by natural gas. Converting a coal fired plant to natural gas is cheaper than installing a bunch of windmill farms or solar power plants. What we need in the White House is a person who will lead us in getting that purple line to the majority of energy production. But, in doing that, the coal miners, and the coal industry will suffer. A real leader would plan for that eventuality as well. Even getting renewable sources to 25% of generation would be a feat. This is a NASA type project, that requires a very good Salesman in Chief.

[Jenjan]

Providing energy for the world is a huge problem, maybe the most important one humanity is facing. We live in a world of coal, and coal is killing us. Not just through climate change, but smog as well. It's by far the most lethal form of power.

I'd love solar and wind to be the answer. Maybe they are. Certainly it's encouraging the solar is getting cheaper, and new processes will hopefully make it less reliant on rare minerals. But, as Jester pointed out, intermittency is a big deal. Germany has been trying to switch to renewables in a big way, and the result has been a sharp increase in fossil fuel use. Adding a bit of solar here and there is great for taking small bites out of fossil fuel usage, but the more you use the more challenging and expensive it gets.

In the end, you need to be able to generate 100% of the demand 100% of the time. There are no cost effective storage systems, so renewables need standby capacity, usually natural gas because it's best suited to the role. All that standby power costs a fortune, and it can lead to less efficient gas plants because they have to be designed to turn on and off on short notice. Renewables with gas backup is environmentally one of the best options, but it's so much more expensive that I can't see it catching on globally. Maybe if cells get super cheap, and maybe a smart grid can help, but right now its not looking very practical as a primary electricity source.

Weighing all the pros and cons, I'd like to see a lot more investment in nuclear, especially on the research end. It doesn't mesh very well with renewables unfortunately, but its emission free and very reliable. The problems with nuclear are essentially all engineering challenges rather than inherent limitations of the concept. Safety, waste, available fuel supply and even cost are all highly dependant on the design of the reactor. Unfortunately, there hasn't been very much experimentation and prototyping of new reactor designs in the last 30 years. The most current designs were pretty much driven by military needs half a century ago, not a rational look at what would be best for civilian power. Even current reactor designs aren't really that bad though. People overhype the safety concerns because radiation is invisible and scary, but in the end the numbers show it's pretty much the safest power we've got even including big disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima which didn't kill nearly as many people as most think. Waste can just be stored, and maybe in the future used as fuel in a new reactor design. It's a much more manageable problem than CO2 emissions.

In the end I fear economics will be what sort this problem out. The world will keep using mainly fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Renewables will grow as a first world guilt reliever, but probably won't displace coal or gas as a major global source. Hydro doesn't have much growth potential, and nuclear takes so long to build and has so few countries investing in it that it won't grow much. Fossil fuels will eventually start to run out and get more expensive to extract. As their cost rises, something else will emerge as the cheapest option. I just hope the damage done to the climate in the mean time isn't too devastating.