Cheap solar power poised to undercut oil and gas by half
I'm very keen on cheap, effective solar power, so I read with great interest this article in the UK newspaper the Telegraph on cheap solar power that will supposedly be here in five years time. I also read the Forbes article on green energy scams today, so let's just say I wish some of the claims made in the Telegraph piece could be proven to me right now. Still, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's article does fill me with hope that just when we get some decent all-electric vehicles, we might also have a way to power them with sunlight.
The lede reads thusly: "Within five years, solar power will be cheap enough to compete with carbon-generated electricity, even in Britain, Scandinavia or upper Siberia. In a decade, the cost may have fallen so dramatically that solar cells could undercut oil, gas, coal and nuclear power by up to half. Technology is leaping ahead of a stale political debate about fossil fuels."
How's that for tempting? You can read the whole thing here. The upshot of the piece is that new technology, mass produced solar power cells will bring the cost of solar power falls below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power, sometime soon and down to 50 cents a watt in a decade. Currently, solar power costs about $3 to $4 per watt. Cheap solar will undercut oil and gas prices and send those fuels packing. Shell's chief executive Jeroen Van der Veer told Evans-Pritchard otherwise: "We have invested a bit in all forms of renewable energy ourselves and maybe we'll find a winner one day. But the reality is that in twenty years time we'll still be using more oil than now."
Another thing to think about the article's glowing description of how solar energy use has increased in Germany is that Germany uses the feed-in tariff method, as opposed to the Renewable Portfolio Standard that is in effect in the US (not exactly a solar power powerhouse).
[Source: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard / Telegraph UK, thanks to Ann]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 8:31AM (2/23/2007)
The units used in this story are meaningless, and the article is a waste of reading time and electrons. What is the fully-amortized cost per watt-**HOUR**?
From elementary physics: A watt is a unit of power, not energy. Watt-hours are a measure of energy.
There is, in fact, some reason to be optimistic about the future of PV solar energy. Current technology is pushing 25% conversion rates, and there is reason to expect that the price will come down. There are even rumors of new technology that will top 40% conversion, but no costs have been established, and 22% is about the best that is currently available to consumers now.
I think it is unlikely that solar energy will be half of the cost of carbon anytime soon, especially in high-latitude countries like GB. Especially if a complete cost-accounting is done. Too often, I see this sort of gee-whiz story done by somebody who does not understand either cost accounting or the science involved.
OTOH, if you count the collateral costs of terrorism and environmental damage, PV solar energy could be preferable, even at a small premium.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 8:38AM (2/23/2007)
The original article is not too bad, although Mr. Sethi appears to be overly optimistic about future costs and conversion efficiencies. One gem does stick out, though -- a quote from Mr. Sethi, "We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm."
Hear, hear.
Reply
Nathan 6:54AM (3/01/2007)
Howard, the cost of solar panels is often expressed in terms of its capital cost in relation to its capacity, such as it is here. For an example, a 1kW solar system at $1 per watt would cost you $1000 to buy. The reason a $/kWh figure isn't given is because solar power costs nothing to run - once it is installed, there are no ongoing costs except possibly the occasional maintenance. It's a standard form of expressing capital costs for power generation.
That said, his predictions could be described as optimistic at best...even if it's cheaper, it needs to be more efficient to reduce the sheer amount of space that solar panels take up.
Reply