The Biggest Energy News Isn’t Oil Or Natural Gas, It’s Solar
Judging by the attention given energy subjects by most American media in recent months, the most important news on the energy front has involved gasoline prices at the pump, a pipeline for Canadian shale oil, and the risk-reward ratio of fracking for natural gas. In terms of the world’s energy future, however, and indeed, its fast-changing energy present as well, the really big news may well involve solar energy.
An article on the Bloomberg website today headlined “Solar’s 80% Plunge Hurts Utilities From Hawaii to Spain” suggests what this story is all about.
With the cost of electricity produced by solar panels plummeting 80 percent in the last five years, largely because manufacture of these panels has come to resemble making computer chips, solar-produced electricity is no longer just becoming competitive with other fuels. The Bloomberg story’s notes: A Spanish company funded by General Electric “is preparing to build a solar plant to supply electricity 25 percent cheaper than a local utility charges for traditional power, a breakthrough that’s sending tremors through the global energy industry.”
Think of what is happening here already and likely to happen soon! And while doing this thinking keep in mind the linkages among all sectors of the energy marketplace — petroleum, natural gas, and alternatives such as solar and wind.
Solar quite soon is likely to begin generating a large part of centrally-produced electricity in places with very sunny climates. This, in turn, will increase the excess of other fuels used in power plants such as natural gas, and drive down their operating costs. Because the solar panels used in power plants can also be used on individual homes and businesses, many more of these will get off the power grid (at least partially), driving down electricity prices still more.
We are never going to see totally solar-powered passenger vehicles because of the diffuse nature of solar radiations. What we will see soon to a far greater extent are vehicles powered by batteries that are charged in whole or part with cheaper solar-generated electricity.
And the political implications of all these marketplace changes?
One of these days there will be a real energy debate in this country. It will pit cleaner, renewable, and inherently more abundant alternative sources of energy (solar, wind, ocean wave, et. al,) against dirty, exhaustible, environmentally hazardous and increasingly less cost effective sources. Energy from still living nature versus energy derived from grave robbing of dead plants and animals.
This debate probably won’t happen in 2012. Republicans want to focus on higher gas prices at the pump, and on a shale oil pipeline. The Obama Administration’s own foolish emphasis on funding solar companies rather than simply buying solar products for government-owned properties meanwhile, has temporarily given solar a bad name in this country.
This debate, then, will likely be deferred until the 2014 election season, and not come to the fore as a really big vote-getting issue until the 2016 elections.
America led the world in solar technologies in the 1970s. Ronald Reagan and the petroleum industry buried it again after the 1980s. But you can’t bury something as obvious as this forever.
Not even in America. Not even in a country in which Old Man Oil has been happily drilling away unchecked for so very long.
To learn more about a quirky novel from the author of this piece hit: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007GC4T3E
Share This
“America led the world in solar technologies in the 1970s. Ronald Reagan and the petroleum industry buried it again after the 1980s.”
Reagan’s anti-environment attitude is another of his less pleasant legacies, one his mythologists conveniently gloss over.
“One of these days there will be a real energy debate in this country.”
Anytime now would be good. It’s really great though about the progress being made in solar panels!
Great article Michael, right on.
The demonization of Solyndra is one of the stupidest stories of recent years, and fundamentally hurt both the solar industry (although it sure as heck helped out my ability to buy a home — gobbled up some solar stocks and ooo-eee are they paying off now!) and Obama. Republicans should be overjoyed at the idea of the government funding private companies instead of paying for the research themselves. The amount of goverment money that’s gone into the development of technology that never saw the light of day is enormous; the world-changing effects of the technologies that have matured cannot be underestimated though.
And I know from personal experience that Solyndra was a strong company full of really smart people that unfortunately got pulled under by the same forces that closed the doors of thousands of tech companies world wide in the last couple of years — global economic meltdown and not quite making it over the hump of Chinese competition.
Just saw an article where the US is placing an import fee on China made solar panels since they are subsidizing their panel companies and dumping cheap products on the US market. Maybe this will allow American companies to become more competitive and become a leader in not only domestic market, but exports also.
And maybe if the government helped in subsidizing companies by providing moneys for each job crated to build panels instead of just throwing money at the companies with few strings attached, even Republicans would have a hard time attacking that simulus as it is a direct job creator.
Amazing, lots of money gets put into a new technology and the price comes down and some really neat new possibilities open up. Who would have thought.
Solar is great if you have a lot of sunny land at hand and LOTS of water. Often, these two factors do not coincide, like in California, for instance: “The Genesis Solar Energy Project would consume an estimated 536 million gallons of water a year, while the Mojave Solar Project would pump 705 million gallons annually for power-plant cooling, according to applications filed with the California Energy Commission.”
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/water-use-by-solar-projects-intensifies/
Just sayin.
dduck — The water is a concern (although that’s one of the things that new technologies are working on), but it doesn’t actually need to be sunny to collect solar power. Same reason the worst sunburns come on overcast days — the photons come through cloud cover just fine.
I’ve long been a proponent of an all-of-the-above energy strategy for a very long time, including nuclear, drill-baby-drill, conservation, solar, …..
I’m still skeptical that solar will be cost competitive to coal within the next 20 yrs or so, but I hope improvements continue.
Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/business/energy-environment/30water.htm
“Conflicts over water could shape the future of many energy technologies.”
Uh, yeah, that’s what you already said. Solar energy systems that need less cooling are being developed and improved upon. The water costs go into how expensive it is. It will be one of the factors in continuing that 80% plunge in the cost of solar energy. I suppose we could all say “oh well, better stop trying!” anyway, which seems to be your point, but I prefer to think that the research going on will bring the water needs down.
Roro, I think many of here on TMV consider you a neophyiliac. That is your choice and it is OK with me.
SW and solar even with reduced water (where are the links to the new technologies that are being developed?) may not be able to harmoniously coexist, so all forms of energy should be considered, given the global water problems. Therefore, cheapest may not be best depending on the area of the country and possible transmission distances, costs and environmental concerns (remember the reason Keystone was nixed).
Thanks guys.
I wasn’t as tuned into the water factor here as I should have been. This illustrates one of the reasons I post here. I almost always seem to learn something important.
In passing. If you have a kindle you might check out my Fifteen Feet Beneath Manhattan book. It really is a hoot.
Mike
“Roro, I think many of here on TMV consider you a neophyiliac. That is your choice and it is OK with me.”
No, I do not have tendency to like anything new; cute little kiss-off there, though. I solve problems to make technological breakthroughs for a living. I believe that technological problems tend to have answers, not because I am some starry-eyed optimist or tree-hugging hippy (although I am happy to be a little of both), but because it is my job to find those answers, and I am damn good at my job.
In this case, there’s very little to like about the old way — oil gets more and more expensive (in more ways than just monetarily), it throws billows of poison into the air when we burn it, and there will either be a different way to do things in the future, or we will flounder or die as a species. You’re going to poo-poo the entire idea of solar power because we haven’t figured out the best way to do the cooling yet. Cooling – this is not splitting the atom we’re talking about, and we did that many decades ago.
This is very much like how my grandfather refuses to get a computer or a cell phone because he just doesn’t want to, the idea is uncomfortable to him, and he doesn’t really get why it’s possible or useful. So fine — choose to stay in the century where you grew up. Just get out of the way of the rest of us, eh?
I’m not sure why the author thinks there should be a political debate. If solar has arrived as the author describes, then there is no need for government help. So, unless you think we are going to subsidize fossil fuels, what is there to argue about?
” unless you think we are going to subsidize fossil fuels, what is there to argue about”
??? I’m not sure what you mean by this. We do subsidize fossil fuels, to the tune of many billions a year. But maybe I’m missing your meaning…
dd – The article you cite is talking about thermal solar while the The 80% reduction article was referencing photo voltaic (PV) solar. Ironically the one photo that article uses is of a thermosolar collector.
In thermal solar a large amount of water is used as a carrier for heat and it is eventually used for steam to drive turbines, hence the large water usage.
PV directly converts to electricity and typically doesn’t need to be cooled. There are efforts underway to use the heating of the PV cell to generate additional power.
ST, ah some facts, thanks.
Right, dduck. We couldn’t possibly listen to someone who works on this sort of thing in her daily life. She’s just a silly little neophyliac who clings to every new thing that comes along. Older male comes along and says the same thing and he’s talking “facts”.
Not that you aren’t giving facts, ST. Thermal solar is looking more immediately scalable as far as widescale energy production, and dduck was talking about that technology, but you’re right, it’s different than what the article was referencing.
Next energy revolution will be cookies, care to contribute.
Well, there certainly are legitimate questions about whether fossil fuels are explicitly subsidized. These can be complex. (Do you include assistance to miners suffering from black lung disease?). And some are only for fossil fuels because it is dominant (if solar was big, more aid to low income families to heat their homes would go there). But I’m not sure how cheaper solar affects that, unless you expect new subsidies to prevent solar from taking a bigger share of the market (which I don’t see happening).
No david, I’m not counting aid to low-income families or support for coal miners. I’m talking about the billions in tax subsidies and exploration money and foreign tax credits given to oil and gas companies.
There’s a 250 megawatt Solar Generating Station that I drive by weekly that will use less than 1/4 the water used when the land was used for agriculture.
It is providing 1,500+ much need jobs in west-central Arizona and will provide enough electricity to power 70,000 homes.
But I’m sure the nay-saying nimrods will ignore this project just as they ignore roro80′s calm and even handed reply to their fear-mongering.
“But I’m sure the nay-saying nimrods will ignore this project just as they ignore roro80?s calm and even handed reply to their fear-mongering.”
Ah, so cute, calm Roro and fear-mongering nimrods.
Seriously, that is good news, I am all for solar at the right place and low water usage and at the same time look for efficient safe NG generation and nuclear while we minimize the use of foreign oil.
“Ah, so cute, calm Roro and fear-mongering nimrods.”
Let’s see — I tell you quite calmly that there’s more to the story and you’re overlooking the fact that these problems are in fact being solved, you basically call me a silly capricious twit, then two men come in with similar points, one of which calls you a nimrod, and you concede the point to each of them and start babbling about cookies to me.
Maybe my calmness or lack thereof shouldn’t be your biggest concern.
Well, again, as I mentioned above, these a not a new issue (and they are complex). The fact is that if solar can really now out compete oil, I don’t see why there is an expectation (unless you are expecting some new subsidy to prevent solar from competing with oil, which I don’t see) of increased political involvement.
I’m not disputing the use of water in Thermal Solar, but if we are going to compare the use of water as a limiting factor in energy production, you have to consider how much water is needed for fracking of natural gas and extraction of bitumen from tar sands. Both use millions of gallons of water in areas where water may not be plentiful, too, and those gallons are often full of toxins when the process is over. Is the water used by the Thermal Solar full of toxins when it’s finished being used ( I admit that I don’t know the answer to that)?
I hope that, eventually, PV solar will be economical enough to be included in standard construction where every new building or home that can use solar will have enough panels to generate 25-50% of their energy needs. It would take the strain off the national grid since I keep hearing that we need to generate more energy to meet growing demand.
Roro said: “She’s just a silly little neophyliac who clings to every new thing that comes along. Older male comes along and says the same thing and he’s talking “facts”.
Very calm.
And, since ST actually had usable information, I said so, yes implying the prior lack thereof.
StK had two paragraphs in his comment and I addressed both separately.
I’m not 100% sure but I recall that a former co-worker said that the waste water is more akin to grey water than industrial waste water. (The former co-worker now owns a company that installs both PV and thermo solar for primarily home installations.) A substantial amount of the water is lost to evaporation, and the remaining would need treatment to be potable.
It was a comment that captured your kiss-off to my earlier points. And it was my third comment. But you’re right — “photons come through the clouds just fine” and “I think the research going on will bring the water needs down” are just riddled with angst, anger, and hysteria. Totally deserved your snottiness and condescension. Good work on not being an ass. (That was a sarcastic cookie.)
david — the point is that Solar + $5B may very well be able to beat out oil without the subsidies that keep oil prices down. It’s getting closer, which is the point of the article. But the government is picking oil and gas as the big winners here, which is effectively rigging the game against alternatives. Some people think the game should be rigged the other way, with the solutions that don’t cause huge greenhouse gas emissions and oil spills and dependence on the Middle East. There are a lot of reasons that ramping up solar power while ramping down fossil fuels would be good for us.
You MIGHT have been able to make a case for oil industry subsidies being needed back when oil was $20-25 per barrel. Those days are long gone and never coming back. They can sell the exact same product for over $100 per barrel now and those $5Bn in subsidies are a drop in the bucket to the oil companies at this point. To hear them get up in front of Congress and complain about how they will have to lay off people or forego searching for new oil without the tax breaks is an utterly shameless lie.
And yes we still need to pump money into solar and wind as well as the rest. Its almost there but its not there yet, and when it is there the whole world changes. Lets not let China be the one who gets there first.
Roro, what can I say, you are your usual calm, non-insulting self. Ready for a fight, over anything the “other side” says even when they agree with you, feisty and letting the Vitamin D come through even on a cloudy day.
Neophiliac: “A neophile or neophiliac can be defined as a personality type characterized by a strong affinity for novelty.” Sorry if that is a kiss-off.
Condescending Ass, heading for the cookie jar, out.
dduck, you know it’s a kiss off. It has the connotation of someone who jumps from new thing to new thing capriciously, regardless of the value or quality of either new things or old things. As if the people doing the work to solve technology problems for things as important as energy production are doing so for the same reason they switched from watching Jersey Shore once the new season of The Voice started. People who work toward and support research into new energy sources do not do so for the “novelty”. Essentially nothing I say here indicates I am interested in novelty, and neither does anything in my private life. Not the classic rock music tastes, the love of prohibition-era gin cocktails, the fact that this week I bought a gorgeous old 19th-century Victorian home.
And yes, when you get insulting and sexist, I’m going to get insulting as well.
The real point here, of course, is that yes, there are some problems and technical hurdles with the scalability and cost of producing large portions of our energy through solar power; no, this does not mean we need to throw up our hands and give up on cleaner sources of energy, including solar.
roro,
You would think that most gentlemen would apologize for an insulting sexist remark, huh? The oil companies will keep demanding more money from Uncle Sam to attempt to choke off solar until they can’t do it anymore…then they’ll try going on a solar company shopping spree. I have very high hopes for solar & with folks like you & STinMN working on it, I think we’ll be alright!
Anna — I harbor no fantasies of dduck ever being a gentleman (meh, chivalry deservedly died long ago), but maybe someday he’ll think critically and honestly about himself.
To your real point though, thanks for the vote of confidence! I’m only involved peripherally, but certainly there’s a lot of overlap in the industry. But it will be interesting to see what oil companies do in the coming years. I suppose we’ll see something akin to where tobacco is today: how hard tobacco companies lobby to keep cannibis illegal, while quietly buying up the land to grow it, trademarking names of their Camel or Marlboro pot cigarettes, and making plans to quickly stamp out the small growers who produce most of the US’s reefer these days once their lobbying fails.
Roro, I only saw the definition i quoted from Wikopedia, not yours.
Anna, what are you smoking, I made no sexist insult. And, I guess you are a lady, like I am a gentleman.
dduck, did you look up the word prior to insisting that you and “many” at TMV think it of me, after having gone in search of a perfect word that you had never before come into contact with? Have you never heard the word in context? The connotations I describe aren’t a mystery, and if they were, what in the world did you even mean to say when you said I was a neophiliac? There’s nothing in this conversation to indicate anything that would bring such a word to appropriate use, except of course the one I assumed. I talked about how the water consumption problem is being worked on, and then you called me a neophiliac. What other way is one to interpret such a thing? Even without the diminuative connotation, it’s still not at all descriptive of me.
“I made no sexist insult”
Hahaha.
Now you are getting to ______, can’t say that to a thin skinned person.
Yes, as a matter of fact I did see it in context: “Novelty-seeking is one of the traits that keeps you healthy and happy and fosters personality growth as you age,” says C. Robert Cloninger, the psychiatrist who developed personality tests for measuring this trait.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/novelty-seeking-neophilia-can-be-a-predictor-of-well-being.html
And, yes, I did get the definition I quoted from Wik.
So where’s the sexist insult?
Don’t know what I’m “getting to”, and I’m not actually thin-skinned. It’s cute how you like to say that when people tell you that you’re wrong, that means somehow that they have thin-skin. Sweet little trick you’ve got there to make your objective wrongness into someone else’s problem.
I must thank you and the other “many” TMV people who think I’m so healthy and happy and lovely of personality. I’m quite sure now that that’s exactly what you meant — just a random inserted compliment into a conversation about solar power. I’m sure that’s what all your talk of cookies is about too. I am just a silly naive little girl, so that totally makes perfect sense. Sunshine power and cookies and unicorns! Off to the next new thing now, I suppose! Wheeee!
I wish someone would call me a neophiliac, I would be pleased.
Sorry about the thin skinned remark it was uncalled for.
Well, my comment was based on the premise that solar being able to compete with fossil fuels in the current playing field should engender political issues seemed to me based on the assumption that the one thing the government won’t be expected to do is leave the market alone.
It seems to me that you don’t agree that solar can compete in the current playing field, and you want to remove subsidies for oil. I do think the government gives out way too many subsidies (even when it is promoting something, like alternative energy, subsidies are often not the best way to go, but seem to be first choice). I think hidden subsidies for oil exist, though the magnitude can be in the eye of the beholder (if a foreign government charges you money to pump oil, when is it a “tax” and when is it “royalty”? Its not a black/white situation.) I do have no problem with cutting subsidies (for oil and for other things, like agriculture).
ds. agreed……………
Hi david — I understand what you’re saying, but the government isn’t leaving the situation alone as it is. It’s quite possible you disagree, but it’s my opinion that having accessible, reasonably-priced energy for the things we need it for (lighting, heating, cooking, manufacturing, transportation, business, etc) is a subject of national interest. We have energy policies because we need energy, in the same way we have food policies because people need to eat. The problem comes in when the government passes policy based on the lobbying of one type of energy, even if that one type of energy is extremely detrimental to the environment, to national security, etc. You get this whole subculture of denial that fossil fuels are hurting anything, or that there’s anything necessary or desirable about other sources, because the money is so big in that industry that politicians push outright lies. If we could instead begin to wean that subsidy money off of fossil fuels and toward other developing energy sources, that would speed up the transition to those other sources, which would ultimately be a good thing.
I’m tied of people whining about oil subsidies. Are they different from other companies who invest billions of dollars? No and often they get less. They get price breaks for doing what the govt wants, namely spending money and creating jobs. Name one industry that doesn’t? Alternative energy probably has a much greater level of subsidy but somehow the govt is favoring oil? sure that make sense. Giving an oil company a break on the price of a oil lease where they plan to drill an exploratory well isn’t costing crap. Without the price break the number of wells go down and the govt collects no more money.
Back on subject oil companies have invested about 10% of the total for alternative energy in the last 15 years. That is not bad for an industry that, no matter what happens as far as new development, will most likely see an increase in demand for their products for at least the next 50 years. Even if you totally removed all US demand the increasing calls from the rest of the world would more than make up for it. Nothing will stop that so the idea that oil companies are worried is a bit silly and incredibly short sited of any oil CEO who is stupid enough to be concerned. With the size of the companies they can easily enter and compete in any new markets but they have little reason to create those markets when their core business is doing well and will be for the next half century.