What Gore Didn't Say About Solar Cells 574
AmericanInKiev writes "Computer World posted a piece on Al Gore and his claim that solar cells will improve at the same rate as microprocessors. Vinod Khosla on the other hand has expressed disappointment that the doubling rate for price/performance of PV is 10 years rather than 18 months for transistors. Which of these two has the facts on their side?" Before anyone has him inventing the Internet again, note that Gore's claim as related in the article is much milder than that Moore's Law applies to solar cells per se -- namely, he's quoted as saying "We're now beginning to see the same kind of sharp cost reductions as the demand grows for solar cells." An optimistic statement, but not a flat-out silly one.
Here we Go.... (Score:3, Interesting)
But to start us off on topic, is there any evidence that the cells will increase beyond their current 10% conversion rate?
a misunderstanding of Moore's Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Moore's Law talks about the complexity, not speed or performance. That's why it doesn't apply to either solar cells or digital camera sensors.
Digital camera sensors, especially, as it's not the complexity that kills ya, it's that it can't get physically smaller and still capture as much light (independent of the # of pixels). CPUs get cheaper because they get physically smaller, and thus require less silicon. The same deal with silicon PV cells - you don't want to make them smaller, you want to make them more efficient at converting light to electricity. Solar cells will indeed get cheaper (MUCH cheaper) very quickly (within the next few years, you'll see several competing technologies, in fact), but not due to silicon processes, but because they're going to be made without silicon (or with much less silicon, or silicon of a much lower grade than CPU-grade silicon (they've been competing for the same Silicon resources all this time)). I'm just sayin'.
We'll be using Solar about as much as computers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:a misunderstanding of Moore's Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically you are correct. However, it has proven fairly accurate for CPU performance as well (computations/sec per dollar), and this is what people often are referring to in informal discussions. It roughly has applied to hard-drives and RAM also.
Re:Oil prices should stay high (Score:3, Interesting)
The cost of wind turbines has doubled in the past three years due to increasing demand and commodity prices. Of course that's less than the increase in electricity prices, so it's cheaper relatively.
However, I don't think oil/electricity price is the sole or even primary factor behind the renewables craze. Our government has had a '90% renewables target by 2025' for more than a year. ie, when oil was $70 a barrel.
There's a lot to do with public perception, and that's much more in favour of wind power nowadays.
(Written from an across the ditch viewpoint)
Al Gore has some good ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
His idea for a 10 year Kennedy-esque-moon-mission-analog of rapidly transforming our energy base from one of fossil fuels to renewable energy is not only a great idea economically for the long term but also great for the short term. Any time a country is in an economic slump, the best way to relieve it is by instituting widespread public works projects. Not only do they create short term wealth and job opportunities, but they have sustained maintenance work as well as the overall betterment of society through the finalization of said public work.
A recent poll (I think it was from last Thursday) said that over 90% of Americans are FOR the rapid mobilization of wind and solar power. It seems everyone's on board for this.
Except BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. Which is quite mind-blowing since the populous as a whole is ALL FOR IT and if either did support such a plan, it would net them a HUGE amount of voters from both political parties. It seems everyone I talk to has energy on their mind, a couple have said that they'll vote for whichever candidate would push for Gore's plan or one like it.
Which leaves me to wonder, if neither Obama nor McCain seem to have any desire to embrace it, is it finally time for a viable third candidate, one who represents the publics opinion? Could we be seeing/should we deserve to see a candidate Gore?
Re:Wow, the target for more strawmen arguments... (Score:4, Interesting)
Regardless, Gore provides a voice for a real concern that can possibly affect the lives of everybody on the planet, and that's good. I'll tolerate him if it means our planet will get saved in the process
Characterizing the Presidential Plans (Score:2, Interesting)
Since I cringe each time the Candidates energy plans are butchered - and it happens often.
ie. McCain has said Oboma is AGAINST a 300 million dollar (Xprizey) thing for a vehicle battery. and Oboma is opposed to nuclear.
Well, I've never heard Oboma suggest that electric vehicles are a bad idea or anything disparaging of their development, second, I've actually heard Oboma speak rather embracingly of Nuclear - provided as he says - we can solve the storage problem.
McCain would obviously spill oil anywhere he could find it.
AIK
Moore's law does not apply here. (Score:5, Interesting)
As mentioned previously, Moore's Law does not apply here.
However, the use of nano-tech (to increase light collecting surface area), multiple layers (to absorb more frequencies), and lenses/concentrators (to focus more light on the collectors), and thermo-electric converters (to convert heat from the panels into electricity) should be able to push efficiencies well passed the 40% range at reasonable cost. Of course, these improvements will be "5-10 years out" for the foreseeable future.
Re:Wow, the target for more strawmen arguments... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Al Gore is to the environment what Rev. Jesse Jackson is to .. well anyway, I think I'd rather hear from people who generally get their facts straight. Vinod Khosla has what one calls a pretty good record on these things - though I'd take exception to his positions in retrospect on bio-ethanol for example. I agree with you on Carbon Indulgences.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that we have technology like CSP using mirrors and standard steam turbines, What do you feel is the best balance between improving what has already proved functional, or dickering around with a test tube? I see MIT has dye-impregnated acrylic, you have an asbestos, er nanotech, based material and some theories, while the European are building real working Solar plants at Utility scale.
I dunno, it just seems we're a bit heavy on the science experiments and little to slow on the Yankee Ingenuity these days.
The reason the world has experts (Score:3, Interesting)
With current technology it is impossible to convert to PV in any meaningful timescale mostly because PV has so much embodied energy.
PV's energy payback time is something like 10 years. That means that if we set a goal to make 20% of electricity from PV, you'd have to find 2 years worth of spare electricity to make the PV.... and where's that going to come from? This problem marginalises current PV into only ever being a bit player in the energy world. Or, to turn it around, if we can find 10% of spare electrical capacity to channel into making PV then that will limit the PV conversion rate to 1% per year. Or if it is only 5% spare then that makes a 0.5% conversion rate - not even enough to cover increasing demand.
PV will only be practical for mass generation when it comes from vastly different technology.
Wind is more viable, in some areas.
Re:What he is quoted as saying ... (Score:1, Interesting)
700 billion in remittences to foriegn powers. every year. What if PV got just 7 billion of development every year. Would prices increase 33%. Or would they drop. One energy policy my have a future, the other is a race to the edge of a cliff.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost.
The cooling tower has a very important job in any heat cycle engine since energy = hot side - cold side. Take away the cold side, and you've got bumpkiss. The plant re-uses the water. In an Open cycle, some water evaporates, but much of it is reused - in a closed cycle plant, all of the water is recycled and only air passes through the cooling tower.
Yes, this heat can be used for things, but its tricky to find a customer for that much heat all of the time. Food processing plants use a lot of low-temperature steam, and some other industrial processes, but that's been a strategy for a long time, and it's not exactly solved the riddle yet.
Re:Al Gore and the Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that many people realize that when first created, the internet was closed to themselves. It was an elite ivory tower kind of thing. You know - the kind of thing a guy who rides on private jets and limosines would like. That thing - called Arpanet I think - was probably what Al was referring too. There is a world of difference between the government-edition Arpanet - and the mostly free (as in speech) Internet - which brought the printing press to the individual for the first time in history, and connected every individual to the kind of elite information previously only available to the rich. :)
Somehow I doubt that Al Gore played a significant role in democratizing the information age. That role would fall to a new category of leaders. And I think you of all people should know
If I'm wrong on that - let's see where Al Gore voted to open up the Internet to private citizens...
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if it would make sense to run the leftover heat through a series of heat engines, with each optimized for smaller temperature differentials than the last. E.g., steam turbine -> sterling engine.
Re:10 years ain't bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you not see T. Boone Pickens' proposal [pickensplan.com] for reducing our dependency on foreign fuels?
Solar isn't competing against oil unless you a solar powered car. Solar power is competing against coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear for electricity generation.
And Pickens' proposal was to create giant wind farms to generate electricity, so that we could free up the locally-sourced natural gas for cars.
I'm not saying I agree with him on everything, but some people understand plenty well where fuel comes from, at least well enough to know that you can use the same energy source for different purposes, just like you can use different energy sources for the same purpose.
(For what it's worth, our house is powered by wind and hydro for electricity, but natural gas for heat & water heat. I'd consider a swap to solar thermal if my HOA would allow solar anything on my roof.)
We just need to plant more trees (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, so maybe that's not an energy solution, but I think a lot of our problems stem from urbanization and the lack of trees. The hippies are right, in this sense. Parking lots are a good place for trees, and having them for shade would help keep our cars cool as well. Trees are nature's natural climate stabilizer.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Khosla is not an unbiased observer (Score:3, Interesting)
Khosla is one of the planet's largest investor in biofuels. He has engaged in rather disheartening attacks on any plan that suggests electrons can replace liquid carbons molecules. See his recent statements on how plug in hybrids will forever be "toys."
He may very well be right in some instances, but given the vitriol he has spilled against alternatives to his investments, it's hard to trust his statements as honest assessments.
Gore, on the other hand, has been even handed in suggesting there is no silver bullet to our energy and climate crises.
All that being said, PV cost and efficiency has historically been closer to Khosla's estimate than it has been to Gore's. But that has been mostly as a function of investment. Now that billions upon billions are being invested in the space, I think we'll see the cost curve start to look more attractive.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if it would make sense to run the leftover heat through a series of heat engines, with each optimized for smaller temperature differentials than the last.
It's referred to as a combined cycle. Many gas power plants recover the heat from the gas turbine and use it to run a steam turbine. GE claims 60% efficiency for their combined cycle turbines, where a standalone gas turbine would get around 35%.
It does not make sense to continue the process indefinitely. Eventually one will reach a point where building the equipment requires more energy than is produced from the ever-dwindling temperature difference.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Denmark, 60% of housing is connected to district heating. [inist.fr] 95% of that heat is "waste" from power plants. If you have cities of more than a few thousand people in temperate/cold areas it's a viable strategy.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with nuclear is waste, which we currently have no way of disposal.
What we *NEED* is ultra efficient storage of energy. "Batteries" that can store the energy produced from sunlight and windmills and store it until it is needed at night. Trick is, their production needs to be lower environmental impact than nuclear.
Picture solar concentrators in orbit sending focused beams of intensified sunlight to solar stations on the planet surface which is converted and stored for use later.
Or switch the Pebble-bed based Nuclear Energy that was patented in the early 1940s and banned as the first action by the Atomic Energy Commission's formation.
http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/pebbles/pebbles.html [memagazine.org]
You'd be surprised what Liquid Helium and Uranium encased in Graphite can do without Cooling rods or Towers.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the issues raised with the reactor are commercial - at the moment it's economically more viable to simply burn the fuel in a shamefully inefficient manner and bury the waste. There is also an issue about proliferation threats due to the fact that some of the by-products of the reactor are technically usable in nuclear weapons - but it seems like the sort of issue which would be possible to address, and seems like a small price to pay for such an effective source of energy.
Sorta (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem, though, is that we don't have much gallium. Definitely not enough to build whole square miles worth of solar panels.
Gallium is only found in trace amounts in Zinc and Bauxite ores. There is no gallium-high ore. Mostly we get a little of it as side effects of producing aluminium. It's enough for silicon doping and leds, but that's about it.
Even at the rate at which we're already using it, there's an estimate that the (easily accessible) reserves will be depleted by 2017. Can you imagine the rate we'd use it up for solar panels? Not to mention we'd need to dig out and process a _heck_ of a lot more bauxite than we currently do, to get that much of it.
So it seems to me that that plan is dead right there. There is no obvious way how to get lots of it, and the price will likely only go up from here.
Err, not really. You can use steam to produce electricity. Nuclear power goes the same route, btw. IIRC some 80% of the world's electricity is produced by steam turbines.
So, I don't know... any particular reason why we _can_ use heated water to produce electricity, if we heat it with coal or a nuclear reactor, but not if it was heated by the sun? It's the same process and with the same efficiency.
Plus, it seems to me that, from a pragmatic point of view,
1. A significant part of the world would rather have convenience, rather than sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I'd rather have a small stove in the kitchen, rather than a huge solar contraption. Plus, I'd rather cook when I want to, not just when it's sunny outside.
2. The world seems to have decided already that it wants solar-produced electricity.
3. We're actually pretty good at producing electricity from steam in the meantime. The big power plants get about 40-45% of the energy out of the fuel and converted into electricty. That's good enough.
But more importantly, it's better than what even the best uber-expensive prototypes of solar panels can do. So I'm kind of wondering, dunno, what's with the obsession with solar panels?
4. Transporting hot steam or hot water is pretty wasteful too. _Storing_ it, even more so. It needs a lot of insulation, and even so there are losses.
And it's done already, btw. I live in a town where the power plants also provide the hot water.
Let me tell you, when I want to take a shower in the morning, I first have to waste some cubic metre or two of water (no, seriously) just so I actually get hot water. Everything that was past the big insulated pipes, comes out as cold water first.
Re:Yeah, turn up the sun. (Score:2, Interesting)
...most credible population models have the worlds population leveling out at 15 billion, which we can easily sustain.
But sustain at what level of existence?
Not even close (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow, the target for more strawmen arguments... (Score:2, Interesting)
The ad hominem arguments against Gore don't advance the debate over the issues, but pointing out his hypocrisies (e.g. his own profligate energy usage) and his profit motives in the carbon credits business (reported at 100 million dollars for him so far) are all fair game.
And he is a pompous ass. So there.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. That is why a BMW M3 gets 20 MPG on the highway and the Prius gets only 45 MPG.
And that whole "variable displacement" thing that some cars have for highway driving? Complete bullshit. Why would they want to shut half the cylinders down if running at a "relaxing pace" is so economical?
Re:We just need to plant more trees (Score:3, Interesting)
> Ok, so maybe that's not an energy solution, but I think a lot of
> our problems stem from urbanization and the lack of trees.
I don't know where you live, but there's more big trees in my city than in the country surrounding it. I'll bet that's true for most people reading this. Furthermore, living in the city allows people to use a variety of low-impact transit methods that are simply not useful living in the country. Unless you grow all your own food, generate all your own power, and telecommute to work (or don't work), every one of these activities will have a far greater ecological footprint living in the country than the city.
75% of people in New York don't have a car (or truck, SUV, whatever), and those that do drive rarely. Do you know anyone that lives in the country without one? 1%, maybe? How often do they drive? What sort of public transit can they use? How many houses does one kilometer of road serve in the country? In the city? How about electrical service? Water? When a single tractor-trailer delivers food to a store, how many pound-miles per person does that feed in the country? In the city?
Cities are extremely efficient. If you want to save the world, get people to move INTO THEM.
Maury
Re:10 years ain't bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
....And if he produces a few gigawatts of clean power in the process, then what exactly is your problem with this?
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Making a profit in the U.S. is E-E-EVIL, and anyone proposing to create such a (shudder) thing is automatically dragged out into the middle of the street and shot. Please disregard the resultant stimulus to 'hard' industry, the people put to gainful work, the economic benefits, and the reduction in the petro-deficit; the thing to remember is that profit is E-E-EVIL.
(Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad!....)
Don't like the subsidy? Ask your representative to help repeal it (and get crucified by the tree-huggers). But please, don't blame a businessman for being smart enough to utilize all the resources at his disposal.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Given that we have technology like CSP using mirrors and standard steam turbines, What do you feel is the best balance between improving what has already proved functional, or dickering around with a test tube? I see MIT has dye-impregnated acrylic, you have an asbestos, er nanotech, based material and some theories, while the European are building real working Solar plants at Utility scale.
in another year, Florida (thats in the United States in case you were confused) will have the Largest Photovoltaic facility in the world. FPL will be in charge of it, I believe SunPower is building it. So, we ARE building "real working Solar plants at Utility scale", while we research how to make them better. And Carbon nanotubes may be "asbestos like" if you inhale them. so when you're working on them in the manufacturing plant, wear a mask. Consumers - fear not, unless you want to try inhaling your NRAM. however, that will be dangerous for other reasons, as carbon nanotubes in that form will not be dangerous to your health.
Re:Here we Go.... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is also true in Kiev. A little know fact about Chernobyl is that the heat is piped to Kiev, the largest city in Ukraine. I've lived in both Hungary and Kiev - but I'm not sure if Hungary gets is power from a nuclear plants - the odds I would say are high, given it has an active coal-soot clean up program which is washing years of coal dust off of its beautiful gilded historical buildings.
What Al Gore Doesn't Say About Animal Agriculture (Score:2, Interesting)
There is something far more egregious than Al Gore's mischaracterization of solar cell technology. For all the years he's been out there giving his presentation on global warming, he never talks about the damage done by animal agriculture. According to the United Nations FAO report, the best thing we can do to reduce global warming, to reduce the costs associated with type 2 diabetes and obesity, and to preempt the diseases of affluence is to reduce our consumption of meat and dairy products.
Why doesn't Al Gore talk about methane, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2? Not only does methane hang around for longer than CO2, when it degrades, it breaks down into CO2.
Personally, I'm doing my part. I no longer eat any meat or dairy, and I get all my vegetables from local farmers' markets. When appropriate, I try to encourage others to cut down on meat and dairy as well, as I've become too aware of the damage to health and the environment that it causes. Heart disease killed my father at 54, and his father at 55. Both were avid meat eaters. I cross my fingers that I will live more than just another 14 years.
Apart from the 400 liters of methane produced by each cow every day, there's the water pollution and disease caused by pig farming, the waste of agricultural land producing soy to feed cattle, and the suffering of the animals themselves, which I find impossible to ignore.
I just found this story through Google, which gives a few more statistics in relation to some protestors urging Al Gore to talk about these things.
http://www.vivavegie.org/pr/algore/AlGoreDemo/index.htm [vivavegie.org]
I realize that the media and popular culture are finding it more and more acceptable to ostracize people like myself, who are expressing concern about this problem. Whatever the majority of people do - in this case, eating meat without much thought about it - the media feels it can be the enabler. And people sure do like to be told that what they're doing is just fine, and that whoever disagrees is some kind of nut.
Meanwhile, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes are exploding all over the world. And as affluence grows, these problems are increasing. All these problems cost the society, in medical expenses especially, whereas a little prevention could do so much more. But the food and pharmaceutical industries like it! Which is kind of sick. One would hope that the health and well-being of people would be the first priority, and that corporations existed to benefit the society - or at least not to dumb it down and harm it. But instead they suppress and distort information, demonize vegetarians and animal advocates, and tell young people that milk (not yucky broccoli) does a body good.
Recently I've been looking at sites like "Consumer Freedom" (an industry thinktank) and sites targeted at farmers and the animal industry. It's a little embarrassing to see how far these groups stoop, and how they tacitly expect people to agree with their ideas. They call anyone who threatens their bottom-line "kooks" and "radicals," and their readers feel empowered and enabled to think of concerned people that way. And the mainstream press is leaning towards the same kind of demonization, which makes it possible for countries like Austria to jail advocates without reason and without evidence.
In fact, people who advocate for animals, regardless of how peacefully, are roundly called "terrorists" now, and it's even been enshrined in laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It demeans the good will of so many people, and enables the mainstream to discount anything that relates to animal advocacy.
Thing is, nobody likes the facts, which is understandable. People like their cheeseburgers! But the thing is, we can't just live at the level of children who eat what we like because we like it and it feels good in the moment. I mean, fine, do what you want, but with awareness! Eating meat at the level we do require