Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Earth Talk: What Will Make Solar Energy Competitive?

E Magazine. Posted March 12, 2007.


EarthTalk, the weekly column from E Magazine helps readers understand what will help make solar energy competitive.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Dear EarthTalk: I'm "pro-solar" all the way for the sake of the environment, but solar power has not historically been very cost-effective. What innovations are coming down the pike that will bring costs down to make solar competitive with other energy sources? -- Will Proctor, Richmond, VA

The prospect of generating pollution-free power from the sun's rays is appealing, but to-date the low price of oil combined with the high costs of developing new technology have prevented the widespread adoption of solar power in the U.S. and beyond. At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power costs as much as five times more than conventional fossil fuel based electricity. And dwindling supplies of polysilicon, the element found in traditional photovoltaic cells, are not helping.

According to Gary Gerber of the Berkeley, California-based Sun Light & Power, not long after Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in 1980 and removed the solar collectors from the roof that Jimmy Carter had installed, tax credits for solar development disappeared and the industry plunged "over a cliff."

Federal spending on solar energy picked up under the Clinton administration, but trailed off again once George W. Bush took office. But growing climate change worries and high oil prices have forced the Bush administration to reconsider its stance on alternatives like solar, and the White House has proposed $148 million for solar energy development in 2007, up almost 80 percent from what it invested in 2006.

In the realm of research and development, enterprising engineers are working hard to get solar power's costs down, and expect it to be price-competitive with fossil fuels within 20 years. One technological innovator is California-based Nanosolar, which replaces the silicon used to absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity with a thin film of copper, indium, gallium and selenium (CIGS). Says Nanosolar's Martin Roscheisen, CIGS-based cells are flexible and more durable, making them easier to install in a wide range of applications. Roscheisen expects he will be able to build a 400-megawatt electricity plant for about a tenth of the price of a comparable silicon-based plant. Other companies making waves with CIGS-based solar cells include New York's DayStar Technologies and California's Miasolé.

Another recent innovation in solar power is the co-called "spray-on" cell, such as those made by Massachusetts' Konarka. Like paint, the composite can be sprayed on to other materials, where it can harness the sun's infrared rays to power cell phones and other portable or wireless devices. Some analysts think spray-on cells could become five times more efficient than the current photovoltaic standard.

Environmentalists and mechanical engineers aren't the only ones bullish on solar these days. According to the Cleantech Venture Network, a forum of investors interested in clean renewable energy, venture capitalists poured some $100 million into solar start-ups of all sizes in 2006 alone, and expect to commit even more money in 2007. Given the venture capital community's interest in relatively short-term returns, it's a good bet that some of today's promising solar start-ups will be tomorrow's energy behemoths.

CONTACTS: Sun Light & Power; Nanosolar; DayStar Technologies; Miasolé; PowerFilm; Konarka.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: solar power

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Half the problem...
Posted by: ahmlco on Mar 12, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One additional issue with solar is that it only solves half the problem: once the sun goes down you're back on the grid. And efficiency drops rather dramtically on cold, cloudy, rainy days... just when you could use some extra power.

So in addition to cheap solar cells we also need a good, cheap way to "save up for a rainy day".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Half the problem... Posted by: Jonnieprince
» RE: Half the problem... Posted by: LinearBob
apples and oranges
Posted by: toddcory on Mar 12, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I am dumb or something as I do not get this.

The price for a luxury car like a Lexus does not need to economically compete with a geo metro. Why? They both get you from point A to point B. But the Lexus/BMW/Mercedes etc is different because is uses more fuel is more comfortable, and carries more status.

So why should renewable energy sources economically compete with brown carbon power? Yes, they both light the bulbs just the same, but one energy source causes damage to the ecosystem and one does not.

Conventional energy economics is a value system masquerading as mathematics. At its heart is one key assumption: the future is worthless and the environment doesn’t matter. Are our purchases always founded on obtained the cheapest price? Of course not, but when it comes to energy, for most people cheap is best. The cheap power paradigm is bankrupt. If we value the future, conservation first and then active renewable energy second is cost effective. If we don’t, it isn’t. It’s really that simple.

Why should the price be the same? Do apples cost the same price as oranges?

Todd
Mt. Shasta

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: apples and oranges Posted by: baldo
I have to laugh... again
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 12, 2007 3:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The premise of this is flawed in two ways: 1) asks "what's coming down the pike" because this is the wealthy entitled elites' POV: we should never look at what we have only what we might have in the future, and 2) tries to equate decentralized on-site power generation with centralized mass-grid generation.

When will 'Merkaans get a clue? PV's are only "expensive" to individual homeowners/property owners because of the barriers to getting the gear in place (one of which, for condo folks like me, is the $150K minimum in legal fees to fight the HOA to enforce existing CA law that gives me the right to install PVs on a common roof, in addition to fighting the so-called public utlity co. who is so greeenwashed it might as well be selling sand in the sahara). Centralized power only works with cheap subsidized oil. We don't need to hang our future on centralized anything just because some rich white asshat says it must be so. Solar power is competitive, if we can just get the rich control freak assholes out of our way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I have to laugh... again Posted by: 9wicket
What Will Make Solar Energy Competitive?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Mar 12, 2007 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First would be to quit stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

End these stupid, illegal, and unnecessary wars. All the money used, wasted, and stolen in/on Iraq would have gone a long ways. End the fascist drug war. That would be a large and steady stream of funds for alternative energy.

It is a true disgrace and shame that such wise and simple actions are nothing more than a dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ischindl
Posted by: ischindl on Mar 13, 2007 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am for doing the most for the environment at the cheapest cost. Currently solar to electricity is very expensive. However solar to heat is competitive with other forms of heating. In Israel 90% of domestic hot water is heated by the sun. The sun can also be used to economically complement other forms of heating buildings.

The solar heating industry needs kick starting because hot water tanks with heat exchange coils are not mass produced in the US, so they are more expensive than they should be. Moreover plumbers need to be trained to install the units correctly, without gouging clients (I have friends in California who were told they needed to change the heat exchange fluid in their solar installation every year, this is expensive and not necessary).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ischindl Posted by: kekenidika
objective
Posted by: objective on Mar 13, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In reality, solar energy is MUCH cheaper than carbon generating forms of power.

The economic calculations used to compare the technologies usually ignore environmental costs so solar generation merely appears more expensive.

When you include the costs associated with removing CO2 and associated pollutants from the air or even sequestering it at the time of generation, solar generation's near emission-free power is much more cost competitive, especially when coupled with modern Nickel Metal Hydride batteries. Those who make money from polluting technologies have no impetus to disabuse us of these carefully cultivated misconceptions.

Similarly, we are told that ethanol is the answer to our alternative energy needs. However, since all combustion-based technologies create CO2 at the tailpipe ethanol will not be very useful in addressing our CO2 problems especially since the fermentation process generates large amounts of CO2.

All we really need to do get started is INITIATE BASIC ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS IN REAL TIME. As growing numbers of people take up this simple task, we will begin to make true progress toward addressing the staggering CO2 load in our atmosphere.

Very often it appears that access to just one new piece of information completely changes the picture. One task we face is getting as much information into as many hands as possible. Information that appears inconsequential in isolation can be transcendental in combination.

It is much easier to shoot down a possible solution than to create a new one. Instead of shooting possible solutions down, we need to start applying science to find new ones. It is a great deal more difficult than picking apart other people's work, and far more useful and effective. We need real solutions, no matter how small, and we need to work together and use critical thinking to weed out the propaganda and identify truly useful approaches.

Perhaps solar inventor Stanley Oshinsky said it best in that most excellent film, Who Killed the Electric Car. "Anybody who wants to make a revolution should'nt grab a gun, just go and start working like we do to change the world using science and technology."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]