EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Here Comes the Sun
For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.
Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.
But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.
If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.
Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let’s talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, a k a fracking.
Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.
Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.
Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that “there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”
So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.
And now for something completely different: the success story you haven’t heard about.
These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.
But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.
This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we’re just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.
And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point.
But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach?
Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar.
So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
81 Comments so far
Show All"Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in."
If your newspaper lets the sun in, you mean. We the people have wanted solar power for decades. NASA did a proof of concept solar village in 1979 in Arizona and was told in no uncertain terms to SHUT UP about the total success of the project by the utility industry that claimed they would still have to build their plants the same size for "peak" capacity while losing market share and being forced to lower prices due to solar competiton. YOUR paper could have exposed craven profit mongering from the utilities but, instead, said nothing.
I could say, better late than never, but with your newspaper now beating the war drums against Iran, I believe this piece is another effort to convince people that the NYT cares about the needs of humanity. The NYT cares about profit for the 1%, PERIOD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979:
Solenergy was founded. NASA's Lewis Research Center (LeRC) completed a 3.5-kW system on the Papago Indian Reservation in Schuchuli, Arizona; this was the world's first village PV system. NASA's LeRC completed an 1.8-kW array for AID, in Tangaye, Upper Volta, and later increased power output to 3.6 kW.
"Drawing on experience in developing solar cells for space power systems, Lewis also initiated programs to develop electric systems in remote areas of the country that could not be effectively serviced by the electric power industry. The village of the Papago Tribe at Schuchuli, Ariz. (about 120 miles from Tuscon) was chosen as the site for the world's first solar-powered village. A Lewis team, headed by Louis Rosenblum, designed and installed the system, which consisted of a solar cell array field of 192 photovoltaic power modules. Excess electrical energy, stored in a bank of lead acid batteries, provided power for lights and appliances in the evenings.19
Lundin could not win the full cooperation of the electric power industry. The new solar technology threatened the power industry. It proved easier to develop the technology than to achieve the hoped-for technology transfer. A memo from the Chief of Industrial Programs to Bruce Lundin made the situation clear:
[208] Although entirely peripheral to the Lewis program of large-scale experiments (which relates directly to utility generation of bulk power), it is well to recognize that the overall solar program is viewed with reservation by much of the utility industry. This is because solar power devices used by their customers will reduce utility energy sales but will not reduce utility need for total generating capacity. The combination would add to their financial problems.20
Lundin and his staff discovered the difficulties of developing new relationships with industry. Industry's wary attitudes were similar to the initial reluctance of the aircraft engine industry. For many years Lewis had carefully cultivated its good relations with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney. The delicate interplay between the military, the NACA, and industry was missing in this ground-based energy venture. NASA had the capability to provide hardware based on the most advanced technical concepts, but it was powerless to get industry to accept the new technology."
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4306/ch10.htm
Delicate interplay, MY ASS!
agelbert, you said, " I believe this piece is another effort to convince people that the NYT cares about the needs of humanity." Goodness sakes, agelbert, you are like so many who see scheme and device everywhere you look. This is simply Paul Krugman making a statement about energy issues and their relationship with politics. While hidden agendas and conspiracies are fairly common, they are not everywhere. Krugman's agenda is not hidden. He is a liberal who believes facts should win arguments (even though that is an uphill battle). He believes democrats are better than republicans in most cases (even though the differences are sometimes slight).
His employer is the primary warmongering advertising vehicle/corporation responsible for the deaths of untold thousands over the decades. Its two primary goals are to make money while pressing the Empire forward, using its toady-writers to draw as many faces as possible. Krugman draws the MS liberal/democrats, while overall supporting the one-party system.
They have far too much blood on their printing presses to overlook.
Well said! Even though I am not a Krugman fan by any means. Too often he doesn't use real facts.
Dude. 3500 watts would barely power a house that was completely off the grid. You do know that don't you?
Of course. My point is that the utility industry conspired to shut down the use of solar generated power. Reagan and his goons subsequently destroyed all the potential of this new technology for THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!
It didn't have to be this way. Had the government continued to back NASA and the Lewis research facility in spreading solar accross the nation then (as it STILL does for nuclear and oil with subsidies), we wouldn't be outcompeted by China now on PV technology and cost.
I agree the social and political roadblocks are what has held solar back. I thought you were holding this up as some large-scale residential project when it was just a single house.
Krugman's piece exposes the propaganda of the right in no uncertain terms, something we all knew was going on, certainly no surprise. The powers that be, whether the government or the corporations that run it, are totally dedicated to serving their own interests and maintaining the status quo, even if it requires overt lying and results in the eventual death of the planet. What surprised me was how much I personally have been duped by this right wing propaganda as far as solar technology is concerned; I should have known that the right has created an impressive myth that solar is prohibitively expensive. It's great to know it's not, but this issue also makes me wonder, how many other myths conjured by the indefatigable right do I and others continue to fall for?
Most ashamedly you've fallen for the propaganda of the fake left.
Progressive Obama led an illegal war in Libya to ensure their oil flows towards the military machine of NATO.
Progressive Obama is posturing towards war with Iran to do the same.
Progressive Obama happily gave BP more permits to drill in the Gulf after determining it wasn't oily enough.
Progressive Obama has green lighted drilling in Alaska.
Progressive Obama backs fracking and dirty coal through Appalachia and the north west.
Progessive Obama continued to sell nuclear energy only HOURS after Fukushima began its melt down.
Progressive Obama has massively underfunded job creating, planet stabilizing green energy projects.
Progressive Obama has ensured that atmosphere clogging carbon based energy will remain our primary source of power for decades to come.
Thank you.
I tire of pointing this stuff out.
Being progressive has little to do with either party.
Which is why I have noted, with some dismay, the arrival of Russ Feingold to speak to the local Occupy folks.
I hope they (verbally) flay him for not disowning the party that sold out the poor and middle class, and continues to smile innocently as they work the blade further between the muscles around the Republic's spine--
Progressive Obama may have a lot of power. But he does not control the sun. Solar power is a great idea. The arguments about Obama or any other politician seem somewhat irrelevant to the central ideas of the article. Politicians will come and go, but the sun is likely to be around for a while. We should use it.
My hands are up in a defensive posture, waiting for the attacks.
Hey X1-hole:
Quit badmouthing Obama as if that would solve anything, even if
youall get him defeated in 2012. It seems to me that you're
beating on a dead donkey, so to speak. Why don't you tell us
what is your real purpose? May be you're a closet rightist instead
of a fake leftist: Except for the names they're mostly the same.
If you truly believe Obama is "progressive" you are seriously deluded, dude.
mckinnon -- You're not alone. With the exception of a few of the most astute amongst us, they dupe us all. The 1% own the MSM; the MIC; the motion picture and television industry; video gaming; telecommunications; Oil, gas, coal, nuclear; the monetary system; the regulatory system; and congress, the white house, and the courts.
An interesting read that brings it all into perspective is Back to Our Future by Sirota. Sirota convincingly lays out the case that since the 1980s the 1% have collectively, intentionally, systematically, and persistently used everyone of these industrial and economic forces, which they control to propagandize us against our own best interests.
Have you ever wondered why you never see anti-MIC motion pictures any more? I have because the silence from the anti-MIC in the motion picture and television industry is thunderous. Today, you'll never see anything close to Mash, Platoon, or one Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest. To do a war movie, it takes the use of military resources and thus the cooperation of the military. Since the 1980s, the military has made it a policy that approval is contingent upon direct involvement in script writing. They do not give approval to anything script that places war in a negative light. They do not give approval to anything that even carries a suggestion that war should be questioned. In response, the money conscious executives of the main street MPI don't give production approval without MIC approval.
Insidious infiltrations like this continuously surround us and we never see them because the perpetrators work under the radar and never make themselves or their tactics know. When we go to see an action movie we think we are just going to enjoy a few moments of harmless and escapist entertainment. We are totally clueless to the fact that we are really seeing blatant and unabashed propaganda.
Once you see it, though, you'll see the 1% propaganda machine at work everywhere you look. Because once identified for what it is, the pervasiveness of the propaganda becomes unavoidably obvious. That is for those who still have a few brain cells left.
.
Real-world:
Last year I was part of a PR team promoting one of the hugest solar successes in the State of Florida.
A very conservative organization that provides shelter for the homeless had installed the largest PV solar array for a non-profit in Florida’s history [possibly on all of non-profits in U.S.] on their enormous facility to reduce their very costly electric bill.
All the top Republican politicians, government officials, and church leaders were invited to a Gala Solar Celebration, a well planned event handled by a green PR firm. Top political guest speakers, solar workshops, food, nice gifts, roof-top tours of the array, etc were all included. Based on the RSVP’s a large turnout was expected.
But when the highest ranking Republican politician discovered the solar array had been installed utilizing TARP funding, the word went out, and everyone right down the line cancelled at the last minute with lame excuses, and only a small handful of lower-level personnel and the public actually attended.
While the disappointment was significant and disillusioning for us personally, what struck me the most how quickly the conservatives turned on one of their own.
This is an excellent organization the area churches had wholeheartedly supported and Republican politicians had blessed and praised. But their blind hate of Obama and his TARP funds trumped all, and they tossed their fellow conservative organization under the bus without a second thought.
Wasn't TARP funded before Obama took office? I suppose he can be blamed for the allocation, but TARP was essentially a Republican originated program to bail out at taxpayer expense the fraudulent banking system. God forbid that any of that funding should be spent for a real purpose providing real infrastructure to benefit real people over saving paper profits.
.
Yes dkshaw, you are correct - TARP originated during the last dying gasps of the War Criminal W’s administration, a Republican originated program - but conservatives despise all things green, and they also have conveniently have twisted and rewritten history to where in their minds TARP is now blamed on Obama.
Solar is viewed by Republicans using a similar mythological creation like Ronny RayGun used to paint welfare Blacks as all driving a Cadillac - it is a government give-away to be crushed at every opportunity.
Florida and Arizona are fine places for solar power. But what about Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and maybe Seattle, where the sun might not shine at all for weeks?
Hi - some friends have installed solar power panels on their brownstone roof here in Brooklyn. They get enough power to use some and sell some back to the power company. It is not easy to do, or to collect the subsidies and tax abatements which are available for this type of project. But what is the other choice?
Well, pjd412, they still move electric power through high-voltage
transmission lines. If the sun is shining in Arizona, then let the
Arizonans generate the power [and profit therefrom], and then
transmit it to Cleveland.
Yes, that is of course what a solar-electric infrastructrue will require. Wind power can be imported from the central plains wind pwoer is avaialble even at night particularly in the winter. Lots of wind resources on the central Applacian plateau and offshore Great Lakes, if it werent for the NIMBYists. Solar has the distinct disadvantage of not producing any power at night, and schemes for storing the power for night and cloudy-day use are likely to be far more expensive than the solar panels themselves.
And NYC is actually a fairly sunny place compared to west of the Appalacians, especially around the US side of the Great Lakes.
New York is less sunny than most midwest and western locations, including the upper midwest. Almost all of the sunniest locations are west of the Appalachians.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/pctposrank.txt
Have you lived in NYC? It's sunny most days. The cloudiest period is usually a few weeks in April and May. I lived there for about 3 decades of my life.
Sun-drenched or not, the world is full of "fine places for solar power." Germany is the leader in installed solar generation among "Western" countries. Seattle is where the Bullitt Center is being built, a 6-story office building that will be solar powered.
Importantly, assumptions about "need" for electricity skew outrageously high. A modest amount of electricity (compared to current use in "advanced" countries) can provide vast improvement in quality of life. Most electricity generated is frankly wasted, whether through gross inefficiency, gross triviality, or gross violence.
It's been said before: We need a form of "war economy" focused on swift transition to a carbon-free energy economy. So, we need to west control of the economy from the gangsters who run it, and invest in people and the Earth.
These are very good points indeed. Germany is not a sunny country. I'm not sure how it compares to areas of the US, but my assumption is that it's a lot closer to Seattle than it is to Florida. Yet Germany is pursuing solar with vigor, and reaping benefits. It could be done in the US.
And the bogus assumptions about electrical demand-- webwalk is spot-on about this. The modern world is profligate in its waste. Neon highlighting for the corners of a high-rise, anyone? What a load of crap.
And yes, a Manhattan Project-style focus on achieving sustainable energy use is what is sorely needed.
Ever been to South Florida in the summer? The sun doesn't shine much here then. You can set your watch by the daily monsoon. Now if you can build PV that works on infrared at 90F you might be onto something. But if global warming makes the drought of the last 5 yrs that ended this year typical, you'd be a bit more accurate.
Buffalo, however, is pretty sunny, if cold, in the winter, after the lake freezes.
I've lived for about a decade in both places, so I'm pretty aware of the climates.
Yea. How about trying solar power in Germany? Oh, they have. Fact is, Germany is out there leading the world in solar energy production. But, I guess sunny Germany does gets a lot more sun than gloomy and cloud covered Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh.
PJD ---- you might like to take a look at the Solar Sector in Germany. It is, I believe among the strongest in the world in terms of total load percentage generated and used and Germany is not Arizona. dh
Doesn't this article and posts pretty much say it all? The opponents of solar
power serve and dwell within the corporate purpose, which is profit above
everything. And just notice who runs to the defense of the corporate purpose.
Subsequent posts undoubtedly will say: There's no difference; all politicians
serve the corporations. I say what a reasonable man would say: There must
be some difference between one senator and another senator, etc. Just let
consumers of electric power get mad enough to start asking the candidates
why we can't get power at (perhaps) half the present rate, and standing ready
vote according to the answers. We'll see pretty quick that elected senators
etc. will start voting to enable halving the electric power rates. That's how it
works: We The People have the right to vote. Even it the voting in 2011 and
2012 doesn't bring change immediately, we must start digging ourselves out
of a reactionary mindset. Despite feeble old minds in congress, this is NOT
1911. This is not even 1961. Progress of inventions and engineering has
occurred. Only political fools will cling to their old allegiances to old business
arrangements. Thus, if perhaps there's no difference between politicians
now, We The People surely can make a difference.
>>Just let consumers of electric power get mad enough to start asking the candidates
why we can't get power at (perhaps) half the present rate, and standing ready
vote according to the answers. <<
Pennsylvania Power & Light recently was granted a 30% rate increase by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. Then right after that they asked for and were granted yet one more 10% increase on top of the 30%. Then, not long after that, PP&L, it was found, was sitting on a SIX POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLAR SLUSH FUND that are using to purchase another electric power company. Do you smell fish?
"And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point (when solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal)."
Hence the Koch Brothers' funding of Tea Party and Republican candidates, to insure that industry never has to internalize those costs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/nov/07/koch-brothers-connections-interactive-guide
There are problems with renewables. problems meeting peak demand, problems of storage to meet demand, problems of efficiently moving that energy from where it is generated to where it would be used. Granted. But after the limitations are enumerated, the solutions to these limitations are not discussed. The limitations are used as grounds for dismissal of renewables. That is where the the political agenda of the fossil fuel defenders shines through. They would sooner talk about "clean coal technology" when pressed about environmental concerns even if that technology, when it includes sequestration of CO2, raises energy costs. I like the the analogy between fossil fuels and a fossilized Congress but toxic fuels and poisoned or toxic Congress would be a more appropriate simile.
Hello to the low-paid Koch-funded boiler room bloggers. The Koch brothers own refineries and pipelines.
There are problems with fracking. Pumping toxins into the water table soon creates toxic water from the well. This is a known problem.
Oklahoma has suddenly become destabilized and has experienced a 5.6 earthquake on the Richter scale. No particular cause is pinpointed, but people want to know if oil and gas depletion created empty pockets deep underground, or if river erosion from west to east moved millions of tons of soil, unbalancing the earth's crust, and if fracking then destabilized the earth. Plunging ahead without having a clear answer is so corporate-friendly, but occasionally it leads to BP-like disasters.
Think of all the jobs that would result in the process of solving the problems and building out the infrastructure. It would be expensive, yes. Thank GOD we have the trillions yearly required funding necessary to conduct multiple wars in multiple locations all over the world.
You leave out the best and cleanest renewable. That is a low cost yet highly efficient and continual source that has been in use since the 70's and the ability to produce it has become available to just about anyone anywhere. It produces much like nuke or fossil but has no waste nor risk to the environment. It is Geo-themal electrical production. though i believe Tesla was onto something regarding a source from our planets ionosphere and the immense transfer of electricity that occurs continually around the planet via lightening, the best way for now is to drill deep holes and dump city sewage down into them, in order to save fresh water and eliminate the pollution caused to our oceans and rivers, thus producing steam that runs turbines. I also feel strongly that this could be done in most rural areas and a small turbine could provide the electricity, non stop 24/7 for a fraction of the cost of fossil or solar, no...0 pollution and in fact reduced pollution as the entire sewage or septic systems become obsolete and the sewage are cooked into oblivion from 3,00 ft to over a mile down. Of course, the costs of doing this in our nations many hot spots would reduce drilling and initial costs significantly, the sewage solution may become problematic if dumped near the surface. But, there are easy solutions for this also. If any contaminants are found in the steam being recycled via condensers, it can be drawn off and often sold for profit, as is sulfur from plants in CA and other places. Several towns in CA, Utah, Nevada etc. are already doing this and have been successful with it for decades. Yet, you don't hear about it in the main stream. They do not pollute the rivers and ocean because their sewage is sterilized and vaporized for storage many thousands of feet below the ground. For a look at the many power plants in operation and their output...have a look at this site http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm#ca
Let's use all our resources to make this world a better place. Even when it feels like your pushing noodles up a hill with your nose, we can't give up or give in. Corporations often conquer by absorbing their opposition. Why don't we the people use the same strategy to get a handle on the mega corps that are duping us and indoctrinating our children to follow their well worn path with ever widening and pervasive influence. The change to renewable must be grass rooted and done by those of us who can still think objectively and independently. Not by BP Exxon or Shell. This is our next boon and we can't wait for someone else. The 99% need a rallying point. Stripping mega corps of their right as a person and reducing the power of contract law to super-cede our Right to self determination, while utilizing the public and public funds to transform our energy system into the envy of the world ( while increasing the health of everyone are the relatively simple ways to fix the mess we are in. Of course, cutting military spending a fraction would be all we need to finance such ventures.
But one could go on and right a book about that. best to all of you
Geothermal.. The only true sustainable energy resource. Why is it ignored!?
Duplicate posts. Why do they happen? And why does the CD webmaster ignore them?
We added solar panels to our home in Maryland several years ago. At the time we added them, there were lots of federal, state, and county grants and credits for adding solar panels. The panels cost around $32,000, but we only ended up paying about $5,000. They are zero-maintenance; they just work, regardless of whether it's cloudy or sunny, winter or summer. Sure, some days they generate more power than other days (and it's sent back to Pepco).
I watched a Green Planet show once about solar energy. They said if a solar array was built that was 100 miles by 100 miles, it would generate enough power for the whole world! We, the United States, could be generating enough energy to power the world. No longer would we have to import oil, or frack, or dig coal mines (and lose good men in coal mines). Other countries would be paying us for the solar energy. Sure, it would mean we would have to have a way of distributing the energy to the rest of the world, and sure, we would have to come up with a way to store the energy, but this country has solved big problems before, and I believe we could solve these problems too.
And, with essentially unlimited energy, it would be possible to completely clean the environment, and to raise enough food to comfortably feed all.
Clean environment, plentiful food. All that pie in the sky by and by stuff (my apologies to the Rev. Ike) sounds good, but what about our owners? Will solar energy allow them to trade in their 200 foot yachts for 400 foot yachts? I think not. We need to keep focused on what's really important, like earnings per share.
Unlimited energy, until the sun explodes, but very limited power, which is energy/unit time. Let's be physically accurate.
The carrying capacity for solar-based agriculture was exceeded 200 yrs ago. That is why most food is oil these days. We'll never turn PV-based electricity into fertilizer anymore than you can turn nuclear-based electricity into fertilizer. Unless you're envisioning Star Trek replicators in 10 years,
And before you start with the "troll" accusations and other such nonsense, I have a degree in electrical engineering and worked on PV research and energy conservation projects for over 10 yrs in the 1980s-90s. And no, the sun and the laws of ecology haven't changed much in 20 yrs. And I was a very dedicated advocate, until I learned better.
A 100x100 mile array is 10,000 sq miles * 2589988.110336m^2/sq mile= ~26,000,000,000 m^2 *1000w/m^2 peak at the top of the atmosphere at the equator =
26TW best case scenario. Present energy human energy usage is ~15 TW.
You can get all this at that font of objective credibility: wikipedia.
So real world, we can produce, now, 15TW, just maybe, on 10,000sq miles, but truly, it's pushing it.
Current consumption increases at 5% annually. Let's be conservative and assume with "free" solar we double that to 10%, so every 7 yrs we would need to build another 10,000 sq mile of PV. Is THAT doable? What would be the cost? How long before we cover the whole earth in solar panels? How long - way before that - do we take enough energy out of the earth's energy budget to affect net primary production and the major biospheric cycles such as the hydrodynamic, nitrogen and carbon cycles - which all use that solar energy we'll be trapping, distributing and turning into waste heat?
Anyone want to take a shot? Or do I need to do all the real world engineering work over and over?
My "guess" is that in way less than 100 yrs (2^15 *10,000 sq miles covered) - ignoring the deleterious effects of all that earth-based PV (if we even have the rare earth elements to build that much PV, and replace it every 20yrs) - we'll be arguing about mining and covering the moon and trying to beam all that energy to earth while wondering about what effect doubling the effective solar insolation, in terms of the earth's heat balance, will have on the weather!
We also have the problem of how to build a PV panel with low-intensity PV power.
Quite the conundrum, isn't it!
You want a real, viable long-term solution? Geothermal! We can use ground-loop heat pumps for domestic low-intensity heating and cooling, with rooftop PV, and we already have the correct drilling technology thanks to the fossil fuel industry for industrial energy needs. And we've been using steam for power for over 200 years, at least.
So go ahead, shoot at the messenger. I can take it!
Even if we take your very pessimistic numbers, you should be using the compound interest formula, not a geometric doubling. So at the end of 100 years we would need 1.1^100 times 100 square miles of panels, which is around 1.4 million sq miles of panels, or about 1200 miles square. Yes, that's an absurd amount of PV, but seriously, do you really think we're going to need 14,000 times as much energy as we do now, 100 years hence?
Sorry, make that "miles square" in the second sentence, so that would make it more like 12,000 miles square in a hundred years. That's a REALLY absurd amount of PV.
If you're talking energy consumption that is tens of thousands times as great as today, how would you know the environmental impact of geothermal wouldn't be as detrimental as solar? I think the only practical solution is to bring the unchecked expansion of our energy demand under control.
I don't know what the impact of geothermal will be, as great as solar or not. But, the heat balance of the earth is based on the RATE energy is absorbed from the sun, emitted from the surface as radiant heat, and released from the interior as nuclear decay of K40.
Since we'll be increasing the rate of interior heat release we'll, by necessity of thermodynamics, add to the heat balance, invariably altering the climate. What that impact will be depends solely on the rate and the new setpoint, not so much the source.
Burning fossil fuels is a form of geothermal heat release - we are releasing to the surface energy that has been stored in the interior. We can see what that release is doing now. However, the vast majority of the effect is through decreasing the radiant heat - CO2 acts to retain radiant heat. Pure steam driven geothermal will reverse that proportion - we won't be trapping radiant heat that is already occurring, but we will be adding to the amount of heat that must be radiated away. They both lead to an increase in global temperature, but through different dominant mechanisms.
By the way, 32,000,000 sq miles is a square about a 5700 miles on a side. Or, say, covering ALL of Asia. It doesn't matter how it is covered - destroy a whole continent en mass or do it piecemeal on roofs. Also , 70% of the trapped solar energy is pure heating of the cell, no usable energy is available. Also, remember, this is based on a average radiant flux at the surface of about 500 watts/m^2 every second of ever day. In practice we really only get 100w/m^2 averaged over the whole earth over the whole year. So these surface area numbers are LOW by at least a factor of 5!
Call me a strict purist, but "sustainable" means at a steady-state, FOREVER. Nothing is sustainable for any practical amount of forever except the ecosystem as it formed itself - or was "intelligently design" for all the theologically challenged. That means photosynthesis and a human population of about 500,000,000. Technology allows us to increase population at the expense of longevity as a species. In simple terms the area under the population/time curve is a constant. The more people, the more energy is needed, the more impact on the biosphere and the less time we can be sustainable.
Yeah but when you consider most of our roofs are sitting there doing nothing but keeping the rain off, you gain a lot of unused realestate. How many square miles of blank roof top are there in the world?
I repeat my reply to Ipenek:
"By the way, 32,000,000 sq miles is a square about 5700 miles on a side. Or, say, covering ALL of Asia. It doesn't matter how it is covered - destroy a whole continent en mass or do it piecemeal on roofs."
"Also, remember, this is based on a average radiant flux at the surface of about 500 watts/m^2 every second of ever day. In practice we really only get 100w/m^2 averaged over the whole earth over the whole year. So these surface area numbers are LOW by at least a factor of 5 [at least when applied to areas the size of whole continents]!"
Do you think we'll have 160,000,000 sq miles of usable roof - correct roof ptich pointing due south - by the year 2100, or that if we did, it would have no negative impact on the climate? Or that we can replace all that PV every 20 years?
By the way, that is about a generation. So we will exist as "slaves" spending our lives and resources replacing the PV replaced by our mothers and fathers just so we can have energy enough for our sons and daughters to spend their lives replacing PV.
Why not admit it's an exercise in futility and start on the road to true sustainability. I'm all for a return to hunting and gathering. Though what we'll hunt and gather after the present generation can't power their IPads is another conundrum.
I know this is an unpopular position, but I am sure a similar idea wasn't very popular with the Easter Islanders, either. We can see where blind faith in popular sentiment got them. Funny, the only people pushing PV and even passive solar are the technologically and mathematically illiterate and the people who have a $$$ stake in PV NOW. Like all capitalists, they don't even consider the long-term. And like the perennially faithful, they think there is some "pie in the sky" awaiting them, whether technologically on this earth or in some afterlife.
Will I put PV/passive solar on my house? Sure. It'll work for the remaining time in my life - and I would have done so 3 years ago if the fascist county didn't take the money I had to do it for a boondoggle water project that forced me to pay for the water pipes of the private water company here. But I have no illusions that it won't be just another dead end in about 50 yrs if we don't do something profound to limit our population and rate of increase of consumption! If you think 50 years is remarkably short, remember, we ran through 100,000,000 yrs geological production of oil in just about 100 yrs!
But let's all acknowledge that the "mother of all physical laws" - the Second Law of Thermodynamics, stated as the Law of Diminishing Returns when applied to economics - is a a real bitch!
Let's all take a bow to ShadowDancer, shall we - his or her people had the right idea all along.
Pessimistic?
It's a geometric progression, do you know how that works? The area necessary to cover energy needs doubles every 7 years. At the end of 100 year you've got over 32,000,000 sq miles covered. And you need to replace the panels every 20 yrs, and they aren't amenable to recycling - that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I love how people who don't understand math, yet use math to disprove those who do.
No. if we increase consumption by 10% per year, we won't need 14,000 times as much energy. we'll need 32,000 times as much.
Understanding math is one thing.
Making ridiculous arguments is another.
"If we increase consumption by 10% per year..."
"If i start my argument by making a ridiculous assumption..."
The present rate of increase s 5%/yr. That is constrained by energy costs. There is a famous paradox that I always forget the name of the person who it is attributed to. But he found that as the cost of energy decreased - usually though conservation methods, the rate of increase of consumption increased. A paradox- you end up using more energy after conservation that before. Why do you think in the 1980s and 1990s the power companies loved conservation. Not only did the gov't subsidize it, they knew they would sell more power in the long run. So I think a 10% yearly increase if energy were "free" - or minimal cost to the consumer, is decidedly low.
Your peaon to "compound interest" is a geometric progression. At a 1% rate, such a function doubles value in 70yrs. The math is easy. 5%=doubling in 14 yrs, 10% = doubling in 7 years. Take a look at any mortgage calculator. 100 years is about 15 cycles so the doubling is 2*15 = 32,768. We'll need over 32,000,000 sq miles of PV in 100 yrs at "just" a sustained 10% increase.
Will it be sustained - probably not, for as rare materials needed to manufacture PV, and the land to place them on, becomeslimited, the rate will naturally decrease, just as "peak-oil" is doing. When the rate decreases, due to such externalities, to 0%, we are stuck at that level of energy production - and so is our population, since we can't cover the natural increase in energy needed just to feed the newborn. We've reached another limit.
There, I've just written in 3 or 4 comments, a damn doctoral dissertation. Where's my damn Nobel Prize!
Thanks for the information phineas, you really need to put this up on a website somewhere rather than having it all lost in the muddle that is CommonDreams blog comments. Your posts are pretty dense with information and I think folks really ought to read them carefully.
In my own experience I am in northern Ontario - just north of Minnesota - and I have 2 solar arrays, one 900watts and the other 450 watts. They use different charge control systems and battery voltages but essentially the results each get verify each others. Here in Ontario, where we have by far the highest power rate in North America, we have a program called FIT (Feed-In-Tarrif) that promises to allow us to sell power back to the grid. (I think the whole program is a scam but that is an entirely different discussion) After having monitored my solar panel output for over a year and logged it daily, here is what I have found.
My peek power production happens, predictably, in July or August where I can generate approximately 3 times the rated capacity of my bank. So my 900watt array generates almost 3kw / day on my best days of the year. Since Solar panel efficiency declines on a temperature deviation from somewhere around 20c, in the winter when the temperatures are -10c to -30c that 900 watt array has a 2 month stretch where I would be hard pressed to power anything more than a single 10watt light. I have entire weeks of 0 power production, despite there being sunlight. So that has to be taken into consideration when you live further north, get much shorter days, lower sun and have a winter that can hang around -20c (0F) for awhile.
Storing the power that is produced is not easy. Batteries are a HUGE pain. I have grown to despise them. Anyone who thinks they just hook up batteries and charge them up and that power will be available to them when they need it has never actually done that. They need constant maintenance, have a very limited life span, and lose power in practice at a rate far higher than the theoretical 0.5% that I have seen posted. Especially when it is cold and you are barely getting a trickle of power in. Once batteries are damaged then they require replacing and today the cost of batteries for my system far exceeds the cost of the solar panels. That one aspect has discouraged me even more than the lack of power I get over the winter months.
If all I wanted to do was power a radio and some lights, I would be golden. But if I want to simply power a 200 watt computer that acts as a server 24/7 my 900 watt array is nowhere even close to filling that need. I have calculated how many panels and batteries I would need to accomplish this task and the number is ridiculous.
I do think solar is great, however, and, in the heat of summer, when I walk into a house that is using that sun to keep itself cool, I always grin at the irony. That, sadly, is practically the limit of what I can accomplish with it at this time.
Also, a minor quibble with the article, Moore's Law does not state anything about the price of computing power but rather that the number of transistors doubles every two years. Moore's law ends once we get to the point where the technology cannot be made any smaller and has, in fact, ended awhile ago, even according to Moore himself. Economists! They always think everything is about them.