Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[DanKegel]

Oil & gas will fight solar and wind tooth and nail

[SunEagle]

So as solar increases, what will happen to O&G industries?

They will continue to produce their products because and unfortunately solar will still be more expensive to use to generate power then fossil fuel.

Also oil is still the number 1 fuel for transportation, even if there is a major increase in personal EV's, large transport and flying machines will still require oil as a source of fuel.

[J.P.M.]

So as solar increases, what will happen to O&G industries?

They will evolve, change and adapt as the situation requires as will solar and every other source of energy.

[Sunstar]

So as solar increases, what will happen to O&G industries?

[SunEagle]

[QUOTE=DanKegel;n302679does have a 2.0 version using their own CIGS cells ( but the power per square meter still looks quite low. I think they're just stubborn.[/QUOTE]

I agree. And yet people continue to purchase their product so maybe the customers are just blinded by the fact their roof protects them from the weather as well as generate power. Which are both good things if you can justify the cost differential.

[SunEagle]

Those darn entrepreneurs keep trying. Maybe it'll actually be cost effective someday. Like solar shingles... the latest company I heard of trying 'em is http://tractile.com.au They're even trying to integrate thermal + PV in one shingle. I wish them luck, they'll need it!

What has surprised me is the solar shingles that DOW are making seem to be holding onto a larger market share then most anticipated. Maybe it is because they have come out with something better (version 2.0) then their earlier products.

[DanKegel]

Those darn entrepreneurs keep trying. Maybe it'll actually be cost effective someday. Like solar shingles... the latest company I heard of trying 'em is http://tractile.com.au They're even trying to integrate thermal + PV in one shingle. I wish them luck, they'll need it!

[SunEagle]

I am just waiting for the partially transparent solar PV film that can be put on the windows of tall buildings to reduce the incoming light and produce energy at the same time.
That one has at least a slim chance of actually working.

There are some windows that have some type of solar pv system embedded into it which will generate some amount of power. It still comes down to price justification. Are those more expensive windows worth the little power they generate.

[inetdog]

I am just waiting for the partially transparent solar PV film that can be put on the windows of tall buildings to reduce the incoming light and produce energy at the same time.
That one has at least a slim chance of actually working.

[SunEagle]

That's true... and yet there might be technology changes that make panels radically cheaper.
Thin film is showing a lot of promise, and you never know, that might be awfully cheap to make someday.

The somewhat irrational enthusiasm for rooftop solar sure seems to be driving down the cost of solar...
and at some point, the beancounters are going to say "Damn, solar *is* cheaper", and utilities are going to swoop in and start building huge farms.
HUGE! It's going to be great!

I actually hope that happens some day soon.

Dupont came close to developing a semiconductor paint that could be used to coat a material at very fast speeds. That process would create very cheap solar panels. Problem was the efficiency of that "thin film" solar pv never came around to much. But maybe the breakthrough is just around the corner.

[Sunking]

Solar is a technology that gets more efficient and cheaper with time. .

Hogwash. Solar efficiency has not changed much in 60 years and efficiency has no real meaning, All efficiency means is the amount of area required. Prices have bottomed out and beginning to rise. Solar is a Mature Technology meaning not much more development to get out of it. Lot like a water glass or cup. Not much more you can do with it. If you had a clue what you were talking about you would already know that.

[jflorey2]

The chart shows two key trends in past and projected costs of U.S. solar installations. The yellow is the cost of silicon, which continues to decline toward 30¢ to 35¢ a watt by 2020, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

That seems reasonable. Silicon accounted for 99 cents of the cost of a panel back in 2010 via one breakdown. So if you drop that to 35 cents you are at 61 cents a watt for the panel itself. (Balance is glass, EVA, junction box, frame etc) That's close to what manufacturers are achieving now, so some improvement by 2020 is likely.

But as I mentioned above, there are fundamental limits.

[sensij]

Here is a link to projected solar costs through 2030. Analysts disagree with you.

How does that disagree? No one said costs can't fall further, it is just that there will eventually be a limit. The article you linked has numbers that are roughly consistent with what was used in CA's net metering 2.0 proceeding, crossing $2 / W in 2027 maybe (roughly 3%-5% drop in prices annually through 2025-Attachment A & B) Lots of assumptions baked into those numbers though.

[veritass]

Yep. And better technology makes cheaper, more efficient cars possible as well. But if we projected trends from the 1940's through the 1960's to today, we would now be driving cars with top speeds over 600mph that got 750 miles per gallon and cost $50. The reason we are not is not that research on cars has been lacking - it's that car manufacture ran into some very fundamental physical and economic limits.

Even Moore's Law, the law that says computing power will continue to double every two years, is running into some fundamental limits. Transistors the size of atoms don't work, and clock speeds faster than the speed of light divided by the distance across the IC don't work either. The research to overcome the speed-of-light issue, for example, isn't going to be as simple as the research to make a smaller MOSFET gate.


Yep. But they are already a small fraction of system costs. To make big gains from here, we will have to (for example) figure out how to make aluminum, glass and copper more cheaply. And since we have been using them for centuries, we've already made most of the easy/feasible improvements in the process.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see 10 cent per watt PV. They are simply unlikely.

Here is a link to projected solar costs through 2030. Analysts disagree with you.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/in-the-time-it-takes-to-read-this-story-another-solar-project-will-go-up

"The chart shows two key trends in past and projected costs of U.S. solar installations. The yellow is the cost of silicon, which continues to decline toward 30¢ to 35¢ a watt by 2020, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The Agora report is even more bullish. “An end to cost reduction for power from solar photovoltaics is not in sight,” the analysts write. That holds even if solar systems see no more technological improvements, a conservative and unlikely assumption.
"

[jflorey2]

You wrongly compare the drop in prices in solar panels to a financial bubble. Better technology makes cheaper more efficient panels possible.

Yep. And better technology makes cheaper, more efficient cars possible as well. But if we projected trends from the 1940's through the 1960's to today, we would now be driving cars with top speeds over 600mph that got 750 miles per gallon and cost $50. The reason we are not is not that research on cars has been lacking - it's that car manufacture ran into some very fundamental physical and economic limits.

Even Moore's Law, the law that says computing power will continue to double every two years, is running into some fundamental limits. Transistors the size of atoms don't work, and clock speeds faster than the speed of light divided by the distance across the IC don't work either. The research to overcome the speed-of-light issue, for example, isn't going to be as simple as the research to make a smaller MOSFET gate.

Already, leading thin film solar manufacture is at 16% efficiency and their utility scale installed cost will below $1 a watt by 2017. Thin film has a long way to go. Also Solar City's cost per watt of their solar panels is around 50 cents for a 21.5% efficient module. Higher efficiency modules lower the balance of systems costs.

Yep. But they are already a small fraction of system costs. To make big gains from here, we will have to (for example) figure out how to make aluminum, glass and copper more cheaply. And since we have been using them for centuries, we've already made most of the easy/feasible improvements in the process.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see 10 cent per watt PV. They are simply unlikely.