[ExI] solar is looking better all the time: was RE: Efficiency of wind power

[Kelly Anderson]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:04:22PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Inverters are still power electronics, and inverters don't upgrade
> the grid so it can deal with multiple, variable points of power
> injection.

Eugen, I apparently have a huge hole in my understanding of the grid
here, so be gentle with me. When we do net metering, we run the meter
backwards and the electricity goes out on the grid. To me this is just
the "magic" of the grid, that it somehow balances and moves the
electricity to where it needs to be. I have always assumed that this
is possible somehow because of AC. I assume that if everyone in an
area is running their meters backwards, that it would be a problem...
I don't assume that it would pump water back up the dam... So how does
it work? I guess you're saying that the problem is that it doesn't
work. I read the Wikipedia articles, and didn't get any understanding
from there. So what is the problem with the current grid, exactly. It
would seem that as long as the Demand Response can shut down unneeded
power sources on a sunny day, why doesn't it work?

> It is the grid that is keeping us down at the moment.
> Alternatively, large scale electrochemical energy storage, which
> allows to keep the power local so the grid needs less capacity.

Yes, I can see that this keeps the electricity from flowing too far
upstream, and moving electricity around loses power because of the
inefficiency. Transmitting electricity in power lines causes a heat
loss, I get that part. I feel kind of dumb about this because I
studied Electrical Engineering for a couple of years, and it SEEMS
like I should understand this.

>> costs are constant, particularly with the Nanosolar approach of using
>> farming implements to install huge arrays of PV panels at the speed of
>> plowing. That would be MUCH cheaper than putting solar panels on each
>> roof. Installation costs in space are also much different set of cats
>
> Roofs need to be put up no matter what. Factoring in PV at
> design stage results only in minor incremental costs.

Why do you need a roof? Can't you just create a stand in a field? This
doesn't make sense. The problem as I see it is inverters and batteries
in every single house because there is no efficiency of scale.

>> to skin than one per roof.
>
> In densely populated places free space is a premium.

Yes, but we can hardly believe that enough sunlight falls on New York
to meet their power needs in any case. We'll always have the need to
import concentrated power (hydrogen, gasoline, whatever).

>> Yeah, RK has trouble sometimes differentiating between PURE
>
> Sometimes always.
>
>> information technologies, and those that are also tied to
>> infrastructure. His continued failure to predict when we all talk to
>> our computers rather than type is typical of this blind spot. Not
>> everyone has four walls around them, or is comfortable talking to
>> their machine.
>>
>> >> it's size. The period of halving the price is estimated at around 3
>> >> years.
>> >
>> > Germany doubled PV from 1% to 2% within about a year. Will this year
>> > double it to 4%? Unfortunately, probably not. Will the next year see it
>> > to 8%? Definitely not. The year after to 16%? The next, to 32%? And then,
>> > to 64%, and then to 128%?
>>
>> RK's halving claim is only the price of the PV, I don't think it has
>
> No, Ray claims that in 20 years the world will be powered by 100%
> solar energy, total.

This is the closest thing to this claim from TSIN:

"As I discussed in chapter 5, nanotechnology-based designs for
virtually all applications—computation, communication, manufacturing,
and transportation—will require substantially less energy than they do
today. Nanotechnology will also facilitate capturing renewable energy
sources such as sunlight. We could meet all of our projected energy
needs of thirty trillion watts in 2030 with solar power if we captured
only 0.03 percent (three tenthousandths) of the sun's energy as it hit
the Earth. This will be feasible with extremely inexpensive,
lightweight, and efficient nanoengineered solar panels together with
nano-fuel cells to store and distribute the captured energy." - Ray K.

Granted there is a "could" and an "if" in there... but I don't see
anything about 100% of energy. Do you have another reference for this
claim? I can't imagine any future with just one energy source. That
doesn't make any sense at all.

> http://www.psfk.com/2011/02/kurzweil-predicts-100-solar-power-in-20-years.html

The context is kind of important here. Ray, on a radio show says:
"In 20 years we’ll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar,
based on this trend which has already been under way for 20 years."

I think if he thought about it, he would not state it in exactly these
terms. Just because you could afford solar, doesn't mean you'll
instantly replace everything with it. I think this was just an off the
cuff remark that was talking about the cost of it. If he had said in
twenty years all new power production will be met with solar, I might
go along with that a little easier. RK seems to get carried away with
things. Just because it's cheaper/better to run a car than a horse
doesn't mean nobody rides horses anymore.

> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg
>
> It's 100x since 1970 for sure, but it's still only 0.04% of total.
> So if it doubles every two years, that's
>
> 2010 0.04%
> 2012 0.08%
> 2014 0.16%
> 2016 0.32%
> 2018 0.64%
> 2020 1.28%
> 2022 2.56%
> 2024 5.12%
> 2026 10.2%
> 2028 20.5%
> 2030 51.2%
> 2032 100%
>
> Total demand should be a lot more than 15 TW by then, but
> that's close enough. Just check above numbers ever two years,
> and see how the prediction fares.

It will be interesting to see how RK does with this prediction. I
don't think he's terribly far off, especially given the political
climate (hehe) today. It will be interesting to see what us tea party
folks do with solar and wind if we get a new president and senate in a
couple of years. However, this isn't a US thing, it's a world wide
trend that is important. Africa needs solar, and they may have it
first, just like they got cell phones before they had land lines.

> It's pretty much how it has to happen in order for it to become
> reality. Including robotic electricians upgrading the grid.

It's all part of Ray's grand vision... :-)

>> > Singularity is sure quicker, but Singularity in 20 years? It's always
>> > 20, 30 years away.
>>
>> Depends on which definition of Singularity you choose, I suppose. If
>> your definition is the year that without computers we would have
>> something close to an extinction event for humanity, then perhaps we
>> are already there... ;-)
>
> The interesting threshold is when people cease to matter, both
> as planners and as executing agents.

First US president that is non-organic?

> Schedule an gedanken rapture every year, how long until everything
> grinds to a halt? We know we're making progress if the clock continues
> ticking longer and longer every year.

I'm not sure I'm following your question here, could you rephrase?

> Needless to say, right now we don't look very good.

If there is one thing that seems to be the case, it is that you are
more pessimistic than I am. Perhaps you've spent too much time in
Europe... :-)

-Kelly