Interesting.
What's not explained in the article, though, is how Moore's law applies to how much energy can be captured and used by solar panels.
Bert sez:
Solar power does indeed appear to have wind in its sails. It is now hip to talk green, so alternative-power techs get press coverage like they never have before. As a result, there is hardly a week that goes by without some news being released in the field of solar power.
Of course, my skeptical (and sooo cynical) side can't help it but to notice that whenever tycoons get hip, there's always govt. funding waiting to be harvested. Is it only a curious coincidence that the hype starts building up just as the Bush dynasty is nearing its end? Or could it be that there is some genuine hope of a US govt. not so tightly tied to the oil industry?
In any case, some of the news are genuinely exciting. Several new processes are being developed to allow the production of low-cost solar films. Nanosolar even claims that its technology could challenge coal burning, at 1$/Watt, and it's shipping now.
This means that innovative solar-powered products beyond gadgetry are just around the corner. The real revolution may be happening, after all. :-)
I think it's interesting to speculate: say solar power becomes much cheaper than oil and becomes mainstream before 2020. Imagine how different the power structure globally will be in the 21st century...
10 comments:
Solar power does indeed appear to have wind in its sails. It is now hip to talk green, so alternative-power techs get press coverage like they never have before. As a result, there is hardly a week that goes by without some news being released in the field of solar power.
Of course, my skeptical (and sooo cynical) side can't help it but to notice that whenever tycoons get hip, there's always govt. funding waiting to be harvested. Is it only a curious coincidence that the hype starts building up just as the Bush dynasty is nearing its end? Or could it be that there is some genuine hope of a US govt. not so tightly tied to the oil industry?
In any case, some of the news are genuinely exciting. Several new processes are being developed to allow the production of low-cost solar films. Nanosolar even claims that its technology could challenge coal burning, at 1$/Watt, and it's shipping now.
This means that innovative solar-powered products beyond gadgetry are just around the corner. The real revolution may be happening, after all. :-)
The devil with solar panels has always been manufacturing cost per unity of energy produced. With just about every other electronic device, cost per unit comes down as demand, and thus units sold, goes up. Producers find ways to cut unit costs. This has never happened with solar cells. Production has remained (relatively) small, thus costs high per unit of energy, thus keeping the market small. A negative feedback loop.
I hope that the dropping costs and increasing production will soon cross the magic point and make solar cells as much a mass market item as digital cameras, ipods etc.
The real interesting thing about the new technologies I mentioned is that they do not rely on silicon substrates, which have always been the reason behind the sky-high cost of the traditional cells.
Since those use the same wafers as the rest of the semiconductor industry, it is no surprise that the price of silicon solar cells soar whenever consumer electronics fare well.
The exciting new processes aim at producing solar film by printing cell structures on polyethylene film (plastic bag material), thus removing the one & only real hurdle. True, they do not provide the same efficiency (yet), but having lots of 50% efficient cells beats wishing you could afford the high-tech devices you see on satellites and having none!
"I think it's interesting to speculate: say solar power becomes much cheaper than oil and becomes mainstream before 2020. Imagine how different the power structure globally will be in the 21st century..."
Such change is certainly hard to envision, but one thing is granted: it will become a matter of real estate, and the kind that nobody wanted: deserts & the like. Solar power sounds really nice, but requires huge areas to provide the kind of power traditional power plants do.
But what makes cheap solar power sound even nicer, though, is that it will become possible for individuals and small communities to exploit currently wasted space, like rooftops, etc. Wouldn't it be great if you could see the day where you could unplug from the grid? And perhaps charge your car at the same time! :-))
"it will become a matter of real estate, and the kind that nobody wanted: deserts & the like."
Let's cover up Death Valley!
there is more real estate for solar panels on the roof tops of all the buildings, houses etc., than in death valley, or probably every desert in the world. Rent your roof to the power company? or install solar panels on your roof and sell power back to them? How things could change...
In every desert? I don't think so. The deserts are huge. But it does not matter, as you point out, there's lots of space on roof tops.
Roof tops alone are not enough to provide energy to a modern household, not to mention multi-dwelling constructions where your share of the roof is, well, tiny.
Perhaps suburbia could eventually approach self-sufficiency by combining many green technologies, but large cities will forever remain dependent on power utilities. Not that there is anything wrong with making use of what you do have, mind you, but it will take a lot more than sunshine to make the typical city dwelling autonomous.
However, projecting far into the future and considering the combined effects of localized energy production and modern communications facilities, one could predict a scattering of the population, leading to the downfall of the city as we know it.
I would have thought that process would have been well underway by now, but there's no sign of it.
"I would have thought that process would have been well underway by now, but there's no sign of it."
It will take time. The 9 to 5 grind is too well entrenched to break easily. And when you are far from the city, even very occasional commuting can be a nightmare.
Not to forget that cities arose from fear, as a collective shelter and garrison site in the event of an attack. This may no longer be the case, but I would be really interested to hear what shrinks would have to say on this topic. Could be wildly entertaining, and perhaps very surprising...
But the main reason for the current state of affairs is probably simply that the city's glitter still appeals to many, and especially the young. You have to be our age to feel the need to flee the crazyness. ;-)
Mainstream before 2020?
The amazing thing is, that's quite likely! :-)
From what I've been reading, work on cutting down costs is very active today.
"Let's cover up Death Valley!"
I'm confused: isn't there ALREADY a Silicon Valley?...
So how shall we call the newly siliconed one? Boob Two?
"there's lots of space on roof tops."
They're also a whole darn closer to home!
"Leading to the downfall of the city as we know it"? Dude, what will ever happen to shopping malls? Totally un-cool, yo!
"cities arose from fear, as a collective shelter and garrison site in the event of an attack"
Scattered population could well be the best defense against today's most terrible attack weapon: the nuke. If there are no more cities, then Ahmadinejad can eat his uranium because the Bomb becomes a waste of energy that could be used for electricity instead. Nuking suburbs and countrysides is pointless, it's only interesting against large concentrations.
Besides, I read the story of the Hiroshima bombing. There are much more survivors than you might imagine. The main effect, again, is from the raw destructive power unleashed on a city.
"I would be really interested to hear what shrinks would have to say on this topic."
I beseech you, Bert, do NOT tempt the Devil! ;-)
Post a Comment