I’ve been following discussions of solar energy on-and-off for quite a while, and it has always seemed as if it would be quite a long time, even assuming an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax, before solar photovoltaics could be a cost-competitive source of electricity without special support such as capital subsidies or feed-in tariffs set above market prices.
But looking at the issue again today, I’m finding lots of claims that this “grid parity” will be achieved in the next few years, and even one company, First Solar, that claims to be already at grid parity with a 12 MW plant in Nevada completed last year . Obviously, Nevada is a particularly favorable location, and there is plenty of room for judgement in cost estimates. Still, looking at a lot of different reports, it seems clear that, with a carbon price of say $50/tonne (about 5 cents/kwh for black coal and 7 cents/kwh for brown coal), solar will be cost-competitive with coal for most places in Australia without any need for fundamental technical improvements.
The big question is whether the industry can ramp up from its current small scale (about 5 GW capacity produced last year) to meet global demands for growth and replace a significant part of the existing 4TW of mainly fossil-based capacity, with even more needed if we are to have big growth in electric vehicles. There’s no obvious constraint in the long run, since silicon is abundant and ubiquitous. But the price of the high-purity silicon crystals used in solar cells skyrocketed as demand rose in recent years (it used to be available cheaply as an offcut from the semiconductor industry, but solar demand has outstripped this source). Prices have fallen with the onset of the financial crisis, but will presumably rise again if demand recovers.
However, in the long run, and with no absolute resource constraints, costs should fall further as all elements of the manufacturing chain scale up. And over 20 years or so, with continued growth of 20-30 per cent a year, the necessary scale would be achieved If so (and assuming contributions from other renewable sources) the transition to a post-carbon economy could be faster and cheaper than most existing estimates suggest.
All this seems a bit too good to be true, so please feel free to point out problems I haven’t noticed.
John Quiggin 
John, Catalyst on ABC TV had an interesting segment on 23 April which showed CSIRO scientists working on a technology to produce polymer solar cells which would be printed just like banknotes. Interesting idea with potential for huge cost reduction. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2550612.htm
It seems like every other day new breakthroughs are being reported somewhere.
I am still wondering why there is not greater interest in large solar convection towers. These, to my mind, promise a true solution to the need to produce solar generated electric power in industrial quantities and to produce that power 24 hours a day.
Solar convection towers, the largest envisaged being 1,000 m high, can produce (even more) power at night as the temperature diffeential between the surface and the air 1 km up increases at night. Hence the updraft increases.
These towers are feasible in the engineering sense. The turbines are at the base of the tower with inlets drawing air from a solar heated apron area (tarmac with a hothouse roof) of several sq. kms. The temperature differential between the base and the top produces a powerful updraft.
It has been claimed that one 1km tower would power a city of 250,000 people.
Does anyone know of any costings done for solar towers which show they might (or might not) be financially feasible?
Australia is certainly not short of hot, dry, wide plains where these towers could be built still within reasonable transmission distance of the major cities.
A couple of years ago CSIRO came up with an evaluation of solar energy potential for Oz that basically said we could supply Australia’s eletrical needs, cheaply, cheaper initial outlay than nuke by lots, 24 hours per day, with existing technology within a handful of years from then. Mainly by solar thermal, IIRC.
The report was part of a coal industry sponsored report and was never published, it was quietly shelved.
But there was some media coverage, I got an article from the Canberra Times and duly bookmarked it but now the bookmark is obsolete.
Does anybody have some details about this CSIRO report?
I’m under the impression that many of the new generation of thin solar cells don’t need large amounts of expensive silicon. First solar, for example, uses cadmium telluride, which is apparently very cheap (and hence that’s how they beat their current competitors), although not exactly something you want too much of around. Presumably, however, people will think of slightly more pleasant substances to make them out of in the future.
Fred, it would be interesting to find that report. The coal industry are clearly in the business of suppressing alternatives, pushing the clean coal fraud, garnering massive subsidies and snapping up free permits to pollute indefinitely.
By comparison, clean alternative power projects get enough grants to build the janitor’s toilet.
Fred, I believe the report you refer to was done by the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development. The report has indeed disappeared from the site
http://www.ccsd.biz/products/emerging_technologies.cfm
but you can either contact the CSIRO using info at the bottom of the page or, because I saved the whole pdf file to my computer, I would be happy to email it to wherever or whoever wants it.
Ikonoklast @ 2 – I presume you have been to Enviromissions website? http://www.enviromission.com.au/IRM/content/home.html
In the past 12 months I had the opportunity to ask a question of a Vic govt minister to inquire about the govt attitude and possible backing. The reply was largely disparaging remarks about the quantity of glass required for the thermal collector zone being more than could be locally produced.
That probably says more about the tragic decline of Australian manufacturing capability than Solar Energy potential.
Like you, my imagination has been captured by this technology which does offer true 24×7 energy output.
I believe the economics are that the technology has a very high capital cost but very low running costs. It is therefore very sensitive to interest rates. In the current interest rate climate maybe the time is right?
Carbon pricing, feed-in tariffs, green energy quotas and so on may not be enough to overcome the high capital cost and intermittency of solar. It may be good for load following in hot weather but a longer lasting result might be to design buildings so they need less AC. It is not clear to what extent solar thermal with overnight heat storage can avoid the need for back up generation such as combined cycle gas. Even within the period sunrise to sunset the energy flux can be greatly affected by cloud and latitude. Barring a breakthrough to $1/watt capital cost for thin film PV I don’t see solar displacing coal anytime soon. If the solar rebates expire under Rudd then capital costs to users will again exceed $6/watt. That’s higher than wind, nuclear and gas but as California is finding out gas fuelling can be an expensive recurrent cost. I’m not sure how much longer some States can afford 45c/kwh feed-in tariffs for solar.
We have to ask ourselves if as James Lovelock suggests renewable energy is a ‘gesture’ with limited reach underwritten by scarcely diminished coal use. I think we need a very substantial form of low carbon reliable generation to underpin the vagaries and expense of solar power.
John, if I may ask Ikonoclast if he is implying politicians should be looking at the Polluters Pays Principle rather than the market and make polluters legally responsible for cleaning up the pollution rather than taxpayers?
A few factual notes:
1) “But the price of the high-purity silicon crystals used in solar cells skyrocketed as demand rose in recent years (it used to be available cheaply as an offcut from the semiconductor industry, but solar demand has outstripped this source).”
To be really precise:
a) For years, solar cell manufacturing used leftover *semiconductor-grade* silicon.
b) As solar cells started to really ramp up, a serious supply shortage developed, and prices rose.
c) Naturally, people started building plants to produce *solar-grade* silicon, which will reduce costs as noticeably less purity is required.
Google: solar electronic grade silicon
2) Meanwhile, people are working on the machinery. Applied Materials (AMAT) is a ~$US10B manufacturer of machinery to make:
– semiconductors
– flat-panel displays
– and lately, solar PV
See their Solar Strategy.
Look especially at Accelerating Solar Power Cost Reduction, PDF”, particularly the various cost curves on p.19-21.
While “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”,
AMAT is a well-respected, conservative engineering firm with a long track record of delivering, so I’d take them seriously. I’ve heard their Solar VP Charlie Gay talk locally; he knows his stuff.
These are the same folks who helped enable years of cost reductions in semiconductor chips and flat-panels, although of course, Moore’s Law does *not* work for solar panels.
Great news. This is the only way forward — throw investment $$$ at clean technology until it is cheaper than dirty energy. We need to engineer a cleantech bubble now!
The big question is actually energy storage. I have no doubt that, given enough investment, solar (and other renewables) will reach grid parity within a decade, but whether that power can be delivered 24/7 with the reliability of nuke/gas/coal is questionable.
Pr Q says:
I have some very limited experience in the evaluation of alternative energy projects. So treat the following with caution.
Biggest problems as always with new energy technologies is grip compatibility, evening out flows of energy. Also having enough available for peak demand. Also cleaning ie maintenance. Although this is much lower than for wind-power.
FS’s cadmium-telluride solar cells technology is definitely gaining adherents in both technical and commercial side of the industry. Tellurium supply is apparently the greatest resource constraint. Wikipedia elaborates on further technological possibilities:
I checked First Solar’s progress on the NASDAQ. They opened in Nov 06 at $24.50 and in May 08 hit a high of $317.00. Since then they have, like most stocks, tanked badly, reaching a two year low in Nov 08 of $85.28. But they have since recovered somewhat and are now trading at $180.89.
I leave it to those professionally qualified to analyse these statistics in depth. But to this handy amateur stock-picker they dont look too bad, at first glance. Especially for a tech company after the honeymoon period is over.
They have been subject to the usual hype associated with emerging technology companies. The “google of solar power“. But they have also managed to score some signficant sales recently, including one to Australia (the Adelaide Showgrounds). Bloomberg has more on renewed market enthusiasm for this stock:
I will have a chat with my occasional employer on this later tonight or tomorrow with an update. He is a physicist and knows more about these things than me.
@carbonsink: Energy storage is a problem, but not an insurmountable problem. Hot salt, connections to hydro installations (pumping water uphill for future use) and smart grid solutions all offer ways to smooth out fluctuations in generation and demand.
Willozap: Hopefully not insurmountable, but salt only stays hot for so long, and good hydro sites (mountain ranges) are generally completely different to good solar sites (flat sunny plains).
Smart grids, well maybe. If its cloudy and windless everywhere on the grid, no amount of smartness will save you. You’ll need a lot of rapid response fossil backup to cover those situations, which means lots and lots of gas.
Now a global grid, that might do the trick.
Hello! People are not reading my posts!
SOLAR CONVECTION TOWERS SOLVE THE 24/7 POWER GENERATION PROBLEM. In fact they often generate MORE power at night.
Let’s forget all these fancy (costly) power “storage” systems and build genuine 24/7 renewable power with solar towers. Let’s forget that dinky, itsy-bitsy, piecemeal solar panel nonsense and go for the only truly industrial scale solution with solar convection towers. Surely, these towers will turn out to have large economy of scale advantages over solar panels!
PS. Do bloggers ever read other people’s posts? 😉
Wind-Solar Tower.
Basic Concept Design by Ikonoclast.
I’ll never patent this idea. Don’t know if it would even work. If anyone can run with it, good luck to them.
The Wind-Solar Tower is a small to medium size combination VAWT (vertical axis wind turbine) and SUT (solar updraft tower) used to generate electricity. The chimney-like tower will rotate on its vertical axis. The tower will be bladed on the exterior as a Darrieus type wind turbine probably with helical blades running the length of the tower. These blades might look similar to the blades on a GHT (Gorlov Helical Turbine) and depending on the design might have automatic adjustable attack. The tower will also be appropriately bladed in the interior so that it turns under the influence of air rising inside the tower. Once again these might be helical blades of some type optimised to utilise the vertical updraft inside the tower.
Further design consideration would have to be given to the method used to coordinate the attack of internal and external blades to allow the tower to optimise power production under all conditions of sun and wind.
The tower will have a circular black tarmac apron and a clear greenhouse style roof over the tarmac. Any prevailing wind will open auto-positioning shutters at the greenhouse level on the windward side of the apron and close those on the lee of the apron. This air will be heated as it passes over the tarmac and will be forced up the convection shaft by a combination of wind power and heated-air convection forces.
When there is sun and wind or wind but no significant solar power, the tower will operate in the manner described above. When there is solar energy but no wind energy, all shutters on the apron will self-open via the spring mechanisms. The exterior wind vanes on the solar tower will shift to zero attack to present less air resistance and the tower will operate purely as a solar tower. For all modes of operation, external and internal vanes will be made self-adjusting to ensure the combination of internal motive force and external motive force is maximised for power generation purposes.
Small to medium sized versions of this Wind-solar Tower could rely on springs and mechanical devices to self-adjust. The generator and associated equipment would be the only electrical equipment. Larger versions might benefit from electronic sensor and servo control of vanes and shutters.
The design will include a central axle running up the length of the tower with a base bearing and a top collar bearing. In addition, there will be a roller-race bearing around the base of the rim of the tower. The greenhouse apron area will also include anchor points for guy-wires to the top of the tower where there is a collar bearing for the axle. With smaller designs a cherry-picker can be employed to periodically service and replace the upper collar bearing. With larger designs, workmen can ascend inside the tower (when stationary) by step rungs.
The upper assembly will be designed with a “dual-lift” system. This will mean that the tower can be lifted while the axle remains seated and the axle can be lifted while the tower remains seated. In this way, both base axle and base tower bearings can be serviced and replaced.
There is a possible “vortex” variant to this design. It may turn out to be efficient to retain the greenhouse but do away with the tower. A free-standing VAWT of helical design could run above a large circular tarmac and greenhouse, the greenhouse simply having a circular opening below the VAWT; the greenhouse being like a large donut with a relatively small central hole.The greenhouse shutter system would probably remain.
The idea of this design would be to use the wind at all levels plus solar power to generate a vortex in the vicinity of the VAWT. At times of low wind speeds and high solar output this design might work well. At times of high winds speeds, the vortex may be “blown away” and de-stabilised but power would be adequate in any case. This design might well need to be robust and may have problems with self-destructive vibrations and stresses at certain “harmonic” speeds.
Demand for reliable 24/7 power is, in large measure, an artifact of pricing systems designed for coal-based systems. If the price of electricity were higher at night, instead of lower as at present, demand would be close to zero.
Like Ikonoclast I’m a big fan of the solar tower concept. John is probably right that if electricity cost a lot at night then demand would drop but we are yet to have wide scale time of use metering (not that this could not be fixed). However solar towers would also provide energy on cloudy days which is not something photovoltaics does with much success. Solar towers have a lot going for them except for photovoltaic style government handouts.
When I studied photovoltaics as an undergraduate in the early 1990s the buzz at UNSW was that on projected trends photovoltaics would be cost competitive with coal and the like by about 2015. I’m not sure if the trend has held but there have certainly been big improvements.
We know that for most technologies there is the learning effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
That is for each doubling of capacity there is a 10% to 25% reduction in costs. There is every reason to believe that the learning effect applies to any of the technologies suggested.
There is no need to “pick winners” just a need to start financing them. Because the installed capacity of all types of systems is so small we have scope for many doublings to get to 100% renewables with consequent reductions in cost. At 15% with existing technologies my estimate is that by the time we get to 100% renewables the cost of energy will be about 50% of what it is today.
So the message is to forget putting a price on carbon. Just direct resources to renewable generating capacity and the costs will come down. The government has a once in a generation political opportunity to start the process by making the next stimulus package one where we stimulate the economy by directing resources at renewables.
You mean they can afford another stimulus package?
Well, I don’t know about you, but on winter nights I need electricity to cook and heat the house (no gas available here). That demand is not an artifact of a pricing system AFAICT, its because I need it.
Granted, things like off-peak water heating fall into that category, but there’s still going to be plenty of demand from (say) 5pm – 10pm most nights, and that can’t come from solar in winter.
Ikonoclast: Sorry, missed your comment, and yes, I do try to read other people’s comments.
My general impression of the solar convection tower concept is that its (literally) pie-in-the-sky. Huge capital outlays are required for mile high towers, but nothing has got beyond the planning stage. But hey, if we could engineer a cleantech bubble, it might just happen.
Give the man a cigar! We need to create a cleantech investment bubble, and what better time to do it that when govts are looking for anything to spend money on. Instead we blew it cash handouts to middle class families, who either paid down debt, or splurged on imported product at the mall.
A cautionary note to those who try to predict the next big thing in clean energy. A couple of years ago hot dry rock geothermal was going to provide large amounts of 24/7 baseload power. A little roadhouse town around the Birdsville track was to be powered this way by the end of 2008, then by early 2009. Now the project is at a standstill due to problems with the drill casing. We still don’t know if the ammonia boilers at the surface will turn generators with the required power. So it goes with solar convection towers; believe it when we see it working.
Salient Green @ #6
Thanks for the link, it seems to be the same one I remember. Could I ask you to check your copy and verify, or otherwise, the accuracy of my memory that sustainables could satisfy our needs in the short term cheaply and reliably?
I might get back to you for a copy, thanks for the offer.
The concept of grid parity relates to questions about carbon pricing instrument choice. Suppose that the government set the price of carbon at a sufficiently high and increasing level that it would guarantee that one or more renewable technology was cost competitive with coal. How would the resulting emissions trajectory compare with the trajectory that is likely to be set by policy-makers as part of a purely cap-and-trade approach?
Under a price-based policy, the trajectory would be determined by the ability of the industry to ramp up its production. It could be that this would reduce emissions by more than a quantities (cap-and-trade) policy. This is an argument in favour of emissions trading schemes with a price floor, or a carbon tax.
JQuiggin says;
“Demand for reliable 24/7 power is, in large measure, an artifact of pricing systems designed for coal-based systems. If the price of electricity were higher at night, instead of lower as at present, demand would be close to zero.”
JQ, would you like to re-visit that statement? I can see that you are correct to a degree but I think you have overstated the case by a considerable margin.
In favour of JQ’s statement is the fact that coal-fired powerstations work best when load is kept constant 24/7. It is best to keep working furnaces and turbines running at optimum rating rather than firing up and firing down and moving units online and offline. Off-peak hot water and other lower tariffs at night are meant to skew the useage towards an even load.
On the other hand, saying night demand would be near zero is considerably off the mark I think. Let’s list the things that need to run at night (with a broad-ish defintion of “need” at this stage and in no particular order);
1. Street and security lighting.
2. Electric train systems.
3. Heating and some air-conditioning.
4. Some water heating.
5. Domestic cooking, lighting, PCs, fridges etc
6. Many govt and business mainframe computers.
7. Factories which work shifts.
8. Airports and other passenger terminals.
9. Restuarants and Cinemas
10. Sporting venues.
11. Hospitals and other emergency services.
This is far from zero. I think 24/7 power provision is still required.
Hi Fred, I think this may be the one you’re thinking of……../Chris
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/environment/solar-is-a-real-option-csiro-report-says-sun-will-soon-match-coal/666801.aspx?storypage=0
Solar is a real option: CSIRO Report says sun will soon match coal
ROSSLYN BEEBY
26/05/2006 8:02:25 AM
Solar thermal technology is capable of producing Australia’s entire electricity demand and is the only renewable energy capable of making deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, a confidential coal research report obtained by The Canberra Times says.
The report, by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development, claims solar thermal technology “is poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia” and will be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.
It says solar thermal-generated power is capable of meeting the requirements of two major electric power markets – “large-scale dispatchable markets comprised of grid-connected peaking and base-load power and rapidly expanding distributed markets including both on-grid and remote off-grid applications”.
The draft report, written by five CSIRO Energy Technology division scientists, was submitted to the CRC in August last year but has not been published. CSIRO is one of 19 research and funding partners within the CRC – other participants include BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers Coal, Xstrata Coal and Rio Tinto.
Greens leader Senator Bob Brown said the report clearly indicated Australia should be investing in developing and commercialising new solar technologies to meet growing global demand and has accused the Federal Government of undermining solar research by cutting back funding. “This report demonstrates that Australia’s future is definitely solar. It also places a question mark over Government decisions to scale-back funding for research in this area. You begin to wonder if there are vested interests that are making sure cost-efficient renewable energy drops off the agenda.
“It is inexplicable because solar energy is absolutely right for Australia’s climate and dispersed populations in remote areas,” Senator Brown said.
The CRC’s report claims a 35sqkm area with high levels of sunlight and low cloud cover “could produce Australia’s entire current power demand” using solar thermal technology.
“Solar radiation is the largest renewable resource on earth and, if harnessed by existing technology, approximately 1.5 per cent of the world’s desert area could generate the world’s entire electricity demand,” the report says.
CSIRO renewable energy manager Wes Stein, who advised the CRC on aspects of the report, said Australia had the potential to be a world leader in solar thermal technology.
“The technology that has been developed over the last 10 years has a lot less risks for investors, both financial and technical. The potential is massive,” he said.
Solar thermal technology involves concentrating sunlight to produce heat to generate electricity, or to increase the chemical energy of natural gas.
Technologies being developed and tested in Australia include parabolic troughs and dishes, power towers, solar arrays and solar thermal reactors.
CSIRO’s Energy Transformed national flagship has designed and built a world-first solar thermal tower at its headquarters in Newcastle which uses rows of 200 electronically positioned mirrors to track the sun as it moves across the sky. The tower captures and stores the sun’s energy as “bottled sunshine” or solar natural gas.
Mr Stein, who led the team that developed the solar thermal tower, said that using new solar thermal technology, Australia’s current electricity demand could be supplied “within an area that would take about four minutes to fly over on a plane trip from Sydney to Perth”.
Solar thermal was also “as cheap or cheaper than the cheapest wind-power technology”.
The ANU’s deputy director of sustainable energy systems, Dr Keith Lovegrove, said solar thermal had the potential to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations with solar-powered steam turbines.
“It would simply be a matter of changing over running the turbines off steam provided by coal to solar-produced steam, but the only problem is that most of Australia’s coal-fired power stations aren’t located in sunny areas,” DrLovegrove said.
The ANU has designed and built a 400sqm solar concentrator dish system – the world’s largest – for use in large arrays for multi-megawatt scale electric power generation.
Solar chimney’s have been regarded as kind of ridiculous by many (well me and my colleagues) in the renewable energy sector for many years (800m high towers the width of a football field?! WTF?!). Enviromission has had almost a decade to prove its worth and doesn’t seem to be progressing very rapidly, while other technologies such as the Solar Systems PV concentrators have managed to secure multiple rounds of government funding and have actually built stuff. (I like solar thermal in general though, just not that keen on the chimneys)
I had grown quite skeptical about PV too over the last 6 or 7 years, particularly about claims of grid parity – i had seen enough rubbish from Pacific Solar “we’ll be competitive with the grid by 2005” press releases from the late 1990s to be forevermore cynical about PV optimism.
Certainly in Australia, prices have gone up rather than down over the 2000s. Was about A$13/W +- $3 in 2000, but seems to be more like A$15/W now, fully installed.
But there is the silicon shortage argument, and a friend at ANU assures me that there are other reasons why solar is overpriced – the popularity of the technology for a start.
He stuck the latest issue of Photon magazine in front of my eyes and drilled into me yet again how completely irrelevant Australia is. He said that with the new Obama administration and changes to legislation in America, he expects the US will install a gigawatt of PV this year and become the biggest market for PV. Australia has, what? 100MW altogether?
I still have my skepticism about PV, but find that some of my cynicism has fallen away after a great evening chatting with the friend from ANU.
Still, I’ll believe grid parity when I see it.
Would be interesting if the australian govt axed the PV rebates and replaced them with a gross feed in tariff in the upcoming budget…
A good source for trends in solar prices:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm
http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm
Great pie chart on this page too – where is all the PV being installed at the moment?
http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm
Sorry, last post. This line is interesting from the link I just provided:
“China and Taiwan continued to increase their share of global solar cell production, rising to 44% in 2008 from 35% in 2007.”
Wow this thread has started with solar PV and morphed into solar thermal and electricity demand curves!
Firstly there is retail grid parity (in Qld around 16c/kWh) and wholesale grid parity (around 6c/kWh).
The former is much easier to reach (and will arrive sooner) with smaller scale distributed PV (residential and commercial rooftops), the latter is probably only possible in large scale PV in the desert and will take longer.
Making reasonable assumptions about panel life, annual energy generation and inverter replacement time, we (Local Power) in 2008/2009 have installed small scale 3kW residential systems in Brisbane which cost 24-33c/kWh.
This is the totally unsubsidised cost of the PV generated electricity, i.e. assuming no upfront grants (SHCP rebate), no RECs being sold and no Feed-in Tariff (FiT).
Assuming retail electricity costs will increase 5%/year (conservative due to the grid investments being made and the Qld increases have been 11.37% & 5.38% for 2008 & 2009 with another 14% mooted for 2010) and PV prices will drop 5%/year, I calculate retail grid parity arriving in Qld as soon as 2012 for a 3kW residential system.
If you want to see/listen to a great talk about how the PV experience cost curve has trended down in the last almost 30 years and will continue to do so, this talk is by the CTO of SunPower (who make 22% efficiency silicon cells) a PV industry pioneer and who is a former Stanford EE professor.
http://www.parc.xerox.com/cms/get_article.php?id=543
Both Suntech (Dr Shi), Sunpower (Richard Swanson), First Solar and other PV companies have talked about reaching grid parity by 2012 and have a plan to get there.
NB grid parity by definition depends on the price of grid electricity and this varies wildly around the world. grid parity will arrive in high electricity cost markets first and low cost markets last.
If you want it sooner in Australia, although it is not a government vote winner, bring on higher retail electricity prices! 🙂
As to whether the PV industry can scale, I think it can continue to grow at 40%/year unless the GFC derails that for a little while. Although it might accelerate the price drops due to the PV supply/demand balance swinging from supply constraints to demand constraints.
There will be no “peak silicon” and there will always be enough electricity to refine it, but there might be some materials constraints for the more exotic material like CdTe (used by First Solar), more specifically Tellurium.
There are many innovative ideas out there for low-cost solar cells, including solar cells in balloons, modules floating on closed waters and cells printed like banknotes. One or more of these may eventually turn out to be goers, but let’s consider the long history of claims of grid parity. Some of the world’s leading solar research groups have been making such claims for decades. It has generally taken them much longer than claimed. Of course, the shortage of funds for solar R&D hasn’t helped.
Technology development from eureka moment to working prototype to mass-produced commercially system cannot be done in just a few years. The majority of ‘good ideas’ turn out to be lemons and so an adequate period of testing and scale-up is needed. Indeed, nuclear power is still an expensive lemon after 50 years.
To speed up the development and dissemination of solar energy we need more R&D funding, market incentives such as feed-in tariffs, and a steadily increasing price on carbon emissions now. Then we should see large and increasing contributions from solar electricity in the 2020s.
Fred #23, the report I have is the same as referenced by the article #26.
As well as the various coal technologies, the report has chapters on solar thermal, other renewables (wind, pv, biomass) and nuclear.
None of the editing tools work for some reason so it’s all 7.5 megs or nothing.
Thank you SG and Chris.
John, can you provide some numbers? I can’t find any in your references. If solarbuzz is correct, industrial solar prices are around $200/MWh. This compares to around $40/MWh for coal (or $90/MWh including a carbon price of $50/tonne).
Perhaps you are comparing solar with the retail price (around $150/MWh). This includes the cost of distribution. The comparison is only fair if solar does not require distribution. Is this your assumption, and if so why?
here is the smaller (2.5MB) solar thermal CSIRO report – TA 56
http://www.ccsd.biz/publications/727.cfm
Steve @ 27:
Too true. Its all about what happens in the US, China and Europe.
The tragedy for Australia is we really do have some great advantages in terms of space and sunlight. Could we not become an “energy superpower” in the 21st Century, powering SE Asia with clean energy supplied via an HVDC link under the Timor Sea or Torres Strait? Is that really that far-fetched?
Rob Farago:
Unsubsidised solar 3kW system in Brisbane for 24-33 c/kWh?
Can you give us the upfront fully installed cost, or is that commercial in confidence?
By my simplified-for-blog calcs:
3kw = $33,000 fully installed (optimistic pricing)
Assume 20 year life, 0% discount rate and zero maintenance costs, no panel degradation, no need to replace inverter etc.
The 3kW system will generate about 4,600 kWh per year in Brissy (using MRET coefficient for zone 2), or 92,000 kWh over 20 years.
$33,000 / 92,000 = 36 c / kWh. So that’s higher than what you quote, even though I used a very good up front price, zero discount rate, assumed no degradation of panel performance and assumed zero maintenance/operational costs.
I think when you consider yearly maintenance, probable need of inverter replacement maybe once or twice in 20 years if lucky, and the other things, 50c / kWh is possibly more accurate.
Mark Diesendorf is 100% right in his first paragraph, and most of his second 🙂
For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced solar PV will ever beat solar thermal and several other clean energy options for large-scale power for the cities (where grid infrastructure already exists).
Which is why subsidies specifically aimed at the solar PV stand a pretty good chance of being a blind alley.
Rudd to delay CPRS (!)
Steve:
Re: Unsubsidised solar 3kW system in Brisbane for 24-33 c/kWh?
No commercial in confidence here. A fully installed 3kW system (tier 1 quality components) can be as low as around $26K. see http://localpower.net.au/buyinggroup.htm
With a 20 year panel life assumption and replacement of inverter at year 10, gives 33c/kWh.
With a 30 year panel life assumption and replacement of inverter at year 10&20 gives 24c/kWh.
Other assumptions for this residential deployment are:
a) 1464kWh annual generation per kWp for Brisbane
b) no panel degradation in the model. this is not that outrageous because these systems are rated at 8% above 1kWp, and will probably degrade 20% over 25 years as per their warranty, meaning on average will be around 1kW for the entire time.
c) home owner will maintain themselves, which consists of annual wash to get any dust/droppings off
d) doesn’t require a discount rate because homeowners generally don’t think about “payback” periods for renovations, new kitchens/bathrooms, holidays, new TVs, etc. and in this case they are hedging against future electricity prices by locking in their prices for 20-30 years.
My assumptions as stated above are for a residential system I think are reasonable and is somewhat “worst case” because I assume no contribution from subsidies (rebate, RECs, FiT) in this payback calculation.
I would however like feedback on the assumptions of 5%/year increase in retail electricity prices and 5%/year decrease in PV system prices.
Households do have a discount rate: typically their mortgage rate.
Agreed, the PV installation is a hedge against increasing electricity prices, so a real discount rate is appropriate (ie assume electricity prices increase with CPI).
Assuming a 4% real discount rate and 20 year amortisation, the annual financing cost for $26k is around $2,000. Assuming 1464kwh/year/kW, this gives an average cost of 46c/kWh. With a 30 year life, the cost reduces to 37c/kWh.
This does not include any cost for inverter replacement etc.
As post 26 shows, there has been essentially a conspiracy of vested fossil fuel interests to prevent development of solar thermal. Those implicated are essentially climate criminals.
In support of Ikonoclast at #43 I would note this [from #26]”…solar thermal technology “is poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia” and will be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.”
“within seven years”
written 26/05/06
we have just wasted 3 years
Scary in the context of the delay and dilution of the Rudd/ALP CPRS scheme just announced.
Gutless.
Culpable.
Agree with Mark Diesendorf’s last paragraph – but would also add – “extend the $8k rebate” into the mix as well. The average punter still looks at the upfront sticker price and doesn’t always look at the possible pay back period. To get widespread decentralised power generation working throughout Australia – there will likely be a need to take away sticker shock.
Rob #41, if the panels take 25yrs to decrease to their rated output, then a 16% efficient panel will still be 12% efficient in 2060.
I can live with that no problem.
If I was really smart though, I would add another 100watts/kw every 12 years. Not only would it be a small cost to keep the system at capacity but it would take advantage of improved technology such as higher efficiency and lifetimes.
It sounds like inverters have plenty of room for improvement with only a few lasting 15 – 20 years and the very best around 90% efficient.
Oh yeah, I’ll be dead in 2060!
Salient Green @ 6, I’d quite like a copy of that report if you’d care to send it to dirving at box dot net dot au.
Starting 1/7/11 the price of black coal fired electricity will go up 1c per kilowatt hour. That’s from $10 on each tonne of CO2 the byproduct of a megawatt hour of electrical generation.
Better redo all those payback calcs. If the MRET stays at 20% (however defined) by 2020 that cuts out nonrenewable gas and nuclear. However hundreds more wind turbines and tens of thousands of solar panels could cost ten billion dollars. Oh wait a minute that was the revenue we were supposed to get starting next year.
Salient Green, I would also like a copy of that report if you could please send it to Tushka2000 @ gmail.com.
Thanks in advance.
Salient, given the interest, if you send me the report I will post it here.