Guest “What is never?” by David Middleton
Why does this remind me of the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition skit?
New Research: The World May Have Crossed a Solar “Tipping Point”
By UNIVERSITY OF EXETER OCTOBER 19, 2023
The world may have crossed a “tipping point” that will inevitably make solar power our main source of energy, new research suggests.
The study, based on a data-driven model of technology and economics, finds that solar PV (photovoltaics) is likely to become the dominant power source before 2050 – even without support from more ambitious climate policies.
However, it warns four “barriers” could hamper this…
[…]
SciTech Daily
“The Momentum of the Solar Energy Transition”
The full text of the paper is available.
Abstract
Decarbonisation plans across the globe require zero-carbon energy sources to be widely deployed by 2050 or 2060. Solar energy is the most widely available energy resource on Earth, and its economic attractiveness is improving fast in a cycle of increasing investments. Here we use data-driven conditional technology and economic forecasting modelling to establish which zero carbon power sources could become dominant worldwide. We find that, due to technological trajectories set in motion by past policy, a global irreversible solar tipping point may have passed where solar energy gradually comes to dominate global electricity markets, without any further climate policies.
[…]
Nijsse et al., 2023
Nobody Expects “the Momentum of the Solar Energy Transition”!
The authors suggest that solar power will become the dominant power source by 2050 without “more ambitious climate policies.” However, four barriers could stand in the way.
Nobody expects “the momentum of the solar energy transition”! Our chief barrier is grid resilience… grid resilience and access to finance… grid resilience and access to finance… Our two barriers are grid resilience and access to finance… and supply chains…. Our three barriers are grid resilience, and access to finance, and supply chains… and an almost fanatical devotion to silencing political opposition… Our four… no… Amongst our barriers… are such elements as grid resilience, access to finance… I’ll come in again.
Apologies to Monty Python
Overcoming the Solar Barriers
- “Grid Resilience”: Only use electricity only when the sun is shining.
- “Access to finance”: Raise taxes.
- “Supply chains”: Drive up the prices of almost all mineral resources.
- “Political opposition”: Reeducation camps.
Am I Being Flippant?
SciTech Daily
- Grid resilience: Solar generation is variable (day/night, season, weather) so grids must be designed for this. Dr Nijsse said: “If you don’t put the processes in place to deal with that variability, you could end up having to compensate by burning fossil fuels.” She said methods of building resilience include investing in other renewables such as wind, transmission cables linking different regions, extensive electricity storage, and policy to manage demand (such as incentives to charge electric cars at non-peak times). Government subsidies and funding for R&D are important in the early stages of creating a resilient grid, she added.
- Access to finance: Solar growth will inevitably depend on the availability of finance. At present, low-carbon finance is highly concentrated in high-income countries. Even international funding largely favors middle-income countries, leaving lower-income countries – particularly those in Africa – deficient in solar finance despite the enormous investment potential.
- Supply chains: A solar-dominated future is likely to be metal- and mineral-intensive. Future demand for “critical minerals” will increase. Electrification and batteries require large-scale raw materials such as lithium and copper. As countries accelerate their decarbonization efforts, renewable technologies are projected to make up 40% of the total mineral demand for copper and rare earth elements, between 60 and 70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium by 2040.
- Political opposition: Resistance from declining industries may impact the transition. The pace of the transition depends not only on economic decisions by entrepreneurs but also on how desirable policymakers consider it. A rapid solar transition may put at risk the livelihood of up to 13 million people worldwide working in fossil fuel industries and dependent industries. Regional economic and industrial development policies can resolve inequity and can mitigate risks posed by resistance from declining industries
“Even without support from more ambitious climate policies”
Can someone please explain to me how they plan to overcome these barriers “without support from more ambitious climate policies” (AKA massive government intervention)?
Nijsse et al., 2023 envisions the following energy transition:
Bear in mind, this is where we are now in the USA:
Solar power is very dependent on… the Sun. The annular eclipse on October 14, 2023, did this to ERCOT’s solar power at high noon on a sunny day:
The loss of solar generation was accompanied by the usual midday doldrum. 4,904 MW of solar and wind generation tool a lunch break that day. Fortunately, it occurred on a Saturday, the high temperature was only 63 °F and natural gas-fired generation quickly ramped up to fill the gap.
| Timestamp (Hour Ending) | Wind (MWh) | Wind (ΔMWh) | Solar (MWh) | Solar (ΔMWh) | Natural gas (MWh) | Natural gas (ΔMWh) | Coal (MWh) | Coal (ΔMWh) | Nuclear (MWh) | Nuclear (ΔMWh) |
| 10/14/2023 11 a.m. CDT | 12,665 | 6,100 | 13,271 | 5,045 | 5,045 | |||||
| 10/14/2023 12 p.m. CDT | 9,709 | (2,956) | 4,152 | (1,948) | 17,889 | 4,618 | 5,763 | 718 | 5,046 | 1 |
| 10/14/2023 1 p.m. CDT | 7,120 | (2,589) | 5,981 | 1,829 | 18,023 | 134 | 6,164 | 401 | 5,048 | 2 |
There Has Never Been an Energy Transition
All of the blather about the “energy transition” omits a very pertinent fact: There has never been an energy transition. Nor will there ever be an actual energy transition unless we manage to harness nuclear fusion.
We never transitioned from traditional biomass to fossil fuels. On a per capita basis, we consume as much “traditional biomass” for energy as we did when we started burning coal. We have just piled new forms of energy on top of older ones. Now, we have changed the way we consume energy sources. In the 1800’s the biomass came from whale oil and clear-cutting forests. Whereas, today’s biomass is less harmful to whales and forests.
Energy Consumption: Bjorn Lomborg, LinkedIn
From 1800 to 1900, per capita energy consumption, primarily from biomass, remained relatively flat; as did the average life expectancy. From 1900 to 1978, per capita energy consumption roughly tripled with the rapid growth in fossil fuel (coal, oil & natural gas) consumption. This was accompanied by a doubling of average life expectancy. While I can’t say that fossil fuels caused the increase in life expectancy, I can unequivocally state that everything that enabled the increase in life expectancy wouldn’t have existed or happened without fossil fuels, particularly petroleum.
It’s simply absurd to claim that solar power will ever become the dominant power source, with or “without any further climate policies.” Nobody should expect an energy transition. Wishful thinking dressed up as scientific research just encourages politicians to make bad policy decisions.
“Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
I just had to include this:
Reference
Nijsse, F.J.M.M., Mercure, JF., Ameli, N. et al. The momentum of the solar energy transition. Nat Commun 14, 6542 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41971-7
Boy, the authors should meet the folks of this reality:
https://www.americanexperiment.org/solar-farm-components-are-starting-to-fail-after-only-10-to-15-years/
Whilst I am very skeptical about the ‘claimed harmful effects’ that human CO2 emissions have in changing the climate, I have a lot of confidence in the capacity of science and technological development to produce amazing results in the future.
The goal of the development of ‘clean’ renewable energy sources should be to find methods of producing energy more efficiently than current fossil fuel methods.
As solar panel and battery storage technologies develop, it should be possible in the future, if not already possible, to build a new house designed to produce more electricity than is required to run all household appliances and recharge the BEV. The surplus electricity could be sold through the grid.
In other words, the house could effectively be a miniature solar farm. Now I understand that many posters on this site will claim this idea is just fanciful nonsense, and could never happen in reality. To some extent, I would agree that for many people who lead fanciful lives and who are not concerned about living efficiently, this could never happen for them in reality.
Such a reality would exist only for sensible and pragmatic people. For example, when people buy a new house, most are concerned about the appearance of the house. The appearance of a house designed to maximize the production of solar energy might not appeal to many people.
Australia, because it’s a relatively sunny country, has a lot of homes with solar panels. However, most roofs have only one side that is tilted towards the sun, and usually less than half of that one side is covered with solar panels. Now, imagine if the entire roof area, built using solar tiles, were tilted towards the sun, and all the windows were covered with ‘solar film’, and any other building on the site, such as a garage and/or shed, also had the entire roof covered with solar panels, or better still, built using solar tiles with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years.
In such a scenario, the amount of solar power generated would be about 10 times or more, than the amount currently produced by the average home with solar panels on the roof.
Of course, this could cause a huge oversupply to the grid during sunny periods, which is why a battery storage system in the house would be mandatory for such homes, if they were connected to the grid.
Since there will be a continuing stress on materials required for Lithium-ion batteries, as BEV production continues to increase, a new battery system, which doesn’t rely upon scarce materials, will be required. The Sodium-Ion battery seems to meet the requirements for batterry storage, although not ideal for EVs, yet.
“Sodium-ion batteries offer a versatile and economically viable option by relying on an alkaline metal so abundant on Earth and with relatively low production costs. They provide energy efficient power with fast charging, stability against temperature extremes and safety against overheating or thermal runaway.”
https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/environment/energy-efficiency/sodium-ion-batteries#:~:text=Sodium%2Dion%20batteries%20offer%20a,against%20overheating%20or%20thermal%20runaway
From Wikipedia:
“Electric vehicles using sodium-ion battery packs are not yet commercially available. However, CATL, the world’s biggest battery manufacturer, announced in 2022 the start of mass production of SIBs. In February 2023, the Chinese HiNa Battery Technology Co., Ltd. placed a 140 Wh/kg sodium-ion battery in an electric test car for the first time, and energy storage manufacturer Pylontech obtained the first sodium-ion battery certificate from TÜV Rheinland.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery
Vincent, it is easy to extol the virtues of solar power if you live in a country like Australia. However, solar power in Europe is a joke. I live in Scotland where solar capacity utilisation falls to 1% in winter. Most other European countries aren’t much better. So solar power fails drastically when power demand is highest.
http://euanmearns.com/solar-pv-potential-in-scotland/
Of course. I’m not suggesting there’s one solution that’s ideal for all locations. It’s obviously silly to build solar farms in areas where the sun doesn’t shine on most days, and build windmills in areas that are relatively calm most of the time.
We have data on the areas that have the most and the least sunshine. Here’s one site that provides some details.
https://sleepopolis.com/blog/world-cities-ranked-by-average-annual-sunshine-hours/
The battery shell game ..
[…]
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/10/sodium-ion-batteries-shaping-up-to-be-big-technology-breakthrough.html
“Sodium-ion batteries can’t provide the type of range for electric vehicles offered by lithium-ion batteries…”
However, if they are cheap, durable and safe, they could serve the purpose of battery storage in homes, which could be used to recharge the EV batteries during the night, when the sun doesn’t shine.
“Now the power load on the electric grid is enormous. It can be really hard for the grid to support all those vehicle chargers simultaneously.”
If the petrol and diesel used in domestic ICE vehicles were transferred to large scale generators connected to the grid, they could provide sufficient electricity to fuel about 3 times the number of BEVs compared to ICE vehicles, each driven the same number of kilometres.
BEVs are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. Didn’t you know that?
If they were cheap durable and safe, they wouldn’t be lithium-ion.
Could you supply a source for that, please?
Sure. Always ready to help.
“According to the Department of Energy (DOE), in an EV, about 59-62 percent of the electrical energy from the grid goes to turning the wheels, whereas gas combustion vehicles only convert about 17-21 percent of energy from burning fuel into moving the car. This means that an electric vehicle is roughly three times as efficient as an ICE vehicle. Needing less energy to power your car also helps bring down the cost.”
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/madhur-boloor/electric-vehicle-basics#:~:text=This means that an electric,helps bring down the cost
You’ve missed the thermal efficiency of the electricity generation, the transmission losses, and the battery charging loss.
The DOE figures for diesels are also wrong, though petrol (gasoline) is reasonable for older vehicles.
Turbo-diesels are around 40% thermal efficiency and 85 – 90% mechanical efficiency (say 35% overall efficiency)
Conventionally aspirated petrol vehicles are around 25% to 35% thermal efficiency.
To match the turbo-diesel’s 35% overall efficiency, what thermal efficiency would you need burning it to power the generator?
btw, the electrical efficiency of the BEV seems a little low to me.
I was just testing your capacity for logic. (wink)
Yes, I was wrong in claiming that large scale generators connected to the grid could provide sufficient electricity to fuel as much as 3 times the number of BEVs as ICE vehicles, using the same amount of gasoline.
The point I was making is that a large scale generator will produce energy more efficiently than a small scale vehicle-ICE generator. That extra efficiency should more than take care of the losses during electricity transmissions and battery charging of the EVs.
My post was in answer to the question ‘how could the electric grid meet the challenges of increased electricity demand for charging BEVs if they became the norm?
I can’t find any precise data, but from the evidence available, it seems reasonable to presume if the gasoline used in ICE vehicles were used to generate electricity from an efficient, large-scale generator, then the electricity produced would be more than sufficient to fuel all the BEVs that have replaced the ICE vehicles. However, 3 times is an exaggeration. The true figure is perhaps only 20% more, excluding energy from solar power.
If a large percentage of EV owners were to recharge their vehicles from their own solar panels, then that would significantly reduce the stress on the grid.
I’ve told yo a thousand times not to exaggerate 🙂
20 -25% is probably close to the mark if the fuel is used for CCGT generators. OCGT is far less efficient. Surprisingly, big diesel engined generators have much the same efficiency as CCGT, but apparently cost a lot more to maintain.
The problem with this comparison, is that you are only comparing what happens to electricity in the car. You ignore the inefficiencies of generating that electricity in the first place, and then getting it from the plant to the car.
When you add all the factors in, not just the few factors that make EVs look good, you find out that at best, efficiency is a wash, with the odds that ICEVs are a little more efficient.
I don’t have any precise costing of all the details involved in the processes, so I just have to use my common sense. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s more efficient to transport energy in the form of electricity than in the form of liquid gasoline in trucks that have to be regularly maintained and involve drivers that have to be paid a salary?
Isn’t it more efficient to transport large quantities of gasoline to just one location where there’s a large and efficient electricity generator, rather than transport many smaller quantities to individual petrol stations?
My general position on all energy sources is that they should not only be as clean as possible, but used as efficiently as possible. The EV appears to me to be a significantly more efficient device than an ICE vehicle, especially if all the electricity it uses is generated by reliable fossil fuels, and especially if battery storage in homes with solar roofs, becomes more affordable, allowing the EV owner to recharge the vehicle overnight.
The problem is that there is no excess power from wind and solar during the day. They can’t build enough to power what we already have.
According to the linked Wiki article, sodium-ion batteries have lower energy density by weight compared to lithium-ion. Volumetric energy density ranges overlap for the two types, but at the high range L-ion batteries are also significantly more compact.
140 Wh/kg = 0.14 KWh/kg. If you assume 3 miles per KWh of battery, then a sodium-ion battery giving a range of 350 miles (sorry to mix imperial and metric units here, but 350 miles is a typical range for a gasoline ICE vehicle), would be 116.6 KWh and weigh ( 350 / 0.14 ) = 833.3 kg (1,837 lbs). That’s over half the total weight of a typical passenger vehicle.
A Na-ion battery that can go 350 miles without dropping below 20% charge, would be 145.8 KWh and weigh 1,041.7 kg (2,297 lbs).
Depending on the electrolyte used, Na-ion fire hazard can be as high as L-ion. Naturally, the highest energy density electrolyte comes with the highest hazard.
Durability (lifetime charge/discharge cycles) appears not markedly different for the two types.
The main advantage of Na-ion appears to be cost due to more abundant materials, but the figure given ($40-$77 / KWh) is theoretical as there is no actual manufacturing data to go by.
A lower cost battery that is just as hazardous as L-ion while being bulkier and heavier is not the breakthrough the EV industry is looking for.
Having said all the above, there is still a viable market for any battery which improves on lead-acid, which is still used almost exclusively in automotive, golf cart, and UPS applications. It appears from the Wikipedia comparison chart that Na-ion achieves this goal in all aspects — assuming the safer aqueous electrolyte doesn’t give up too much energy density.
I personally would love better UPS batteries.
A smaller lighter battery would be loved by the automotive industry. Which is why they have people scanning the literature looking for candidates.
If one existed, I’m sure it’s already been evaluated.
10 times??? 2 or 3 times, at the very most.
There is no solar cell that will last 40 to 50 years. The substrate may last that long, but the solar cell itself will last only 20 years or less.
Redesign the house away from the cheapest, to one that will maximize solar collection.
Add solar panels.
Add batteries.
You really hate homeowners, don’t you.
Even in a place like Australia, it’s more virtue signaling than virtue.
As I understand, the warranty period for the solar cells in solar tiles refers to the percentage of output over a period of 25 or 30 years
For example, “The power output warranty guarantees that your solar roof’s performance won’t decrease to any less than 95% at five years and won’t decrease any more than 0.5% per year for the next 20 years.”
In other words, the warranty guarantees that the power output should be no less than 85% of the initial output after 25 years. That does not mean that the solar tiles suddenly stop producing electricity after 25 years. There will likely be a continuing degradation of output over the next 10, 20 or perhaps even 30 years, before the system stops producing entirely,
If the electricity production was initially twice the amount the home-owner uses, the surplus being fed into the grid, then after, say, 40 years, the solar tiles might still provide all the electricity the owner uses.
In 40 years’ time, solar technology will have developed significantly, so there will likely be many more efficient options available, and the defunct solar tiles might still serve as a substrate, after some degree of maintenance.
Twice, the power needed by the home? Are you utterly delusional, in the best of circumstances, you will be lucky to get 10% of what a house needs. And that’s when the panel is brand new.
BTW, you are only counting the degradation of a panel in a laboratory setting. In the real world, where panels frequently get quite hot, the degradation is a lot faster. You are also not counting the degradation of the glass as it slowly accumulates scratches, grime and dust.
You are also completely ignoring the fact that solar only produces it’s max value for a few hours a day. Between sunrise and a few hours after sunrise, as well as sunset and a few hours before sunset the amount of power you get from your panels is close enough to zero that the difference isn’t worth talking about.
Beyond that as the seasons cause the sun to move higher and lower in the sky. You get the most power on the longest day of the year. The amount of power drops daily until the shortest day of the year. This drop in power is not only due to the day itself being shorter, it’s also due to the fact that the sun is no longer hitting your panels at a 90 degree angle and the fact that the sunlight has to pass through more atmosphere to reach your panels.
Please, try to learn all of the facts, not just the ones that support the position you have decided to take.
Fuels of the future always will be fuels of the future.
The main thing working against them is Physics.
Anyway isn’t solar already 98% of our energy supply, and don’t we have huge storage batteries underground stuffed with it just waiting to supply us?
“There’s no power like solar power
Like no power I know
Everything about it is concealing
All the bad about it disavowed
Nowhere do they get that happy feeling
When they are stealing from that cash cow …”
Well, other than a couple of drawbacks, this idea should work just fine. It says so here on paper.
Solar is and has been the primary source of energy.
And it’s been stored for later use.
All we need to do is find the “batteries” then dig it out or pump it up.
Who needs “panels”?