TNR BLOGS

May 15, 2008 | 11:39 PM
May 15, 2008 | 8:03 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:26 PM

May 15, 2008 | 8:41 PM
May 15, 2008 | 7:06 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:35 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
09.04.2008
Ten Years Until Solar is Competitive?

Via FuturePundit, CalTech chemist Harry Gray pours some cold water on the notion that electricity from solar photovoltaic cells will be competitive with fossil fuels in the immediate future:

Despite oil prices that hover around $100 a barrel, it may take at least 10 or more years of intensive research and development to reduce the cost of solar energy to levels competitive with petroleum, according to an authority on the topic.

The single biggest challenge, Gray said, is reducing costs so that a large-scale shift away from coal, natural gas and other non-renewable sources of electricity makes economic sense. Gray estimated the average cost of photovoltaic energy at 35 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. By comparison, other sources are considerably less expensive, with coal and natural gas hovering around 5-6 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Because of its other advantages--being clean and renewable, for instance--solar energy need not match the cost of conventional energy sources, Gray indicated. The breakthrough for solar energy probably will come when scientists reduce the costs of photovoltaic energy to about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, he added. "Once it reaches that level, large numbers of consumers will start to buy in, driving the per-kilowatt price down even further. I believe we are at least ten years away from photovoltaics being competitive with more traditional forms of energy."

Of course, a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme would enhance solar's competitiveness, and there have been some promising advances lately in developing solar panels that use less silicon, which has become dramatically more expensive in recent years. Gray also sounds relatively optimistic about the possibility of using sunlight to split water, producing hydrogen for use in fuel cells. That prospect is often described as the "holy grail" of clean energy, but it's a ways off.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:55 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Rhubarbs said:

It would be enlightening to do a Nexis search of "solar" or "photovoltaic" and "decade away". I'm quite sure I recall reading in "Omni" magazine in the late 1970s that solar power was just a decade away from being competitive, and reading the same thing in "Scientific American" in each of the three subsequent decades. It's one of those things that's always "a decade away" from being ready for the market.

I'm sure it will happen sometime, and the sooner the better, but personally I'm not ready to take the possibility of widespread solar generation seriously until I hear solar-tech engineers use the phrase "three years" instead of the word "decade."

April 9, 2008 5:25 PM

roidubouloi said:

Say, rhubarbs, if you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living, if anything?

April 9, 2008 10:47 PM

singlespeed said:

rhubarbs...

Ironically that "solar will be market competitive in a decade" is predicated upon the scientist, researcher or scholar optimistically assuming that Federal support for R&D will remain at the already low levels they are without being cut. If Reagan had not cut the Federal subsidies for renewables like solar and practically gut the budget of the NREL lab in Golden, CO in the early 80s then yeah...solar would have been competitive. In the last 50 years oil and other fossil fuels have received $500 billion dollars in subsidies and tax cuts to primarily cover Big Oil's exploration costs on Federal lands. Couple that with the extremely low extraction taxes that the Federal and State Govts charge energy companies for extracting oil, natural gas, and coal you begin to see a pattern of Federal largesse for an industry that has never had years without near record profits.

In 2004 Oil, gas and nuclear received 34 billion in subsidies while renewables received 16 billion for wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biofuels, hydrogen cells and hybrid research. We really want to make the switch to renewables, the Federal funding for renewables research and implementation on a national scale needs to be more than the fossil subsidies if renewables are to be competitive on a cost per kW comparison. Big Oil doesn't need any more tax breaks for development, nor does gas or coal extraction when they're making record profits and practically get public reserves access for free.

The Bush administration's almost complete gutting of any Federally funded renewable research and development the last 8 years hasn't helped at all either. www.nrel.gov/.../372.html

But if continued research on the private side into PV thin film technologies and coatings continues without increased Federal funding for implementation in the market then you'll see that technology go to China, Asia and Europe for funding and implementation because the US isn't investing in it's own home grown technologies.

April 10, 2008 10:51 AM

Environment and Energy said:

Last week, Josh posted a sobering article that quoted CalTech's Harry Gray, who believes that solar

April 15, 2008 2:05 PM