Grid Parity for Solar

H

Hornin Hong Kong

1,000+ Posts
As I mentioned in another post I have been raising money for cleantech firms recently and have been doing a lot of work on solar but something that stood out - Grid Parity, or where PV electricity is as cheap as on grid electricity created by other means, is only a few years a way (maybe 1.5 years) if technology and components continue the way they are.

This was really surprising to me.

Here's an article on it. Clean Solar - here we come?
The Link
 
Link

I always consider this in the context of the available solar resource. Any time that you take a source of energy (dammed river, sunny area, windy area, area with big tides, area close to the mantle, etc), you have to consider the cost of getting it from where it is (fixed) to where you can sell it (also fixed). There is no right or wrong answer for "where should I put my solar panels" because it's all based on how much power you get and how far you have to move that power. There are a lot of variables.

Let's take Galveston. It's extremely sunny in the summer, but very cloudy in the winter. So the annual average will be relatively low, and would suggest that a panel out by El Paso hooked to long *** power line would be your best bet. However, considering that most of the electricity use here will go to air conditioning, which will take place during the sunny summer months, a plant here might be quite profitable. Then you consider how much copper costs, how the INS feels about your illegal work crew building the power line (maybe they get a special letter from the division chief stating that your project is not only green and good for the economy, but also trustworthy such that it does not require inspections), and how aware the hayseeds are that they can screw you.

Wind and solar are important, and I think that they will continue to grow in importance.

However, our current system is based on the assumption that the CTO at NRG can wake up one morning and say "I want to build a power plant in Austin...wait, that will take 10 years and incite all of the dirty hippies to protest. I want to build a power plant in Houston. I will call the city and offer them $1 million for the Astrodome, and then we'll begin making plans to ship the coal there via trucks on 59. We will begin construction within a month!" As terrible as that sounds (**** you, Houston), it's nice to have that kind of freedom. The market will have to adapt to support the kind of infrastructure that renewables can provide, and that includes consumers (in fact, its mostly consumers). When people begin saving energy, valuing renewable energy enough to pay for it, and displaying tolerance for the shortcomings, the market will respond to that demand (which will in turn allow investment that will minimize the spikes).

Naturally, people don't want to do this, and would much prefer that the government force the evil companies to fix the problem on their own.
 
The WSJ article was not a great one- he just commented on someone else's work. Grid parity is much closer than ten years away- it already exists for wind in many places- and solar in some albeit less places. While yes the goal posts vary from site to site- so do the negative externalities of fossil fuels which aren't accounted for in that famous grid parity calculation.
 
Denmark was hit hard by the embargo in the 1970's,, they developed a plan to become energy independent and have largely been successful at it.

Today- Denmark has one of the highest standards of living in the world as well as a pretty damn clean economy and environment.
 
Grid parity is great but that article implies it depends on % sun and oh... by the way... SUBSIDIES. Just as so you all realize you are robbing peter to paul. If we all use solar there will be no paul to rob from.
 
100, did NPR state that "They (the Danish) are not reliant on petro fuels in the slightest now" or did you mean to say something else? In any event, OrangeHair's link contradicts that assertion.

Mcbrett, you said "... Denmark has ... a pretty damn clean economy and environment." That's true, I guess, if you compare Denmark to us; evidently not true if compared to the rest of the EU.

From the same link:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I think people hear energy independence and assume it means no fossil fuels. All it means is Denmark doesn't import any energy. They do use quite a bit of renewables though.
 
Denmark is a great example, and I am glad that someone brought it up. The thing to see here is not how power is generated, but how it is used. European cities are not like ours. Compare Manhattan or Hong Kong or Paris or London to Houston or Dallas.
We made a pact with the automobile and it has been the downfall of our ability to use energy efficiently.

If I had to sum our situation up and the things that need to change for us to get better, it's that.
 
Another company i am working with is doing cells for LEDs and I just got my dad an LED TV - i was totally unaware of the technology "safire wafers"

i think this is a technology with wheels - 40% less energy usage than LCD tvs

I need to research the LED value chain and make some personal investments
 
The average size of a typical Danish family is 4.2. The average size of a typical Danish domicile is 1173 sf w/ 3.7 rooms.
__________________________________________________

This is considered a high standard of living for libs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top