Our Magazines Article Archives

Solar, Storage, and EVs: A Powerful Trifecta

By John Gartner, Pike Research
March 16, 2011 | 29 Comments

Do you like this magazine?

Bookmark

Feed

Along with solar power's growth will come an intensification of the need to integrate the intermittent resource with the grid. The expansion of complementary energy storage, in the form of stationary devices and the batteries of electric vehicles, will create a more conducive environment for solar adoption.

As the percentage of power from solar grows higher in the coming years, there will be a greater need to balance the variations in power output. Energy storage can lead to cleaner, better-performing power.

By the end of 2010, Pike Research estimates that the total cumulative solar power capacity in the United States reached about 2.9GW, or approximately 0.3% of total electrical power capacity. However, penetration in a region can be much higher in states requiring clean energy production via renewable portfolio standards. Between 2011 and 2013, Pike Research estimates an additional 8-11GW of solar power will be installed. With each additional megawatt comes an increasing need to balance the naturally occurring variations in solar power production.

As the percentage of power from solar grows higher in the coming years, there will be a greater need to balance the variations in power output. Other generation facilities, such as hydropower or power plants that burn fossil fuels, have historically been used to offset these variations. But energy storage, which uniquely can be used to absorb any surpluses in solar power when supply exceeds demand, can be a cleaner and better performing alternative.

Storage for Ancillary Services

As with all forms of power generation, small mismatches between ongoing power delivery and demand can cause temporary drops in the voltage. Energy storage that uses surplus renewable energy can be a cleaner and more efficient alternative than fossil fuel generation to optimize grid performance. Using storage to execute these ancillary services, which include voltage and frequency regulation, will grow from a $230 million to $2.9 billion global industry between 2011 and 2015, according to Pike Research. Lithium ion batteries will be the most commonly adopted technology to support renewable power, with 72% market share in 2015.

Battery technologies are better-suited to providing ancillary services because they can respond in microseconds, and the power level can be closely controlled. By comparison, starting up and turning off a power plant for ancillary services is slower and will waste some of its energy. Other battery technologies used in ancillary services include flow batteries and advanced lead acid batteries.

Energy storage is also used to support solar power plants to enhance power quality and to enable renewable energy generation to be matched to later demand. The incorporation of energy storage to offset the intermittent delivery of renewable energy to create consistent, dispatchable power, is known as "renewable integration." For example, deployments of lithium-ion batteries are being used to buffer multi-megawatt solar installations that provide output at varying levels based on environmental factors. To enable more consistent power, grid energy services companies are expected to install energy storage equivalent to 1−3% of the installed solar capacity.

Many states currently do not have financial rules or operating regulations in place that allow non-utilities to offer ancillary services. Markets in some states, such as California and New York, are slowly opening up to permit entities to use energy storage for these services. After the rules are in place (which is expected during the next few years in most states) that enable organizations to recoup their investment in energy storage, we will see an acceleration of storage being used to support distributed renewable power.

Time-Shifting

Energy storage is also being deployed so that solar power generated during the day can be stored for use later in the day or overnight in an application known as time-shifting. Time-shifting with storage enables solar installation operators to maximize their revenue by selling lower value energy produced early in the day at more lucrative peak times (see Figure).

Several large scale projects integrating storage with solar power plants are underway. For example, at the Solar Technology Acceleration Center (SolarTAC) in Aurora, Colorado, a 1MW storage facility will be used for power smoothing and time-shifting. The project is being managed by utility Xcel Energy and energy services company Xtreme Power, and will demonstrate how storage can be used to assist with distributed grid power management. For the next several years, projects of this nature will grow in scope and collect important performance data indicating the benefit of storage to solar power plants. If positive results are achieved, commercial adoption will follow.

By 2015, the annual investment in energy storage for supporting renewables through integration and time-shifting services will grow to 2.8GW annually, according to Pike Research. Approximately 10% of this investment, or 280MW, will support solar installations, while the remainder will be used in conjunction with wind and hydro generation.

Electric Vehicles as Storage Devices

In addition to the batteries that will be deployed in support of distributed solar power plants in the coming years, a mobile source of potential auxiliary power will be arriving in driveways everywhere. More than 3.1 million electric vehicles (EVs) will be sold between 2011 and 2015. This will create a total of 52MW hours of vehicle batteries inside electric vehicles that could potentially be used to assist in strengthening the grid and accommodating the demands of integrating renewable power.

Figure. Global energy storage installations supporting renewable energy 2011-2015. SOURCE: Pike Research

In addition to providing power for both battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, the batteries can store solar power for later use. Applications include providing emergency power to the local buildings, or for selling the power to the local grid when it is the most financially beneficial to the vehicle owner. As with stationary energy storage, vehicle batteries, which contain between 5 and 24kW-hours of storage, can accelerate the return on investment for solar panels and the vehicles through "energy arbitrage," which stores energy when it is economical and profits from selling it back to the grid at premium rates.

The current crop of electric vehicles does not include the electronic inverters to take power from the batteries and deliver it to the grid or the building (applications known as vehicle-to-grid, and vehicle-to-building, respectively.) However, the technology for upstream power delivery for vehicles exists and is being used in a pilot project run by the University of Delaware and grid operator PJM. The project uses several vehicles enhanced with technology developed at the university. Individual vehicles are likely to provide from 1−3kW of power to the grid. However, auto manufacturers are concerned that using vehicle batteries as storage devices could reduce the batteries' life cycle and are not likely to embrace their usage in this matter until a few years of data has been collected.

Triple Play

Despite reservations from many automakers, several integrated companies that are excited by the synergies between EVs, storage, and solar are developing applications integrating all three.

Companies including Itochu, Sanyo, and BYD see residential solar fitting in well with energy storage and EVs. Solar panels can be connected directly to vehicle charging equipment to give EV owners the flexibility to determine whether to immediately consume or store solar power. Stored solar power can also provide emergency backup to the building should power go out. Consumers who have installed solar power at their homes can also leverage their investment in an inverter and other equipment to interface with the grid to deliver power stored in vehicle batteries. This reduces the total equipment cost and can lead to a faster return-on-investment for both solar and the electric vehicles. Several trials are underway around the globe to evaluate the benefits of combining the technologies.

Electric vehicle charging equipment companies including Aerovironment and Eaton Corporation are also developing energy storage units that will be packaged with their charging equipment. This storage could be integrated with a residential solar system to provide the benefits of lower cost power to the building or for sale back to the grid.

Using solar power to charge an EV also provides true emissions-free transportation, which is very attractive to environmentally-minded consumers. While these applications are cutting edge today, interest is likely to grow in the second half of the decade.

Requirements for Future Growth

Energy storage has not historically been viewed by regulators as favorably as renewable power or even smart grid technologies as a technology for enhancing energy efficiency and reducing emissions. However, storage of renewable energy is slowly starting to gain backing as a clean resource. Regulators, legislators, and other governmental decision makers are gaining a better understanding of storage's enabling role in expanding the use of solar power.

The federal STORAGE Act of 2010, proposes a 20% investment tax credit for energy storage. Bill co-sponsor Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) stated that "Growing our ability to store renewable energy not only promotes a more efficient use of energy resources, it makes energy sources like wind and solar just as reliable as conventional energy sources...." The bill is likely to be voted on by the Senate in 2011.

In California, assembly bill 2514, which became law in September of 2010, begins the process for requiring storage to be added to the state's power grid in order to enable the state to meet its required expansion of renewable power. The law, which is the first of its kind in the country, requires the state's public utilities commission to establish milestones for power producers to incorporate storage into their system beginning in 2015.

The need for a comprehensive federal plan for utilizing storage to benefit renewable and other power generation was recently spelled out by the director of one of the U.S. Department of Energy's largest research facilities. Eric D. Isaacs, the Director of the Argonne National Laboratory, wrote an editorial for website The Huffington Post about the need for expanding storage on the grid, stating that "[Adding renewable] energy generation does us little good if we can't save that electricity for use at the times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine."

When used in combination, solar power, energy storage, and electric vehicles have the potential to provide truly emissions-free transportation while enabling a greater percentage of renewable power. Investment in each technology is likely to spawn additional growth in the others.

John Gartner received his Bachelor's degree in business administration from Temple U. and a Master's degree in education from Arcadia U. and is a Sr. Analyst at Pike Research, 1320 Pearl Street, Suite 300, Boulder CO 80302 USA; ph.; 503-975-2976; email john.gartner@pikeresearch.com.

#rewpage#

Photovoltaics World, the newest member of PennWell’s Electronics Group, covers photovoltaics manufacturing and solar power generation.

Additional Information

Solar Energy, Solar Tech

29 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 29

ChristofHeinrich

March 16, 2011

Thank you for this interesting and informative analysis. Looking forward to the day when EV + PV is mainstream.
--Christof Demont-Heinrich
Editor & Founder, SolarChargedDriving.Com

Comment
2 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 17, 2011

2.9 GW of solar PV is ~0.3% of total power capacity, however, that equates to less than 0.1% of total energy produced, due to extremely low capacity factors in solar at large, and rooftop PV in particular.

If - IF - solar energy averages a 50%/year expansion for the next decade (this is highly unlikely), then by the end of 2020 solar energy will comprise less than 4% of the grid energy in America. That energy will be generated during peak electricity hours - as is the nature of solar - which means there is absolutely no problem with excess energy production and 100% of the energy will be utilized.

THAT means that anyone who then plugs in an electric car won't be able to use SOLAR energy - it's already being used... the power company can't take blankets off of spare solar cells to produce more energy for the newly plugged in electric car... which means that electric car's energy demand will have to be satisfied by ramping up fossil-fuel power, as that is the only power source that has SPARE CAPACITY.

I won't go into detail unraveling the completely insane economic assumptions involved with taking a premium peak power source, then using an expensive energy storage device so as to use that peak energy later during off-peak hours... only to plug in an absurdly high-priced vehicle so one must ramp up coal power (little to no net environmental benefit).

This article completely lacks perspective.

Comment
3 of 29

dimitar-mirchev-14630

March 18, 2011

glenn-doty

First. Do not underestimate the growth of PV. Once it reach peak parity, and later grid parity, thus eliminating the need of government support - the sky is the limit. We might as well see growth of 100-200%.

Second. Maybe the author is talking about the times when we have so much excess solar power during peak PV electricity production that in order to not waste it we must store it. This must be researched.

Maybe for some reasons the electrical companies are not capable to buy the energy for you and by storing it you can use it later instead ob buying from the grid.

Comment
4 of 29

jajagabor

March 18, 2011

I wonder if any cost/benefit analysis has been done (or ever will!) between lithium batteries and compressed air storage. If it has, and compressed air lost the battle (and the study was replicated enough that no residual controversies were created by it), I would happily cede the argument. But considering that the cost of lithium batteries is a bit on the high side, I would think this issue deserves at least some attention.

Of course, a backyard inventor (note: more needed!!) may just cinch the issue if one pops up in the media after creating an automated system that would "shave off" the excess energy produced (whether from a battery-based system or a grid-tie one) and uses it to pump compressed air into tanks.

I have seen a third type of storage system on television (on Planet Green when it was still worth watching) where a single individual used hydrogen storage. Unfortuantely, with the status of our media (even alternative media to some degree, due to its limited public appeal and support) in its usual state of sleep, any further coverage of this individual - and others like him - isn't likely to be reported much - if at all (and even if it is, not repeated much) - even if he does pop up.

So depsite my own optimism and belief in green, alternative energy, as well as the "full potential of the human being" -- I don't really have much faith in these things being truly popular and established anytime soon. They have certainly carved out a major niche, however -- so my query to the media is this: "What gives?"

Comment
5 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 18, 2011

@ dimitar-mirchev

It will take at least a decade before PV reaches grid parity without government subsidies in the U.S. Southwest. In other areas of the country it is flat-out impossible that solar would ever achieve grid parity (even if the solar panels were FREE, the cost of having them installed would be sufficiently high that you would never see a profitable return in New Jersey or other Northeast states).

I think 50%/year is possible, but only because of government subsidies and a very very small current penetration.

There's no chance at all that PV will overwhelm a local market's peak energy needs within the next decade - absolutely no chance whatsoever. Again, this article simply was junk from start to finish, showing no honest attempt to look at the world today and find a proper path.

@ jajagabor.

Actually, we have done just such a comparison:
http://www.dotyenergy.com/PDFs/Doty-90377-Storage-ASME-ES10.pdf

If you'd like a more complete perspective on CAES, you can find some information and references here:
http://www.dotyenergy.com/Markets/CAES.htm

Hope that helps.

Comment
6 of 29

ChristofHeinrich

March 18, 2011

Was going to stay out of it -- but can't help myself.

Glenn, you need to hire a PR person and/or an EQ consultant. You're never going to win people over to your argument with patronizing, negative commentary. Not in a million years. In fact, you're going to accomplish just the opposite: Encourage others with different, "less intelligent" views than yours to dig in even harder to oppose you (that would be me, by the way...)

Comment
7 of 29

JimW

March 18, 2011

Solar works but is costly wind is a little better. Nuclear might need to be in the mix.? All of them are much better using GreenGas.cc At $2 a gallon I dont see why someone with money ???

Comment
8 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 18, 2011

ChristofHeinrich,

So you are saying that you aren't interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, you aren't interested in finding profitable paths towards energy independence or energy security, you aren't interested in technology advancement, your aren't interested in profitable investment opportunity, and you don't concern yourself at all with issues like toxic metalide emissions or SO2 or NOX or fly-ash pollution...

Your only concern is that when someone makes a completely ludicrous statement concerning economic policy, that I not be negative in my response... THAT is all that might matter to a potential investor?

I certainly hope you're wrong... both for the future of society (Investment in WindFuels is needed if we are to ever have access to an affordable scalable carbon-neutral clean energy source for transportation), and in terms of what truly does define the character of human beings at large.

As for the tone, I have usually been quite blunt with authors of articles, but I use honest arguments. I am typically quite respectful fellow posters unless they attack me.

However, I intend to begin blogging on REW myself, beginning this weekend. If you like, you are welcome to use honest arguments and respond to my posts as positively or negatively as you choose.

If you link to a competitive solar option for my house in SC, I will gladly purchase it without regard to whether or not you respond negatively to my commentary.

Comment
9 of 29

ChristofHeinrich

March 18, 2011

Glenn,
No, that's not what I'm saying -- and I know you know that. What I am saying is that certain approaches to persuasive argumentation are more effective than others.

Comment
10 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 18, 2011

Christof,

I know you are very passionate about the environment.

I just believe that a dis-service is done when those who have an ability to be heard choose to manipulate data to give false impressions.

I personally have nothing but hope for solar energy, and I have checked local prices every single year hoping that cost reductions might eventually get the price down to a point where I can justify the expense - even at a loss... In the same vein, I've been a passionate fan of the Toyota Prius ever since I read an article about it in 1998...

In both cases, these are technologies that I don't own. I drive a used Nissan Sentra (~30 mpg, $6000) and I draw regular power off of the grid ($0.10/kWh).

If my serious passion isn't sufficient to get me to purchase such technology - due to economic reasons - then how much more difficult will it be to convince the average American who couldn't care less? Economics MUST play a role in the discussion, or else we get nowhere.

In this case the article deliberately gave the impression that there could soon be enough solar power that the energy would have to be stored overnight or deliberately shunted to electric cars just to deal with the largess... but that wouldn't be true within the next decade unless the solar industry grew by ~100%/year - which is unthinkable once the penetration gets over 1%.

I think that arguments like that need to be quelched, just because they are worthy of scorn... which means if they aren't stamped out quickly then they will continually be repeated within the green movement - making the green movement at large worthy of scorn.

I want to see the cost of solar continue to drop, and the penetration of solar energy continue to increase. But it won't happen overnight. We won't see even 4% of our electricity derived from solar by 2020... that's assuming incredible growth rates. Acknowledging that cannot be bad for the renewables industry... constantly promising what cannot be delivered might be.

Comment
11 of 29

John-Bronson

March 18, 2011

Grid parity has already been reached in areas that burn oil or diesel to generate electricity. There are still a number of areas around the world that produce electricity this way. GE engineers expect the US to reach grid parity by 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

And it is certainly possible and practical to use solar PV for charging EVs. A number of carport charging stations have already been designed and implemented.

http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS400US400&q=solar+carport&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xbODTe62J4PmsQO9r8H-AQ&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1003&bih=568

Comment
12 of 29

mary-saunders-73470

March 18, 2011

Glen Doty,

I need some practice in getting attacked, so here goes...

I drive a Prius, which by the way, has required less service than any other vehicle I have ever owned, thus saving me consternation in addition to other costs.

My car is a beat-up city car with not that many miles for its out-of-warranty status.

If I decide to drive it to the hospital and donate power in an emergency, if needed, Toyota should now be happy about it, because if my battery draws down, I might come to them and get another one. Considering all the brake jobs I have not had to pay for, compared to other vehicles, maybe I would just do that.

Or maybe I would go to a junk yard. Or maybe I would be a nerd and upgrade to the 100-mile with add-on plug-in.

My car was bought in 2004. It is a fried-green tomatoes car, and I am fine with that as I do not have a job where I am required to have some fancy wheels to impress somebody. In fact, I have used it in social work, child care, hauling garden stuff, rough duty.

I donated blood for many years, without being paid anything. Getting paid to donate energy from my old car would seem like getting ahead to me.

And I'm not even the geek who converted his former gas car to EV and plugged it into his off-grid set-up, just because he wanted to.

The market is diverse. Not everybody counts every single bean and only does what she wants if the beans add up to some strict goal.

I'm with Christof on this. My son thinks I'm unique and living in a bubble in Oregon, but that's just because he's my kid, the reverse of the proud mother-of-an-engineer, which is what I am.

I am not unique regarding just-do-it-and-see-what-happens. I go to geekfests, which are wonderful by the way, and there are people like me at these things. I often feel neurologically typical, almost, at permie-peakie-resilience convergences.

So, there you go: another target. Fire away.

Comment
13 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 18, 2011

Mary Saunders,

I can see why you have little practice in being attacked... you aren't very good at being objectionable. Nor is Christof, for that matter... which is why I have not attacked him.

I happen to love the Prius. It's truly my dream car, and has been for 12 years. I personally hope that by the time the Sentra dies I'll finally be able to afford one.

I will say, however, that you are doing a fairly poor job of engineering if you propose to charge a plug-in vehicle at your house, drive to the hospital, discharge some of that electricity into the hospital, then drive your car home. The cycle efficiency of your vehicle's battery is only ~85-90%, and the drive to and from the hospital, depending on the distance, you are probably drawing down between 15-50% of the charge for the round-trip. So, assuming you had a 24 kWh battery you would draw ~26 kWhs from your grid at home, then lose between 4 and 12 kWh's for the round trip to the hospital, only to donate 12-20 kWhs - or ~$1.20 - $2.00 worth of energy... Meanwhile, your tying up traffic and deliberately putting your car in emergency response locales in a time of emergency. The 26 kWhs of electricity would result in ~22 kg of CO2 being emitted.

A diesel generator would produce 20 kWhs of electricity from about 1.2 gallons of diesel. 1.2 gallons of diesel has a lifetime carbon intensity of ~16-17 kg CO2. I'd suggest staying at home and out of the way. Just write the hospital a $5 check to pay for diesel.
;p

That's about as mean as I can be with what you gave me to work with... Sorry.
:)

The thing is, I don't object to an attitude of "people can do what they want with their money"...

Christof could have spent a hundred thousand dollars or so on a fancy sports car or a tricked-out Hummer, instead he bought a solar system and a plug-in car... that's commendable. I have no problem with that.

I DO have problems with people asserting on a policy level that EV's are worthy of subsidies. They aren't

Comment
14 of 29

ChristofHeinrich

March 18, 2011

Glenn,
Appreciate the thoughtful response. I agree that the green movement shouldn't rest on falsehoods, but we seem to part ways on what we think is, isn't realistic, etc. I'm going to call a truce for now, check your columns when you post them to REW.com, and continue to pour lots of effort into promoting EV + PV on my own web site.

As for the price of my 5.59 kW solar system, it cost us an unheard of $8,000 out of pocket. Yes, that was subsidized, but I happen to think solar subsidies are a small price to pay to move us away from the billions we pay in health care and environmental costs as a result of the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil (see the Harvard Public Health study on the true cost of coal - http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/ccf/documents/MiningCoalMountingCosts.pdf

Comment
15 of 29

mary-saunders-73470

March 18, 2011

I don't have a plug-in capacity now, but conceivably if the hospital needed it, I could drive there and donate through my cigarette lighter port. A guy in Massachusetts powered his house through a storm one year, by jury-rigging his car, though I don't personally have the technical know-how to replicate what he did. I do know of people in Oregon who have been handy enough to do their own plug-in upgrades, even before the warranty ran out.

The guy in Massachusetts used his car as a generator because he did not want to lose the food in his 'fridge, etc. It also gave him the fame of being able to be sort of the party house on the block if I recall correctly, but I could be making that up, with the vague notion that I might some day be handy enough to do that for my block--not likely, but I can dream.

Comment
16 of 29

mary-saunders-73470

March 18, 2011

Glenn,

Also, I wanted to say I am sensitive about the criticism that credits may advantage the already advantaged.

Nonetheless, persons able to afford these cars are a demographic politicians want to pander to, as are FIT people. The utilities sometimes make the argument against FIT's on the progessivity basis. Utilities got net-metering overages to use as credits for low-income for some years in some states.

My sense is that how far utilities get with this argument with local politicians is going to vary a great deal based on local conditions. It wore out in Oregon, though I do not have PV myself, and I don't know all the details. A FIT was recently passed here.

It is good to bring questions of equity into the discussion, but how it works in practice in a particular place is subject to a lot of variables. Some communities care well for people who are less advantaged. Some do not.

Comment
17 of 29

jajagabor

March 19, 2011

@ dimitar-mirchev,

Thanks for your response! Looking at the link provided some interesting views regarding CAES, but it sounds like your analysis is being artificially limited to large systems, rather than those that were designed for individuals. In the latter case, using metal tanks, similar to those used for SCUBA compression systems, would be a much cheaper and already-available method.

One problem whenever any alternative energy method is proposed is that those who hear it assume that the alternative method must immediately replace all conventional sources from the outset - and if not up to that, then must be forever categorically be dismissed as a mere plaything.

Therefore I will persist in my belief that with incremental testing, CAES could provide an excellent storage method until more real-life studies are done, and that they start on a smaller, less ambitious scale.

Comment
18 of 29

Gary_Munkhoff

March 19, 2011

glenn-doty

Your attitude towards subsidies makes sense only in a theoretical and perfect world, and we all know that the world is far from either.

Historically, America has always relied upon subsidies of one kind or another in order to engineer desirable outcomes to difficult situations or problems and in many cases they have worked well. The lure of free land under the homestead laws coaxed people to settle the western frontier. The building of roads in the early 1900s to accommodate a few horseless carriages, the GI bill of the 1940s, the Interstate highway system of the 50s and of course the space program of the 60s are all examples of subsidies that changed us forever.

Me thinks that if you had lived 100 years ago your comments on the arrival of the gas powered motor car would have been something like this:

No thanks I don't want a motor car. Why would I pay as much for one of those as I did my house when there are no roads to drive on, there are hardly any gas stations, they get stuck every time it rains and they break down or have a flat tire every few miles?

No sir, give me my good old horse anytime. I don't need roads or gasoline, and rain or mud won't stop me. I can get a good one for 50 bucks and if I have too much to drink on Saturday night the horse will get me home safe and sound.

Fortunately, enough of us believe in those subsidies (investments) that encourage shifts in behavior so that changes take place. Changes that benefit us all.

Comment
19 of 29

dimitar-mirchev-14630

March 21, 2011

Glen:)

"It will take at least a decade before PV reaches grid parity without government subsidies in the U.S. Southwest. In other areas of the country it is flat-out impossible that solar would ever achieve grid parity "

We know this for a fact or you know it from somewhere?

Where is the research that states this prediction and in which year is it published?

Or you are saying that PV has reached its theoretical and practical maximum and this technology can never ever develop more?

Comment
20 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 21, 2011

Dimitar -

In areas other than the Southwest, the cost of installing and maintaining the panels will keep the price of PV solar non-competitive, even if the panels themselves were free. That's why I said they could never be competitive outside the Southwest.

I will grant that there may be avenues for significant reduction in installation costs... but the industry has not focused much on this - instead choosing only to look at possible price reductions for the PV panels.

The fact stands that as long as the technology is heavily dependent on subsidies which may or may not be continued year after year, the chance for rapid growth beyond ~1-2% is small.

Comment
21 of 29

Gary_Munkhoff

March 21, 2011

glenn-doty

You are certainly entitled to your locked in vision of what the future holds, but fortunately not everyone shares that same view. History has repeatedly shown that unimaginable advancements are made even though they were thought to be impossible at one point in time.

The Wright brothers could no more have built an F-18 than they could have flown to the moon. Yet both were possible, as we know.
And many of these advancements that we take for granted today, were made possible because they were helped along with subsidies of one type or another.

So, you are welcome to remain locked in a world where today's technology locks us into a future with limited possibilities, or you can learn from what history has to teach: anything is possible, and subsidies are nothing more than investments in the future where anything becomes possible.

Comment
22 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

March 21, 2011

Gary,

My view of the history of technology is perhaps more complete than yours.

To use flying Machines as an example, you have to go back to Da Vinci, not the Wright brothers. No amount of experimentation made Da Vinci's corkscrew fly... it took abandonment of a failed path and research and development of a new path for the Wright brothers to eventually emerge with a viable flying machine.

Had the English, French, German, and American governments been pouring investment subsidies into blimps, so that blimp travel was inexpensive and could be enjoyed by most middle class citizens, the Wright brothers never would have developed a plane, and modern aviation never would have evolved from that.

There is a difference between authorizing millions in search of research and development, and authorizing tens of billions in a futile attempt to force deploy a technology that has proven itself to be hopelessly non-competitive over the last 3-4 decades. (I'm talking about EV's here, not solar... I think solar will eventually become viable in the Southwest).

Think future, not 1970's.
;)

www.WindFuels.com

Comment
23 of 29

Gary_Munkhoff

March 21, 2011

glenn-doty

Da Vinci's corkscrew may have been a pipe dream, but Sikorsky proved that with a little different approach a helicopter would fill the bill.

As far as blimps go, the smart money realized that it made no sense to invest in them as they were obviously a poor answer to inexpensive travel for the middle class. The objective of flying is to reduce travel time and the blimp would never be able to match the speed of the internal combustion engine mounted on winged aircraft. So the vast majority of research dollars and efforts went that way, but not all. Blimps still offer some advantages, so there is still a small interest in advancement.

Subsidies work best on emerging technologies that hold strong possibilities for future improvements. Deciding on which technologies deserve subsidies is always a matter of opinion, and
again, you are entitled to your opinion of the EV and PV systems.

Fortunately there are far more of us that have the opinion that they both hold tremendous potential for creating a world without oil, coal, or nuclear fuels, and we are willing to invest our money and efforts in their advancement.

The 500 mile EV is just around the corner, as is grid parity for PV systems, and more and more individuals, companies, and governments believe that this is true and are getting on board.

The same is true of wind, tidal, wave and geothermal energy. They all deserve subsidies at this point.

I agree - think future.

Comment
24 of 29

TITAN21

March 22, 2011

this is all well and good but it's time we take a hard look at lithium. it is not as safe as we hoped it would be. Luckily there is a new player named vanadium which has a longer life span and will not over heat when exposed to high voltage.
China is showing interest in mining and transforming vanadium for power storage in the REBOX flow battery and as well as vanadium/lithium ion.
R&D is ongoing

the future is here.

Comment
25 of 29

mary-saunders-73470

March 22, 2011

And then there is ruthenium...

Comment
26 of 29

jim-stack-36988

May 19, 2011

V2G-101.com plug in vehicles can work with your home, company and the GRID. It's the best idea of the decade. Let's get it going. I've asked Nissan to make it an option on the LEAF like I have.

Comment
27 of 29

dimitar-mirchev-14630

May 19, 2011

glenn-doty

"In areas other than the Southwest, the cost of installing and maintaining the panels will keep the price of PV solar non-competitive, even if the panels themselves were free. That's why I said they could never be competitive outside the Southwest.

I see where you are going, but that is true if we asume coal, oil and uranium prices will stay the same for time being. Which I believe is not the case.

If oil hit $200 a barrel PV will be more competitive than ever.

Comment
28 of 29

glenn-doty-175949

May 19, 2011

Dimitar,

I agree with the spirit of your assertion, but it isn't oil that is the direct competitor of PV - it's coal, gas, wind, hydro, and geothermal.

In windy areas PV will never compete with wind power. Period.

Outside of windy areas, PV's most direct competition is natural gas, which due to fracking has become very inexpensive again... and unless something changes with laws regarding fracking gas will remain inexpensive.

Oil would have to HOLD well over $200/bbl in order for EV's to make any sense.

Comment
29 of 29

dimitar-mirchev-14630

May 19, 2011

glenn doty

Yea:) All I am saying is that there are two ways (not mutually exclusive) of renewables becoming competitive:

Renewables become cheaper
Fossils fuels become more expensive

You can add to that environmental concerns, CO2 taxing, corporate PR, etc.
That's why I think Grid Parity is much closer than you think.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!