Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Stuff that can limit the current exponential curve
>> and convert it to an "S" shaped asympotic curve -
>
>> 2) The energy put into the manufacture has to be lower than the energy
>> yield of the panels across their life. The worse the ratio the sooner
>> the price stops falling exponentially.
>
> Nanosolar claim energy payback time of 1 month.

That's several hundred dollars. It's low enough that any time a roof
gets replaced it will be worth using solar cells. Reach that price
point and they will pervade civilized countries.

> Overall, I would expect to continue to see exponential growth with the
> "S" starting to appear in around 15-20 years. 1 billion PV panels would
> add 25% per annum to total global electricity generating capacity. It's
> hard to see how the market could grow much under those conditions.

So you expect market saturation to cause the roll off not material or
price limits. We're still multiple doublings away before any sign up
that will become obvious.

So far Moore's Law have applied to the solar cell market. There are a
few doublings left before market saturation starts.

> By 2030 I expect to see an energy glut and crashing energy prices.

Energy pricings have been trending up recently. Prices trended up
across history until coal and the industrial revolution. Then there was
oil to keep up with industrialization. The price bump of past peak oil
could be temporary.

Industrialization is also peaking. In the US fewer and fewer
manufacturing jobs exist but total industrial production has not fallen.
As happened at the start of the industrial revolution pulling jobs out
of agriculture by industrializing farming, that is now happening with
automation of industry. Social turmoil again as usual.

On 26/01/2011 04:04, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-percent-renewable-energy.html
>>
>> PhysOrg.com) -- New research has shown that it is possible and
>> affordable for the world to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by
>> 2030, if there is the political will to strive for this goal.
>>
>> Achieving 100 percent renewable energy would mean the building of about
>> four million 5 MW wind turbines, 1.7 billion 3 kW roof-mounted solar
>> photovoltaic systems, and around 90,000 300 MW solar power plants.
>
> At 1.7 billion rooftop installations they definitely bank on the current
> exponential growth curve of photovoltaic install base. I think the
> curve is likely to continue to that level. In time solar will grow to
> the point it cuts demand for fossil. You have discussed that idea for
> several years at this point.

Cell phone manufacture is currently running at around 1 billion per
year. Is there any reason to believe we will not have the capacity to
produce 1 billion 1kW PV panels per year? That's equivalent to 1000
major conventional power plants per year.

--
FFF
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> At 1.7 billion rooftop installations they definitely bank on the current
>> exponential growth curve of photovoltaic install base. I think the
>> curve is likely to continue to that level. In time solar will grow to
>> the point it cuts demand for fossil. You have discussed that idea for
>> several years at this point.
>
> Cell phone manufacture is currently running at around 1 billion per
> year. Is there any reason to believe we will not have the capacity to
> produce 1 billion 1kW PV panels per year? That's equivalent to 1000
> major conventional power plants per year.

The longer solar follows its current exponential growth path the most
reasonable that is. Stuff that can limit the current exponential curve
and convert it to an "S" shaped asympotic curve -

1) Limits on the chemicals needed to run the cell. Most current
technology uses elements that are not common. Rare earth elements
aren't quite called that because their availability is low, but the name
does work that way. Living systems use iron (hemoglobin) and chrominium
(cytochrome-C and chlorophyl). Figure out a solar power cell that uses
one of these elements and the manufacturing is no longer limited by
mining.

2) The energy put into the manufacture has to be lower than the energy
yield of the panels across their life. The worse the ratio the sooner
the price stops falling exponentially.

On 31/01/2011 23:53, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>> At 1.7 billion rooftop installations they definitely bank on the current
>>> exponential growth curve of photovoltaic install base. I think the
>>> curve is likely to continue to that level. In time solar will grow to
>>> the point it cuts demand for fossil. You have discussed that idea for
>>> several years at this point.
>>
>> Cell phone manufacture is currently running at around 1 billion per
>> year. Is there any reason to believe we will not have the capacity to
>> produce 1 billion 1kW PV panels per year? That's equivalent to 1000
>> major conventional power plants per year.
>
> The longer solar follows its current exponential growth path the most
> reasonable that is. Stuff that can limit the current exponential curve
> and convert it to an "S" shaped asympotic curve -
>
> 1) Limits on the chemicals needed to run the cell. Most current
> technology uses elements that are not common. Rare earth elements
> aren't quite called that because their availability is low, but the name
> does work that way. Living systems use iron (hemoglobin) and chrominium
> (cytochrome-C and chlorophyl). Figure out a solar power cell that uses
> one of these elements and the manufacturing is no longer limited by
> mining.

The current Si cells use Indium in its transparent electrode. That will
be replaced by graphene in the near future. There are already display
screens with graphene overlays.

In the wider view I think everyone knows that the "ultimate" PV cell is
going to be a thin film low temperature printing process. Right now such
inks used by (say) Nanosolar do use rare earths. Something like dye
sensitized organic PVs will become dominant, but not for several years.

> 2) The energy put into the manufacture has to be lower than the energy
> yield of the panels across their life. The worse the ratio the sooner
> the price stops falling exponentially.

Nanosolar claim energy payback time of 1 month.

Overall, I would expect to continue to see exponential growth with the
"S" starting to appear in around 15-20 years. 1 billion PV panels would
add 25% per annum to total global electricity generating capacity. It's
hard to see how the market could grow much under those conditions.

By 2030 I expect to see an energy glut and crashing energy prices.

--
FFF
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology