Solar industry aims for grid parity in eight years 10

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 4:50 am
   20 Oct 2008

   8 years......is also when the most recent round of tax cuts for solar energy projects will expire.
   Hence, the 8 year timeline.

   Permalink

2. 

   jimbeyer Posted 7:12 am
   20 Oct 2008

   You have the andwer right there, Dave:If
   Does this cost parity include the added generation capacity needed to provide power at night?  Just wondering....
   I don't think coal with sequestering will ever be practical, by the way.
   
   Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

   Permalink

3. 

   KenG Posted 9:58 am
   20 Oct 2008

   Math results are based on inputsPredicting the economics of any technology in 10 or 15 years is really difficult. That brings me back to my broken record position of level the playing field and see what happens. I watch this stuff since I'm in the energy industry and it seems to me that sequestration has been coming down in price faster over the last few years than solar. Let's hope they both come down in price.

   Permalink

4. 

   Duggles Posted 11:00 am
   20 Oct 2008

   Are there any working examples of CCS yet?I'm not trying to be smarmy, I'm genuinely curious, because I thought the death of FutureGen signaled the death of CCS, for all practical purposes.

   Permalink

5. 

   KenG Posted 10:53 pm
   20 Oct 2008

   CCS ProgressA 30MWe pilot coal plant just opened in Germany that captures 95% of the CO2 at much lower cost than the US plants on the drawing board. Interestingly enough, although we seem to have decided that no progress is possible without Federal funding, the German plant is privately developed. Environmental groups are divided, with some positive and others very afraid that success of coal will derail renewables.
   German CCS

   Permalink

6. 

   jimbeyer Posted 12:42 am
   21 Oct 2008

   CCSIt would seem to me than CCS plant would get more expensive to run over time, as the deposition sites near the plant would get filled, and the CO2 would have to be shipped to progressively further distances.
   I feel very funny about this technology.  Probably not logical.  Part of me thinks the whole thing is simply hopeless if U.S./Europe builds one CCS plant while China builds 5 regular ones.  How can we be serious about this technology without some international agreement in place?  And who verifies that no one cheats?  If China can cheat with their own dairy products, they can cheat about this.
   This tempts me to want to simply take coal out of the equation.  Perhaps too simplistic....
   
   Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

   Permalink

7. 

   GRLCowan Posted 2:42 am
   21 Oct 2008

   Inadvertent CO2 capture from airAre there any working examples of CCS yet?
   I know of none connected to a coal plant. However, inadvertent CCS from air has demonstrated itself on a large scale.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed

   Permalink

8. 

   GRLCowan Posted 3:13 am
   21 Oct 2008

   Just take CH_n out of the eqn, why don't weI feel very funny about this technology.  Probably not logical.  Part of me thinks the whole thing is simply hopeless if U.S./Europe builds one CCS plant while China builds 5 regular ones.
   "Let's build a boat."
   "Well, the technology gives me a funny feeling. Won't we have to wear hollowed-out watermelons as head protection? What if the eye holes don't line up?"
   The whole thing is not hopeless, although discussions of CCS as if it were an attribute of a plant -- implying that only when all existing plants are replaced with CCS ones will those existing plants' emissions be reduced to zero -- are useful if you wish to avoid hope.
   I think Beyer can add two and two. Let him therefore examine his idea about CCS becoming more expensive over time by determining the thickness of the dust layer 500 gigatonnes of CO2 would make, on the Sahara desert say, if it were precipitated there as MgCO3.
   Or hey, don't bother with the arithmetic, Jim, just jump directly to the apology.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed

   Permalink

9. 

   jimbeyer Posted 4:47 am
   21 Oct 2008

   Feeling funny about CCSWell, ignoring some of Graham's gentle snipes, I think I can agree that separating CCS from coal burning might be a good strategy, albeit not an immediately obvious one.  This would be pulling CO2 out of the ambient air, instead of capturing from a concentrated source.  A guy at Columbia, Klaus Lackner, has been looking into this.
   Interesting points include:
   
   
   Separates capture from a particular source, including coal.
   Could be run with intermittent energy sources (wind,solar) instead of efficiency hit on more valid on-demand source such as coal.
   Although concentrations are much lower, major energy costs/issues occur with restoring absorbent or moving, storing CO2.
   Correctly separates the cost of CCS from energy production, as it probably should.  Costs of stand-alone CCS may even be lower due to use of intermittent energy sources.
   Not all that expensive to collect CO2 from ambient air; surprisingly low, in fact. New absorbents would lower costs further.
   
   
   I think the main issue with CCS is that if it isn't done in a big way, the results of a partial attempt seem pretty silly; saving a few coal plants worth of CO2 while China and India build dozens more each year.  I agree one must start somewhere, however...
   
   Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

   Permalink

10. 

    Duggles Posted 7:35 am
    21 Oct 2008

    Thank you, Ken.

    Permalink