McKinsey has a great new analysis piece: "The economics of solar power." Overall it's extremely optimistic, saying that despite uncertainties around technology and policy, growth in the solar sector is all but certain to be robust.
Here's a interesting chart. The size of the yellow ball is the size of the solar market in TWh. The upper right of the chart is "grid parity" -- i.e., solar electricity selling for roughly the same price as fossil electricity.
Notice that several large U.S. markets -- California, Texas, New York -- are expected to reach grid parity by 2020. Note, however, that China, with a much larger total market, will not, largely thanks to cheap and unregulated coal in that country. Steps by the Chinese government to price carbon or otherwise discourage coal could bump that yellow dot up and to the right.
Here's another chart, showing the projected rise of solar PV installed capacity under fairly conservative "base-line" assumptions (including no breakthrough advances in thin-film, nanotubes, etc.):
A more aggressive scenario puts the 2020 capacity at well over double this number -- 400GW. Note here the role of government support in kickstarting a market that will continue to expand long after policy supports are removed.
Interestingly, McKinsey is much more bullish on PV than on concentrated solar (CSP). They base their preference on the many opportunities for fundamental technological breakthroughs in PV that bring efficiency up and price down. CSP, on the other hand, intrinsically relies on steel, glass, and other commodities that are unlikely to substantially fall in price.
Despite all the optimism, this robust growth in solar will still yield a relatively small cumulative total:
Even if all of the forecast growth occurs, solar energy will represent only about 3 to 6 percent of installed electricity generation capacity, or 1.5 to 3 percent of output in 2020. While solar power can certainly help to satisfy the desire for more electricity and lower carbon emissions, it is just one piece of the puzzle.
Lots more, including advice for utilities, component manufacturers, and governments, in the analysis itself. Worth checking out.
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 4:09 pm
24 Jun 2008
It is not that either you or McKinsey would dispute this. It is just that it can get too easy to get into a mode of talking about the future as though it is fixed, and trying to read the tea leaves to figure out where it will go. We make the future, not exactly as we wish, but still what we do affects what happens. We know this, but we want to avoid letting it slip too far towards the back of our minds.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:24 pm
24 Jun 2008
grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:57 pm
24 Jun 2008
I think that's a fair assumption.
Grid parity by 2020 seems a bit too far out also. Given soaring fuel costs. And recent concentrating solar PV and furnace cogeneration and storage developments.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 6:19 pm
24 Jun 2008
Permalink
hapa Posted 9:27 pm
24 Jun 2008
Whether [the clean energy] boom will happen quickly enough to stop the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaching dangerous levels is moot.
and so's this:
[An important] difference [between the coming energy boom and its recent predecessors] is that new information technologies tend to be disruptive, forcing the replacement of existing equipment, whereas, say, building wind farms does not force the closure of coal-fired power stations.
isn't that nice? everybody gets to keep making money.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 2:14 pm
25 Jun 2008
how can rooftop PV ever get grid parity in CA when Bright Source gets to destroy 10,000 acres of OUR taxpayer-owned wilderness for each CSP plant for almost no money, plus suck 35 million gallons of OUR groundwater per year per plant (for free) plus get guaranteed cheap capital, plus guaranteed NIETC transmission lines, plus massive tax breaks, govt incentives and other perqs that all direct investment capital towards it as well?
meanwhile back at the homestead, we have to choose between small-and-shrinking CSI incentives, OR teensy feed-in tariffs, OR of course, losing our homes to eminent domain for the thousands of new miles of powerlines RETI is scheming, and sacrificing our open spaces/views to giant power plants.
Oh, and where can we get the money anyhow since HELOCs are all closed, lenders are denying everything, and nobody but SF and Berkeley have bothered with innovative lending programs? Since POLICY-DRIVEN DEMAND has kept prices high and has driven a lot of manufacturing to places where PV is wanted, we are not seeing the kinds of price drops predicted, so a basic system is still well over $20K.
We gotta get out from under this Corporatocracy frame of mind and at least pretend we still live in a democracy. Local PV is simply better than remote, utility-scale anything. For the planet, for the ratepayers, for our views, our ecosystems, our groundwater, our lives. let's push for policies that reflect that!
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
unienerji Posted 6:03 am
26 Jun 2008
Türkey has bigger potential than germany but germany has used solar energy more than us. I think, it's main reason is less promoting the development of solar energy in türkey than germany.
Permalink