With effectively free energy the cost of production will plummet. That is manufacturing and farming. We will be able to desalinate water cheaply and transform arrid regions. The cost of shipping will also drop because we will be able to synthesise fuel. Hopefully famine is consigned to the history books.
+inspectorcrud I was actually thinking that myself. But I'm no expert in those fields so I waited for someone like you put it in to better words than I could haha
Currently world consumption is 17.7 TW per year. 232,000 MW is just 0.232 TW. That's only 1.31% of what's needed currently. I really hoped PV capacity would be higher by 2015. And then he says the rapid increase in capacity will eventually level off. Hopefully that won't be soon.
What about the costs of transmission lines to the middle of nowhere where the land is cheap enough to put in giant solar plants? Let's factor in the real costs shall we?
Lance Winslow that's really geography based, if you live in asia or africa for example sunlight is abundantly available year rpund throughout the country. And the cost of producing a solar plant instead of a new oil/coal/gas extraction field is higher and theres also costs associated with the health impacts...eg lower productivity due to poorer air quality causing healtg problems
Cost is the predominant aspect promoters concentrate on, but the reality is as a source of power for most of teh world it is ineffective. Cheapness cannot compensate for teh fact it doesn't work very weel.
If Kurzweil is correct, by 2030 solar power can fulfill 100% of the electricity needs, making all power plants obsolete. I seriously doubt that. There are governments who are building nuclear powerplants right now. Are they too stupid to waste vast amount of money on powerplants that will be obsolete in 12 years? I do love free electricity, but I do not think raising the efficiency or solar panel will be always easier. As the value reaches the top, it usually becomes harder and harder to increase. That is why increasing your test score from 90 to 100 is far more difficult than increasing from 20 to 30.
If you check out his other video on this topic, you'll see the "experts" predictions were out by a few decades in some cases. I don't think Kurzweil is too far off..
We have a 5.5 kWh solar system on our home. I'm pro-solar. I'm also pro reality. It is not accurate to say anything close to solar being x-price 'without subsidies'. The industry exists only b/c of govt intervention (which I support). The mfg experience curve of solar is largely b/c of Chinese govt over the past five years. The installation in South America and India are absolutely supported by govt intervention w/ infrastructure, forced PPAs, FDI. We can be bullish on solar but stop with the 'no subsidies' needed line. It's misleading. Govt policy is still driving this sector and will for the foreseeable future. Nor does this talk address the system level costs of solar and the very real challenges of paying for integration and ROC challenges for utilities (which were also birthed by govt). Celebrate progress but with a more truthful framing. Policy matters more than the tech
You forgot to mention that worldwide fossil fuels receives far more subsidies than renewable energy. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) estimated that an equivalent to 6.5% of global GDP would go to subsidising oil, gas and coal in 2015.
I'm not trying to defend hydrocarbons or dodge the massive global govt subsidies (direct and indirect). You are correct. Nor am I afraid to admit that beginning in the 1850s fossil fuels fueled a total transformation of society. Beyond fixing nitrogen - nothing has transformed our world more than coal and oil. You don't get to a society that uses solar panels without passing thru extraction energy eras. We can be adults and recognize the positive role hydrocarbons have played and still play -- while being urgent on climate change policies. Now it's time to make a transition. I'm pro-transition. I'm pro govt subsidies for renewables. Read my comment closely without filling in any blanks. I am tired of solar advocates acting as if: entrepreneurs and technologists got us here without any help from government. The 'experience curve' of solar panels is directly linked to Chinese mfg subsidies (plus loose industrial policies) and EU-US subsidies. This is a policy led transition. We took our house solar on these subsidies. I'm not anti-solar. I just want the techno-utopians to stop ignoring the 'game changing' role of global governments in making this sector emerge. We can say this truthfully without being seen as tools for fossil fuel industry. Don't confuse the message here. I am looking for an honest framing of 'cheap solar'. Govts made solar cheap. Govt help is still needed. All recent projects in South America, Middle East, India et al deals which are sold as 'no subsidy -- it's a lie. Govt is behind the price of panels on mfg. Govt is behind grid connections and build outs. No country on Earth has energy systems that are subsidy free. Let's just be honest about it... Policy makers matter more than Elon Musk
How will things change when energy is effectively free and renewable?
I'll be optimistic and say it will be a big stepping stone to a new era of human existence. A new age if you will.
With effectively free energy the cost of production will plummet. That is manufacturing and farming. We will be able to desalinate water cheaply and transform arrid regions. The cost of shipping will also drop because we will be able to synthesise fuel. Hopefully famine is consigned to the history books.
+inspectorcrud I was actually thinking that myself. But I'm no expert in those fields so I waited for someone like you put it in to better words than I could haha
+Robert Briggs I'm sure you're just being modest. Those were some of my/your thoughts on the subject anyway.
It will be the next step towards a computation based society.
Great to see that Avasva has new instructions to save my money and energy to build it.
Currently world consumption is 17.7 TW per year. 232,000 MW is just 0.232 TW. That's only 1.31% of what's needed currently. I really hoped PV capacity would be higher by 2015. And then he says the rapid increase in capacity will eventually level off. Hopefully that won't be soon.
390 GW by the end of this year 2017
515 GW 2018
What about the costs of transmission lines to the middle of nowhere where the land is cheap enough to put in giant solar plants? Let's factor in the real costs shall we?
Lance Winslow that's really geography based, if you live in asia or africa for example sunlight is abundantly available year rpund throughout the country. And the cost of producing a solar plant instead of a new oil/coal/gas extraction field is higher and theres also costs associated with the health impacts...eg lower productivity due to poorer air quality causing healtg problems
It will be interesting to come see what the costs are like in twenty years if these old solar plants are still running.
Thanks for watching! You ask an excellent question. If you want to listen to more of Ramez's thoughts on Solar, check this out: bit.ly/2e0RnUR.
Cost is the predominant aspect promoters concentrate on, but the reality is as a source of power for most of teh world it is ineffective. Cheapness cannot compensate for teh fact it doesn't work very weel.
But.....its not base load!
If Kurzweil is correct, by 2030 solar power can fulfill 100% of the electricity needs, making all power plants obsolete. I seriously doubt that. There are governments who are building nuclear powerplants right now. Are they too stupid to waste vast amount of money on powerplants that will be obsolete in 12 years? I do love free electricity, but I do not think raising the efficiency or solar panel will be always easier. As the value reaches the top, it usually becomes harder and harder to increase. That is why increasing your test score from 90 to 100 is far more difficult than increasing from 20 to 30.
If you check out his other video on this topic, you'll see the "experts" predictions were out by a few decades in some cases. I don't think Kurzweil is too far off..
400 GW by the end of this year .Kurzweil said 2029 if its double first quater 2020 800 GW by the end of 2020 1 TW and so on
We have a 5.5 kWh solar system on our home. I'm pro-solar. I'm also pro reality. It is not accurate to say anything close to solar being x-price 'without subsidies'. The industry exists only b/c of govt intervention (which I support). The mfg experience curve of solar is largely b/c of Chinese govt over the past five years. The installation in South America and India are absolutely supported by govt intervention w/ infrastructure, forced PPAs, FDI.
We can be bullish on solar but stop with the 'no subsidies' needed line. It's misleading. Govt policy is still driving this sector and will for the foreseeable future.
Nor does this talk address the system level costs of solar and the very real challenges of paying for integration and ROC challenges for utilities (which were also birthed by govt). Celebrate progress but with a more truthful framing. Policy matters more than the tech
You forgot to mention that worldwide fossil fuels receives far more subsidies than renewable energy.
The IMF (International Monetary Fund) estimated that an equivalent to 6.5% of global GDP would go to subsidising oil, gas and coal in 2015.
I'm not trying to defend hydrocarbons or dodge the massive global govt subsidies (direct and indirect).
You are correct.
Nor am I afraid to admit that beginning in the 1850s fossil fuels fueled a total transformation of society. Beyond fixing nitrogen - nothing has transformed our world more than coal and oil. You don't get to a society that uses solar panels without passing thru extraction energy eras. We can be adults and recognize the positive role hydrocarbons have played and still play -- while being urgent on climate change policies.
Now it's time to make a transition. I'm pro-transition. I'm pro govt subsidies for renewables.
Read my comment closely without filling in any blanks.
I am tired of solar advocates acting as if: entrepreneurs and technologists got us here without any help from government.
The 'experience curve' of solar panels is directly linked to Chinese mfg subsidies (plus loose industrial policies) and EU-US subsidies. This is a policy led transition. We took our house solar on these subsidies.
I'm not anti-solar. I just want the techno-utopians to stop ignoring the 'game changing' role of global governments in making this sector emerge. We can say this truthfully without being seen as tools for fossil fuel industry. Don't confuse the message here. I am looking for an honest framing of 'cheap solar'.
Govts made solar cheap. Govt help is still needed. All recent projects in South America, Middle East, India et al deals which are sold as 'no subsidy -- it's a lie. Govt is behind the price of panels on mfg. Govt is behind grid connections and build outs.
No country on Earth has energy systems that are subsidy free. Let's just be honest about it... Policy makers matter more than Elon Musk