The fact is that PV methods of producing electricity, coupled with the necessary associated economic storage in batteries for local use, are still far too costly for general use. It is significant that Leggett doesn't mention efficiency figures. As far as I'm aware, the figures are around 10-15%, though recent research suggests that, using suitable metal catalysts under laboratory conditions, the figure could be raised to around 20%.
But this, unfortunately, is simply not good enough. Compare this with the efficiency of solar energy conversion of biological cells in plant life of around 80%. I don't know what the efficiency of PV technology will have to be before it becomes economic to use in the real world, but I would suspect that it has got to be a lot nearer to 80% than to its present 15%. It's absolutely no use Leggett saying that if PV technology could be built into a normal roof tile and share its manufacturing cost, then it would become economic. If this were so then it would already be sweeping the house building industry.
Furthermore, Leggett is ridiculous in saying that PV is a 'disruptive technology' in the same way that personal computers were in relation to the previous mainframe technology. The fact that IBM missed the boat when microprocessors first came along is beside the point. Many others didn't miss the boat, and microprocessors -- a truly disruptive technology -- were developed anyway! If PV is is to be considered a disruptive technology then, whatever may be the attitude of existing industries that may be vulnerable to it, PV would already be in a state of rapid development by a host of entrepreneurs. Besides, on his own evidence, PV won't be disruptive in the same way as personal computers because the oil corporations will not resist it or scorn it (as IBM did with microprocessors) because they are themselves at the forefront of research into it! The oil corporations know better than anybody else that fossil fuel technology will disappear in the longer term future.
Leggett writes that "[PV is] capable of invading the trillion-dollar global energy market with the same speed that personal computers invaded the mainframe market." So it might. But only if and when it becomes considerably more efficient. If and when this happens you can be sure that the oil corporations will be in the forefront of developing the new market. And they won't be alone either!
KSH
<<<< HERE COMES THE SUN
Solar power is on the way to supplying the world with abundant electricity whether the big oil corporations like it or not
Jeremy Leggett
Imagine living in an era of rampant innovation where renewable power provides potentially endless energy for everyone on Earth at levels of demand higher than those today. Imagine solar photovoltaic (PV) cells so efficient that they could provide all the nation's electricity demand even in a cloudy place like the UK. Fanciful?
Not according to two of the world's most powerful oil companies. Scenario planners at Shell have calculated that renewable energy holds the potential to power a future world of 10 billion people with ease. In Shell's scenarios, solar energy dominates the mix, and small wonder, because over at BP experts have calculated that even in the cloudy, electricity-profligate UK, covering all suitable roofs with solar PV of existing efficiency would provide more electricity than the country presently uses.
PV cells are becoming more efficient all the time. You could store the energy they provide in advanced batteries, or by making hydrogen for fuel cells of the kind car manufacturers are developing. Yet many commentators still recite the mantras that underpin the planet-wrecking energy status-quo. Solar PV is simply too expensive, they say.
This argument assumes an economic frame of reference that compares the price of power from PV, which has virtually no distribution costs, with the current wholesale price of power from greenhouse-boosting sources. This is an economic frame of reference that ignores the value of PV panels as a building material in its own right, and more significantly places a value of zero on our children's futures. It is the economics of the madhouse -- but as it's the basis of most economists' calculations, let's use it anyway.
In fact, most off-grid PV solutions are already "economic" on this basis, and so are many grid-connected applications. The off-grid applications, including street furniture, telecoms infrastructure and some housing, are economic because they cost less to power by PV and batteries than it costs to extend the grid. In almost all homes in the developing world, PV is cheaper than the other energy-supply alternatives, including candles and kerosene, and hundreds of millions of homes could be lit given appropriate channels of distribution and credit.
The currently "economic" grid-connected applications are those involving cladding or roofing materials. PV cladding costs less than prestige cladding. Why build a functionless facade when you can build a cheaper and equally attractive PV one that gives you decades of electricity for free?
The "too expensive" argument also ignores the fact that as manufacturers scale up production, prices -- already falling fast -- will fall further. I have seen business plans for large PV manufacturing plants that will allow generation of "competitive" electricity in most markets. Such plants could be built in just a few years and be abundant within the decade.
PV is a classic example of a disruptive technology, capable of invading the trillion-dollar global energy market with the same speed that personal computers invaded the mainframe market. Companies tend not to spot such invasions of their core markets. Horse traders laughed at the first automobiles, shortly before going out of business. IBM failed to realise that the mainframe was under threat until late in the day. In fact, never in the history of commerce has a company with core interests in the threatened area commercialised the disruptive invader.
In this case, the threatened area involves the fossil fuels. Shell and BP, despite their scenario planners and the green mood music in their television ads, cannot be relied on to commercialise PV at the speed society needs. Indeed, the oil companies are still aiming to increase the amount of oil and gas they sell, not cut it.
The Germans and the Japanese have spotted the coming business revolution and are scaling up their domestic PV industries fast. Investors are responding: specialist funds for renewable energy and PV have recently been set up in these countries. In the case of the solar PV market, Japanese government funding will result in 370,000 solar roofs by 2005, on current trends. In Germany there will be 140,000. In the UK, there will be fewer than 2000.
A solar revolution would bring huge benefits to society. It would have a multiplier effect on other smart technology sectors. Moreover, solar PV is a democratising technology that is immensely popular where the public understands its potential. When your home is your power plant, generating electricity for your appliances and hydrogen for your heating and car, you no longer need to rely on utilities or oil companies. With storage, you can cut out the power cuts. What's more, you and the big retailers alike will be earning cash on the side trading your green electricity for top dollar in the carbon markets.
Oh, and by the way, you will be helping to save the world as you do it.
>>>>
Jeremy Leggett is Chief Executive of the UK's largest solar electric solutions company, Solar Century, and a founding director of the world's first private equity fund for renewable energy.
New Scientist 5 September 2003
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
