How fast will it take over, how fast are costs shrinking, why is it so cheap, what industries will it birth, how much surface will it take up, where will it appear first?
Why does this post seem like an advertisement for solar companies? Are there no downsides to soakr technology? I'd like to see a more balanced treatment of the subject .
One issue you have not addressed here is the resistance of utility companies to integrating solar into the grid. A great deal of storage and transmission is needed for solar to overcome the time and space constraints of when and where solar is available, which is quickly overwhelming the cost of installations.
Still you are focused on the costs of the solar infrastructure, not integrating it into the grid. Here in the northeast, we are faced with extreme delays on all renewable connections to the PJM grid, causing us to almost lose our offshore wind project and many community solar and battery projects did collapse. PJM (who run the grid for 14 states from Virginia to Ohio and Pennsylvania) just doesn't understand how to integrate renewables and storage projects onto the grid. Distributed energy with smart systems can greatly improve grid resiliency, but the rules have to change to reflect those new systems. Here are some resources discussing these issues: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/virtual-power-plants/hundreds-of-new-yorkers-got-free-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid
I live in the Netherlands mostly off the grid with solar, wood and some natural gas. I have nice big batteries as well. The winter is difficult and I need to add some grid-power or diesel to help me through some dark weeks. My system works mainly because I have enough land to grow wood for heating.
I'm far from optimistic about large-scale solar grid-based energy: we need to mine much more copper and we have already mined the easy resources; we are now happy with low-grades and those take (exponentially) more energy and effort to mine. The more copper we have mined, the lower the grades, and the higher the costs become, and rapidly. The same with battery materials.
Despite lots of advancements I see no feasible way to solve this conundrum. This is a problem of physics, not of human creativity. So I do not (yet) share you techno-optimism. Neither do I belief in a just in time miracle solution.
Your solution works because of the biofuel and supplemental fossil fuels. Overbuilding solar can solve the overnight issue, but not the issue across seasons. For that, the only solutions are likely to be wind or fuel burning. Nuclear could do but it’s so expensive that it wouldn’t work just for that. Must be baseload.
... but overbuilding solar and its infra-structure requires way more copper (and other materials) than economically minable. I just heard new copper mines will not be economically feasible until the copper price triples. And it takes 20-30 years to start one (they need to be huge to be feasible in the first place). Does not look good.
You might like (or hate :-) ) studying resource availability and mining. I found it a fascinating, but neglected, field of study.
At the moment, batteries aren’t close to storing enough juice. So for every solar installation where you need power after dark or when it’s cloudy, you need backup natural gas power
I have been a solar enthusiast for over 10 years. My cars, my home, my pool, are powered by solar. My monthly costs are about $25 per month. It would be zero,but the monopoly that runs our grid requires that we be tied to the grid. I would be more than happy to sell back my energy to the electrical grid, but the monopoly that is the grid only provides a small percentage of the value that is provided from my overproduction. Although this is a residential application,the primary point is that until we have regulation that provides individual solar installations to go off grid and/or resell excess power back to the grid for a reasonable amount that takes the price of power generation into account, the system in place is not conducive to bringing more power to the grid to keep power costs as low as possible. There is no win-win here.
Commercial applications may not have the same considerations, but my guess (currently, without data to back this up) that this likely also applies to large installations, making it adventatious to the power grid monopoly that profits without any value add.
I am very interested in and pro nuclear. The only thing that puts a (?) mark over the nuclear thesis, except for niche (but important) applications, is solar power and its cost decrease.
A first principle comparison of solar and nuclear would be great. Currently, nuclear is hard to access, because regulation, politics, lack of scale and bad industry structure have distorted the space so much.
Btw. there is a nuclear brother to Terraform Industries, called Valar Atomics.
Once again, you have impressed me with your writing. And your readers have brought up many good points below and you are able to point out where you have considered these facets. Well done! I think expanding solar is a good idea but we are a long way from elimination of petroleum products. Until storage limitations are overcome, solar will be one more way to diversify our power sources.
I loved the photo of the sheep sheltering in the shade of a solar array. Every time I see a parking lot [I live in LA so I see lots of lots, or paved paradise...] with solar panels shading the cars and providing energy I wonder why these aren't mandatory. One example that should be easy would be schools, which, as public buildings, wouldn't have landlords resisting government mandates. Just saying...
Great article! Would love to hear your thoughts on nuclear power too. Amazon and Google are investing in US nuclear power, and China is building capacity rapidly.
Tomas, you talk about methane in section 4 (colocation): "Of course, we will produce natural gas for cheaper than it costs to dig it up, and that will likely happen without subsidies within a decade. This also means that the intermediary steps of fuel production will all be done with solar energy, including taking air in and separating its components, and splitting water to get H2." I've always seen hydrogen as more of a "storage medium" for energy than anything else. Yes, the "sun doesn't always shine", but couldn't solar-powered hydrogen generation be a great solution to this energy storage problem? I.e. the hydrogen becomes a kind of battery?
It seems that this article glossed right over the fact that this all works only if the cost of batteries come waaayyyy down. We have partial solar in our home. Batteries are the current deal breaker.
Why does this post seem like an advertisement for solar companies? Are there no downsides to soakr technology? I'd like to see a more balanced treatment of the subject .
I am trying, honestly.
I thought they would take too much land, but apparently it’s not a problem.
For the downsides, look at this article at the bottom: the gist is you can’t do solar well without batteries, and batteries are expensive.
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/can-solar-costs-keep-shrinking?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Appreciate the response! Any observations regarding environmental concerns, either with mining of materials, or leakage/disposal issues?
One issue you have not addressed here is the resistance of utility companies to integrating solar into the grid. A great deal of storage and transmission is needed for solar to overcome the time and space constraints of when and where solar is available, which is quickly overwhelming the cost of installations.
That’s true! It’s because I address it here:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/can-solar-costs-keep-shrinking?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Still you are focused on the costs of the solar infrastructure, not integrating it into the grid. Here in the northeast, we are faced with extreme delays on all renewable connections to the PJM grid, causing us to almost lose our offshore wind project and many community solar and battery projects did collapse. PJM (who run the grid for 14 states from Virginia to Ohio and Pennsylvania) just doesn't understand how to integrate renewables and storage projects onto the grid. Distributed energy with smart systems can greatly improve grid resiliency, but the rules have to change to reflect those new systems. Here are some resources discussing these issues: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/virtual-power-plants/hundreds-of-new-yorkers-got-free-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/governors-pjm-capacity-market-auction-opsi-p3-ls-power/731186/
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/utility-resilience-extreme-weather-planning-aps-duke-epri/725820/
https://www.bayjournal.com/news/energy/with-electricity-prices-rising-groups-blame-slow-rollout-of-renewables/article_cb7290b2-91a1-11ef-aa11-3738a0d6d187.html
https://evergreenaction.com/blog/four-ways-states-can-meet-ai-energy-demand-with-clean-energy-1
I live in the Netherlands mostly off the grid with solar, wood and some natural gas. I have nice big batteries as well. The winter is difficult and I need to add some grid-power or diesel to help me through some dark weeks. My system works mainly because I have enough land to grow wood for heating.
I'm far from optimistic about large-scale solar grid-based energy: we need to mine much more copper and we have already mined the easy resources; we are now happy with low-grades and those take (exponentially) more energy and effort to mine. The more copper we have mined, the lower the grades, and the higher the costs become, and rapidly. The same with battery materials.
Despite lots of advancements I see no feasible way to solve this conundrum. This is a problem of physics, not of human creativity. So I do not (yet) share you techno-optimism. Neither do I belief in a just in time miracle solution.
Thx!
Your solution works because of the biofuel and supplemental fossil fuels. Overbuilding solar can solve the overnight issue, but not the issue across seasons. For that, the only solutions are likely to be wind or fuel burning. Nuclear could do but it’s so expensive that it wouldn’t work just for that. Must be baseload.
... but overbuilding solar and its infra-structure requires way more copper (and other materials) than economically minable. I just heard new copper mines will not be economically feasible until the copper price triples. And it takes 20-30 years to start one (they need to be huge to be feasible in the first place). Does not look good.
You might like (or hate :-) ) studying resource availability and mining. I found it a fascinating, but neglected, field of study.
Also, if you do have a model where you can resell power to the utility. It can’t be at retail prices. Or the utility goes bust
Indeed
At the moment, batteries aren’t close to storing enough juice. So for every solar installation where you need power after dark or when it’s cloudy, you need backup natural gas power
Correct. This will likely end soon.
I have been a solar enthusiast for over 10 years. My cars, my home, my pool, are powered by solar. My monthly costs are about $25 per month. It would be zero,but the monopoly that runs our grid requires that we be tied to the grid. I would be more than happy to sell back my energy to the electrical grid, but the monopoly that is the grid only provides a small percentage of the value that is provided from my overproduction. Although this is a residential application,the primary point is that until we have regulation that provides individual solar installations to go off grid and/or resell excess power back to the grid for a reasonable amount that takes the price of power generation into account, the system in place is not conducive to bringing more power to the grid to keep power costs as low as possible. There is no win-win here.
Commercial applications may not have the same considerations, but my guess (currently, without data to back this up) that this likely also applies to large installations, making it adventatious to the power grid monopoly that profits without any value add.
That’s awesome!
Do you resell the power at night? Could you? Or in the evening. With batteries. Maybe that would increase your margins?
I think forcing people to connect to the grid is dumb.
But I do understand that they would pay you little: they have to pay for the grid, and you’re probably producing when everybody else is.
I am very interested in and pro nuclear. The only thing that puts a (?) mark over the nuclear thesis, except for niche (but important) applications, is solar power and its cost decrease.
A first principle comparison of solar and nuclear would be great. Currently, nuclear is hard to access, because regulation, politics, lack of scale and bad industry structure have distorted the space so much.
Btw. there is a nuclear brother to Terraform Industries, called Valar Atomics.
Did you see my article on nuclear?
I’m a big fan!
More on nuclear today or tomorrow.
The big downside is cost. It’s expensive! We can make it cheaper but it’s not clear we can make it “solar cheap”
Love your information on TX vs CA. Just shows; let the market decide.
Once again, you have impressed me with your writing. And your readers have brought up many good points below and you are able to point out where you have considered these facets. Well done! I think expanding solar is a good idea but we are a long way from elimination of petroleum products. Until storage limitations are overcome, solar will be one more way to diversify our power sources.
Correct!
You mentioned that heat pump prices are expected to continue falling. Are there recent studies or reports that support this trend?
Will probably tackle in the (premium) article next week!
I loved the photo of the sheep sheltering in the shade of a solar array. Every time I see a parking lot [I live in LA so I see lots of lots, or paved paradise...] with solar panels shading the cars and providing energy I wonder why these aren't mandatory. One example that should be easy would be schools, which, as public buildings, wouldn't have landlords resisting government mandates. Just saying...
It’s now mandatory in France for parkings over 1500m2 before July 2028.
You mean for parking coverings?
I resist telling people what to do, though! The economic case should be enough!
Excellent work sir, keep it up 👍
Great article! Would love to hear your thoughts on nuclear power too. Amazon and Google are investing in US nuclear power, and China is building capacity rapidly.
Coming in the next article!
Tomas, you talk about methane in section 4 (colocation): "Of course, we will produce natural gas for cheaper than it costs to dig it up, and that will likely happen without subsidies within a decade. This also means that the intermediary steps of fuel production will all be done with solar energy, including taking air in and separating its components, and splitting water to get H2." I've always seen hydrogen as more of a "storage medium" for energy than anything else. Yes, the "sun doesn't always shine", but couldn't solar-powered hydrogen generation be a great solution to this energy storage problem? I.e. the hydrogen becomes a kind of battery?
The issues with hydrogen are that it’s too light, escapes too easily, corrodes, and is explosive. More details here:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/why-hydrogen-is-not-the-answer?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It seems that this article glossed right over the fact that this all works only if the cost of batteries come waaayyyy down. We have partial solar in our home. Batteries are the current deal breaker.
I like solar adverts although I think the equipment requires to be changed every 4 years and that is a high cost.
Typically solar panels last 25 years!