Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: zahc on November 22, 2013, 05:27:55 PM
-
An article explaining the serious failure (?) of Germany's "clean energy initiative". When I was in grad school about 4 years ago, solar technology was a big thing, and Germany was the poster child for clean energy policy. Manifested, of course, in the form of "energy policy" i.e. government subsidies, mandates and other market manipulations.
http://www.quora.com/Alternative-Energy/Should-other-nations-follow-Germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power-1?srid=ue54&share=1
-
The comments give me a headache from the level of head in the sand obtuseness.
-
But what should be evident to consumers TODAY that just as the cost of semiconductor computer processors has decreased, in REAL terms, with mass production, the cost of solar cells will also decrease. And these consumers can also see TODAY the solar cells that are already economic, without a subsidy.
I think this is the primary technological misunderstanding of this century, either explicitly or hidden behind other magical thinking by the technologically ignorant. The development of the integrated circuit has practically nothing in common with any other technology. Other technologies are enabled by cheap integrated circuits and thus ride the wave of progress to that extent, but that extent only.
Nobody is ever, no matter what, going to invent a solar cell that is substantially better than what we have now. There is a fixed amount of solar energy per square meter. even a magical 100% efficient, laws-of-thermodynamics-breaking solar cell would not be a factor of 3 better than what we have now. Engineering is hard; it is not a matter finding ways to print more patterns on silicon, and there is absolutely no reason to expect magical gains except through discovery and development of new materials, which is expensive, subject to random breakthroughs rather than straightforward evolution toward a known goal, and has strict upper bounds, which are clearly in sight, on the amount of improvement possible.
-
Nobody is ever, no matter what, going to invent a solar cell that is substantially better than what we have now.
We don't need them to be 'better' in the efficiency sense. We need them better in the 'cheaper' sense. That's where most of the work is; it's just that a solar cell that's 10% more efficient is effectively 10% cheaper.
-
We don't need them to be 'better' in the efficiency sense. We need them better in the 'cheaper' sense. That's where most of the work is; it's just that a solar cell that's 10% more efficient is effectively 10% cheaper.
Cheaper is important, but also a cheap solar cell that can be embedded in the shingles and easily tied in to the system is a significant improvement over - well - one that can't.
-
I think this is the primary technological misunderstanding of this century, either explicitly or hidden behind other magical thinking by the technologically ignorant. The development of the integrated circuit has practically nothing in common with any other technology. Other technologies are enabled by cheap integrated circuits and thus ride the wave of progress to that extent, but that extent only.
Nobody is ever, no matter what, going to invent a solar cell that is substantially better than what we have now. There is a fixed amount of solar energy per square meter. even a magical 100% efficient, laws-of-thermodynamics-breaking solar cell would not be a factor of 3 better than what we have now. Engineering is hard; it is not a matter finding ways to print more patterns on silicon, and there is absolutely no reason to expect magical gains except through discovery and development of new materials, which is expensive, subject to random breakthroughs rather than straightforward evolution toward a known goal, and has strict upper bounds, which are clearly in sight, on the amount of improvement possible.
This plus eleventy.
-
We don't need them to be 'better' in the efficiency sense. We need them better in the 'cheaper' sense. That's where most of the work is; it's just that a solar cell that's 10% more efficient is effectively 10% cheaper.
My point stands. Integrated circuits have gotten more capable AND cheaper, to the point where transistors now cost nano-dollars. If you take the cheapest possible material that holds together, say, OSB, it's still not cheaper than existing solar cells by an amount comparable to a few years of what Moore's law did to integrated circuits. Physics sucks. There will be no orders-of-magnitude improvements, even if someone figures out how to make plywood into theroretically-perfect solar cells for free.
-
Here is an excellent article on German's "green power" problems : http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
Basically, in Germany, electricity prices have doubled. Two-thirds of the price hike is due to new government fees, surcharges and taxes to cover green energy. Welfare and pensions haven't increased to cover it. This is causing problems and a lot of shutoffs. The politicians and environmentalists plan to deal with it is to ignore the situation, and hope it goes away.
Because of the unpredictability of wind/solar, it's really messing with the economics of all other parts of Germany's grid. Pumped storage hydroelectric plants are really being screwed with, and that's REALLY bad.
-
^^^ That was an absolutely fascinating article about German energy policy.
-
Those plucky Germans. They just can't seem to keep from reverting to fascism. I'm sure the DPTB (Deutchepauerthatbie) would be outraged to be described as such. But what else can you call government control of private business and industry?
On the broader topic, what is with these bedwetting, nanny-state euroweenies? Can they not, for one flipping minute, give up on the idea that the omniscient, omnipresent state must control everything?
-
Those plucky Germans. They just can't seem to keep from reverting to fascism. I'm sure the DPTB (Deutchepauerthatbie) would be outraged to be described as such. But what else can you call government control of private business and industry?
On the broader topic, what is with these bedwetting, nanny-state euroweenies? Can they not, for one flipping minute, give up on the idea that the omniscient, omnipresent state must control everything?
Systematically undermine religion and other value systems which explain and give order to the universe, and you're left with existentialist abstraction and meaningless, powerless individuals. Very few humans have the discipline to operate within that limited framework. The natural result is that something has to fill the resulting void. The State as mother/father/deity/master seems the obvious result.
-
Systematically undermine religion and other value systems which explain and give order to the universe, and you're left with existentialist abstraction and meaningless, powerless individuals. Very few humans have the discipline to operate within that limited framework. The natural result is that something has to fill the resulting void. The State as mother/father/deity/master seems the obvious result.
Huh, I find human adulthood empowering myself . . .
-
On the broader topic, what is with these bedwetting, nanny-state euroweenies? Can they not, for one flipping minute, give up on the idea that the omniscient, omnipresent state must control everything?
Systematically undermine religion and other value systems which explain and give order to the universe, and you're left with existentialist abstraction and meaningless, powerless individuals. Very few humans have the discipline to operate within that limited framework. The natural result is that something has to fill the resulting void. The State as mother/father/deity/master seems the obvious result.
Back a few hundred years, the Church was pretty big on that omniscient, omnipresent state that must control everything =(
-
Back a few hundred years, the Church was pretty big on that omniscient, omnipresent state that must control everything =(
No, no, it wasn't. (And I'm no fan of the Catholic Church.)
It did like a powerful state, but pretty clearly most individuals lived their lives outside the influence of the King/Queen and even out of the influence of the aristocracy. That cannot be said for the modern omnipresent state.
That is not to say people were left alone, but rarely did a king, prince, baron, or lord make stipulations about the day to day life of the peasantry. Try to spend one hour outside of the influence of the state, today.
(Has your horse crossed state lines? Did it get its vaccinations? Did you coffee pot pass government safety inspections? Even those of your out west cannot get beyond the omnipresent state.)
-
Huh, I find human adulthood empowering myself . . .
You'd be the stated exception. I posit that President Obama's re/election is merely one point suggesting many people, if not most, want someone else shining light on the darkness for them.
Back a few hundred years, the Church was pretty big on that omniscient, omnipresent state that must control everything =(
I'm not suggesting we've devolved down from perfection, simply answering Hutch's question. There was also often a distinct tension between church and state, which caused people to ask questions. Between the long-term exodus of the freedom-seeking, and the slaughter of the first half of the 20th Century, who is left to challenge the primacy of The State, and what credible arguments can they make?