I attended a 3 day Singularity conference here in NZ and have listened to some amazing people, AI, Bio-tec all sorts of technology based subjects (Lawyers & taxi drivers cop it first :) listen to Raymond McCauley if you want to scare yourself!
As with all singularity the exponential growth of technology is creating a brave new world that is changing at an accelerating pace, Ramez Naam‘s talked on energy storage & solar PV among other things and its subsequent plunge in cost. The price drop is changing the energy market and creating a ‘disruption’ (A singularity term that is frequently used). Is there a minimum cost of PV or is it going to continue to drop?

Another example is the Dubai electricity and Water authority has received a record low bid to build a solar park for 2.99c/kWh
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/02/lowest-solar-price-dubai-800-mw-solar-project/
So if this continues and solar can create an Abundance of cheap energy then where does that leave us energy conservers, do we really need passive houses… I would love to know your thoughts?

Posted By: SteamyTeaDon't get the kWh price mixed up with the kWh price.

Think one of those should be kWp but I can't work out which one

Posted By: Jeff Norton (NZ)So if this continues and solar can create an Abundance of cheap energy then where does that leave us energy conservers, do we really need passive houses… I would love to know your thoughts?

If you want to give 10 billion people 2000 watts each with PV which is 25% efficient (pretty good by current standards) and you can put it somewhere with a capacity factor of 25% (the highest you can get for a fixed panel - somewhere with no clouds at all) then you'd still need the equivalent to an area 17'000 560 km on a side.

>>> math.sqrt(10e9 * 2000 / .25 / .25)
17888543.819998316

>>> math.sqrt(10e9 * 2000 / 1000 / .25 / .25)
565685.4249492381

2000 W is a lot less than most people likely to be using this forum use now. Typical for Europeans is a little less than 6000 W.

So, no, I don't think that even if PV panels were free we'd be wanting to waste too much energy.


[Edit: oops, having picked Steamy up on the difference between kWh and kWp I immediately confused W and kW - forgot to factor in 1000 W/m². Thought the answer was a bit higher than previous versions of the calculation. However, it'd still need a very large land area to provide so much PV we really wouldn't need to worry about conservation of energy at some level.]

Posted By: Ed Davies

Posted By: SteamyTeaDon't get the kWh price mixed up with the kWh price.

Think one of those should be kWp but I can't work out which onehttp:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/tongue.gif" alt="" title="" >

Posted By: Jeff Norton (NZ)So if this continues and solar can create an Abundance of cheap energy then where does that leave us energy conservers, do we really need passive houses… I would love to know your thoughts?

If you want to give 10 billion people 2000 watts each with PV which is 25% efficient (pretty good by current standards) and you can put it somewhere with a capacity factor of 25% (the highest you can get for a fixed panel - somewhere with no clouds at all) then you'd still need the equivalent to an area<>560 km on a side.

>>> math.sqrt(10e9 * 2000 / 1000 / .25 / .25)
565685.4249492381

2000 W is a lot less than most people likely to be using this forum use now. Typical for Europeans is a little less than 6000 W.

So, no, I don't think that even if PV panels were free we'd be wanting to waste too much energy.

Thanks Ed, while I agree with you and ST about wasting energy ( I have a near passive house myself and work in the energy efficient space) and continue promoting reducing etc.. I am fleshing out how the future is developing and trying to avoid a 'Kodak moment!'

So you are saying about 4 Terawatts is required and Ramez Naam is predicting 6.4 Terawatts of solar alone by 2030 (I hope my watts are correct?)..
http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/10/how-cheap-can-solar-get-very-cheap-indeed/
So it's possible in our life time!

Jeff
Have you read this:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

It was written for the UK, but most of it is applicable to other places.

Posted By: Jeff Norton (NZ)listen to Raymond McCauley if you want to scare yourself!

Having barely glanced at his website, would it be fair to say what's scary about him, in talk of 'disruptive start-ups to address humanity's greatest needs', is the unspoken 'and make a monopolistic fortune while doing so'?

Looks to me that he's mising the biggest trick of all - the venture-capital powered corporation model eating itself via ever-plummetting costs, prices and profits - while a centre-less distributed economic model takes up the slack, leveraging the fundamental infinite-interconnectedness of the world-brain that's being born (which today's winner-takes-all start-up stars have so far managed to subvert).

Posted By: TimSmallWhilst PV will continue to fall in price, I think - the storage and distribution problem isn't fixed, and it'll (probably) take a while to get down to prices where it competes with natural gas generation.

I don't think low energy building will become obsolete (at least in cold climates) for a whilst, since when it's cold it's also dark, which either means massively larger pv capacity (10x?), massive storage, or very large "super grids", or some of all of those. Wind complements reasonably well in the UK, but not everywhere, and there is still the odd "slack" week to account for too.

15 minute talk on storage etc. followed by a longer one on one emerging PV technology:https://youtu.be/hzywt2bDP54?t=2m13s" rel="nofollow" >https://youtu.be/hzywt2bDP54?t=2m13s

Thanks TimSmall, the video is well worth viewing and does show technology can replace fossil fuel with renewables in the not to distant future.

The fact that solar can be integrated into building/urban fabrics (roof tiles, windows even roads and footpaths) with increase in efficiencies, I don't think there is going to be size issue... Also good to see Ramez Naam chart is popular!