Japan's solar boom has turned into a solar bust

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,198
Location
Yokohama, Japan
It's unfortunate, but maybe there are some lessons here:

Japan's overbuilt solar market waiting for new dawn

Some 80% of Japan's "megasolar" projects, so called because their scale is measured in megawatts, do not produce a single watt of power (1 megawatt equals 1,000kW). Poor planning is to blame for many of these failed starts.

Japan's electric grid, designed to handle predictable, steady-going power sources like coal or nuclear plants, could not handle the rapid increase in solar power feeding into the system. The big regional utilities began putting power purchasing contracts on hold.

Meanwhile, the government revised the solar tariff downward each year. This fiscal year, output from solar installations of 10kW or more fetches 24 yen per kilowatt-hour -- 40% less than in fiscal 2012.

That continues to be the Achilles heel with solar. It's not predictable and controllable, like traditional power supplies. The sun shines when it shines, not necessarily when you need the power.
 
The contrarian in me says that solar is totally viable, and that our vaunted human ingenuity will soon develop power grids designed for variable-supply energy sources.

I'm conflicted because this is at odds with the conservative in me, that opposes any hint of idealistic and necessarily totalitarian social "improvements". Solar will work, therefore everyone must be made to adopt solar, etc. Bleurgh.
 
The contrarian in me says that solar is totally viable, and that our vaunted human ingenuity will soon develop power grids designed for variable-supply energy sources.

I'm conflicted because this is at odds with the conservative in me, that opposes any hint of idealistic and necessarily totalitarian social "improvements". Solar will work, therefore everyone must be made to adopt solar, etc. Bleurgh.

I think solar will only work in a less totalitarian system, if that makes you feel any better.

It is more likely to be one of several different power sources used and the distribution of those sources is less likely to be planned on large scales.
 
The contrarian in me says that solar is totally viable, and that our vaunted human ingenuity will soon develop power grids designed for variable-supply energy sources.

I'm conflicted because this is at odds with the conservative in me, that opposes any hint of idealistic and necessarily totalitarian social "improvements". Solar will work, therefore everyone must be made to adopt solar, etc. Bleurgh.

Ah, financial incentives for energy technology, the tools of dictators and villainy.
 
It's unfortunate, but maybe there are some lessons here:

Japan's overbuilt solar market waiting for new dawn

That continues to be the Achilles heel with solar. It's not predictable and controllable, like traditional power supplies. The sun shines when it shines, not necessarily when you need the power.

It's the Achilles heel of all alternative sources. It can only be resolved through advances in energy storage - a combination of pumped-storage hydroelectric and thermosolar plants to complement photovaltics are what we currently have.

Short of truly enormous pumped-storage hydroelectric projects we'll need to develop a few new techniques before we can go fully renewable.

McHrozni
 
It's the Achilles heel of all alternative sources. It can only be resolved through advances in energy storage - a combination of pumped-storage hydroelectric and thermosolar plants to complement photovaltics are what we currently have.

Short of truly enormous pumped-storage hydroelectric projects we'll need to develop a few new techniques before we can go fully renewable.

McHrozni

I'd say transportation beside other things will ensure we won't get 100%. Short of building orbital collection...
 
Just don't turn them all on during the day and turn on more at night. That should even out the supply.
 
Climate variations around the world?

My guess is that here in Southern California, whne it is hot and bright out, we use more electricity for air conditioning. In Japan, when it is hot and bright out, they use LESS for heat?
 
I'd say transportation beside other things will ensure we won't get 100%. Short of building orbital collection...

We can synthesize fuels from atmospheric CO2, there is just no way of being cost-competitive with conventional fossil sources. As long as fossil fuels are one of the main sources for energy required to do this there isn't even any point to it.

The basic science work is done though. It is possible, and if we manage to get renewable sources to be cost-competitive or cheaper than fossil fuels, we could move everything to fully renewable sources - including all transport and military use.

Barring a major breakthrough somewhere it's going to be a while though. If you manage to develop a self-contained solar cell that produces methane instead of an electric current you're bound to get a Nobel prize.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
We can synthesize fuels from atmospheric CO2, there is just no way of being cost-competitive with conventional fossil sources. As long as fossil fuels are one of the main sources for energy required to do this there isn't even any point to it.

The basic science work is done though. It is possible, and if we manage to get renewable sources to be cost-competitive or cheaper than fossil fuels, we could move everything to fully renewable sources - including all transport and military use.

Barring a major breakthrough somewhere it's going to be a while though. If you manage to develop a self-contained solar cell that produces methane instead of an electric current you're bound to get a Nobel prize.

McHrozni

I was talking about orbital solar collectors.

Anyway, transportation requires a lot of energy, so I am skeptical 100% renewables will be an option. More likely they'll complement nuclear.
 
I was talking about orbital solar collectors.

I know, they're an intriguing, but likely not cost-competitive option :)

Anyway, transportation requires a lot of energy, so I am skeptical 100% renewables will be an option. More likely they'll complement nuclear.

Maybe, we'll see. If we were to use synthetic fuels, we would only need to cover fairly ridiculous but ultimately feasible amounts of land that has little other use for humans.

Earth's surface attains 3.5-7 kWh of solar energy per square meter per day. If we choose a place where that number is 5 kWh/day on average, and assume 1% conversion into fuel (solar cells with efficiency of 15%, the rest is lost or used for synthesis), we make 50 Wh/(day*m2), 18 kWh/(day*m2). World yearly energy consumption is ~170 PWh.

This means we need about 3*1012 m2 of land covered for energy use. That's about 3 million square kilometers of land, equivalent to one third of the Sahara desert. We'd need to spread it around the world of course, but there is enough land for that - Australia, Gobi desert, Badlands in the US, Arabia and so on could all be partially covered.

If we improve the technology to 3% efficiency the project becomes feasible within a generation. It becomes almost easy (relatively speaking) at 6%. Furthermore, the average could conceivably be larger than my estimate of 5 kWh/(day*m2), making it achievable that much sooner.

The main issue is the enormous scale of the project needed and it's cost efficiency. Plus at any project of this magnitude previously unforeseen bottlenecks could develop - in this case the availability of Ruthenium is a potential issue.

McHrozni
 
I know, they're an intriguing, but likely not cost-competitive option


In fiction, at least, I've often seen space-based solar collectors combined with energy-intensive things like antimatter production. Producing antimatter requires far more energy than it contains, so it's produced using energy that's obtained for free. The antimatter is then used in specialized applications where massive amounts of energy need to be stored in a very small volume.
I'm sure there are more real-world processes that aren't practical because they require too much energy to be profitable. It's just a matter of the initial investment in the orbital infrastructure.
 
In fiction, at least, I've often seen space-based solar collectors combined with energy-intensive things like antimatter production. Producing antimatter requires far more energy than it contains, so it's produced using energy that's obtained for free. The antimatter is then used in specialized applications where massive amounts of energy need to be stored in a very small volume.
I'm sure there are more real-world processes that aren't practical because they require too much energy to be profitable. It's just a matter of the initial investment in the orbital infrastructure.

And if designed correctly, any system for collecting solar energy and beaming down to Earth for consumption could be turned around and aimed at invaders. I've long advocated development of this technology.
 
And if designed correctly, any system for collecting solar energy and beaming down to Earth for consumption could be turned around and aimed at invaders. I've long advocated development of this technology.

That would be helpful, you know in case they are running a bit low on fuel after such a long journey.
 
It's unfortunate, but maybe there are some lessons here

We are incapable of learning lessons when it comes to wind and solar. The same basic set of problems will continue to repeat it itself as it has in Ontario, Southern Australia etc.
 
And if designed correctly, any system for collecting solar energy and beaming down to Earth for consumption could be turned around and aimed at invaders.

Or turned a bit to the side and aimed at enemy human populations.
 

Back
Top Bottom