Japan's solar boom has turned into a solar bust

[Puppycow]

Perhaps he is under the mistaken impression that Japan is cold in the summer.

Yeah, just for clarification I live in the Tokyo area and the summers here are pretty brutal. Hot and humid. AC is definitely needed.

 

[Armitage72]

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

From a safety standpoint, it would make more sense for the collecting stations to be multiple acres in size, or larger, so that the beam can be diffuse enough that it wouldn't cause damage if it went off target. A 1 meter diameter beam and a 100 meter diameter beam, each transmitting the same total energy per second, would have radically different effects. The wider beam would lose more energy to the atmosphere and any collector inefficiencies, but it's not as if anything is being expended to generate the energy.

 

[Roboramma]

From a safety standpoint, it would make more sense for the collecting stations to be multiple acres in size, or larger, so that the beam can be diffuse enough that it wouldn't cause damage if it went off target. A 1 meter diameter beam and a 100 meter diameter beam, each transmitting the same total energy per second, would have radically different effects. The wider beam would lose more energy to the atmosphere and any collector inefficiencies, but it's not as if anything is being expended to generate the energy.

What do you mean "it's not as if anything is being expended to generate the energy"? Are solar power stations free to build? Do they last forever? Do they not require maintenance?

 

[Armitage72]

What do you mean "it's not as if anything is being expended to generate the energy"? Are solar power stations free to build? Do they last forever? Do they not require maintenance?

I meant that the sunlight itself doesn't cost anything. Transmission loss is more significant when you're expending resources to initially generate the energy, compared to utilizing ambient energy from the environment.
I referenced the cost of the infrastructure in one of my earlier posts.

 

[Belz...]

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

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, Zig.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Germany has been in the same situation for decade and has pretty much zilch to show.

In fact in the vaunted "new energy policy" it was clear that for renewable to be viable as baseload, it would need overcapacity, and a way to store energy , for which we have not yet as of today in great quantity (e.g. a big physical reservoir, like a lake were you pump up water - most are already exploited).

So i would not place too much faith into human ingenuity. Some problem are simply hard, and some are intractable.

 

[Aepervius]

I was talking about orbital solar collectors.

They are not even less competitive (large upcost with lower lifetime, for not much more insolation) but they make non sense. Only the space industry salivate at the idea.

 

[elgarak]

Germany has been in the same situation for decade and has pretty much zilch to show.

In fact in the vaunted "new energy policy" it was clear that for renewable to be viable as baseload, it would need overcapacity, and a way to store energy , for which we have not yet as of today in great quantity (e.g. a big physical reservoir, like a lake were you pump up water - most are already exploited).

So i would not place too much faith into human ingenuity. Some problem are simply hard, and some are intractable.

Zilch?

30% renewable energy is zilch? The one Sunday last summer where the whole overday energy consumption was covered by wind and solar?

I wouldn't say we're there, far from it. But zilch is not right.

There's a reservoir complex near where I'm sitting right now that could be employed easily. Multiple reservoir lakes on different levels, with generators already there. The problem is that one of the lakes is also used for recreation, and the handful of businesses depending on that hold up the process, because they fear loss of business. It doesn't help that the engineers did not (or could not) communicate the effects to them except in broad strokes, which essentially arrives at their understanding as "the lake is either full or mostly empty".

 

[casebro]

Yeah, just for clarification I live in the Tokyo area and the summers here are pretty brutal. Hot and humid. AC is definitely needed.

I assumed the OP was timely, and that it is October, not August.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Any technology that descends cost curves with the brutality that solar has creates a great many victims along the way. Similar to the IBM-compatible market in the 80s. Good news is that it is getting so cheap in general. As the curves begin to flatten, I'm sure it will be possible to structure projects economically without losing your shirt. In broader terms, quick boom-bust cycles will probably continue as mankind shifts emphasis in the fight against global warming, often depending on trial and error, given the importance and urgency. Not necessarily a bad thing, taken from that perspective.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, Zig.

Mmmm... space-microwave-toasted people-eggs.

 

[Ziggurat]

From a safety standpoint, it would make more sense for the collecting stations to be multiple acres in size, or larger, so that the beam can be diffuse enough that it wouldn't cause damage if it went off target. A 1 meter diameter beam and a 100 meter diameter beam, each transmitting the same total energy per second, would have radically different effects. The wider beam would lose more energy to the atmosphere and any collector inefficiencies, but it's not as if anything is being expended to generate the energy.

It's not that simple. The whole point of putting the stations in orbit is so you don't need a lot of area on earth. Your collectors on earth need to be getting at least an order of magnitude denser energy than direct sunlight, or it's just not worth putting something in orbit rather than just building solar cells on the ground. And 10x sunlight over an acre is going to do a lot of damage. You won't kill people instantly or anything like that, but you'll start fires pretty much anywhere you point that thing other than the collector. That has the potential for a lot of damage. If you start large fires in a populated area, you're probably going to kill some people even if people have time to get out of the beam itself.

Now, the potential for destruction doesn't necessarily mean that we should never build orbital solar power stations, but both safety safety from accidents and the potential for military use will be a genuine concern.

 

[McHrozni]

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.

Antimatter has niche applications, mostly in space flight and maybe ultra-destructive weapons (Mt, possibly even Gt yield in a suitcase), but it's not a great option for storing energy for regular use. It's simply too hard to store and too dangerus as a result.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

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.

Putting weapons is orbit is banned by international treaties. Such dual-use facilities would be problematic from a legal standpoint as well. Plus they offer a great way to stop ICBMs during boost phase.

A definite no-no as far as legality is concerned. This comes before technical challenges, which are considerable, and economic ones, which could be insurmountible.

McHrozni

 

[jimbob]

From a post of mine in 2012

To me (working in the semiconductor industry) it just seems as if the Solar (especially PV) industry is in a similar state of maturity to the semiconductor industry 30-40-odd years ago. Lots of start ups, and a very cyclical business.

Demand rises, so there is a massive investment leading to overcapacity and a price fall which wipes out a lot of players (book to bill of 0.44 is not a happy place to be in) but the slump lowers prices; this leads to new demand being created (new applications become economical), and most of the capacity is available, if not in use, so the remaining companies then have the chance of buying up capacity and manufacturing capability, which enables them to make large profits in the next upswing.

ETA: The slump causes a contraction in capacity, which raises prices and enables the upswing for the surviving companies, whereupon there is massive investment...

In the semiconductor industry this happened for most of the last 40-years, although it seems to be slowing down now.

ETA:

As Solar is already at grid parity in some applications, any reduction in cost will increase the potential market, so a bust will led to the next boom but with a bigger market.

I was talking to my father about the cyclical nature of the semiconductor industry and he said it is well known in agriculture as "the pig cycle". A friend in rural banking said the same thing, that it was always considered risky to lend to pig farmers due to the supply and demand cycles. The short cycles in this industry do not lead to growth, as the market doesn't permanently expand with increased opportunities.

ETA2: Or this:

Any technology that descends cost curves with the brutality that solar has creates a great many victims along the way. Similar to the IBM-compatible market in the 80s. Good news is that it is getting so cheap in general. As the curves begin to flatten, I'm sure it will be possible to structure projects economically without losing your shirt. In broader terms, quick boom-bust cycles will probably continue as mankind shifts emphasis in the fight against global warming, often depending on trial and error, given the importance and urgency. Not necessarily a bad thing, taken from that perspective.

 

[Roboramma]

Antimatter has niche applications, mostly in space flight and maybe ultra-destructive weapons (Mt, possibly even Gt yield in a suitcase), but it's not a great option for storing energy for regular use. It's simply too hard to store and too dangerus as a result.

I think the bigger issue is that the only way we have of making anti-matter can only make it in pretty insignificant quantities. No one is going to be making anti-matter drives or weapons any time soon, unless they find a more efficient way of producing the stuff. I'm not convinced that any efficient way of producing it is even theoretically possible though.

 

[jimbob]

I think the bigger issue is that the only way we have of making anti-matter can only make it in pretty insignificant quantities. No one is going to be making anti-matter drives or weapons any time soon, unless they find a more efficient way of producing the stuff. I'm not convinced that any efficient way of producing it is even theoretically possible though.

Who says that masterful understatement is a uniquely British trait?

 

[theprestige]

I think the bigger issue is that the only way we have of making anti-matter can only make it in pretty insignificant quantities. No one is going to be making anti-matter drives or weapons any time soon, unless they find a more efficient way of producing the stuff. I'm not convinced that any efficient way of producing it is even theoretically possible though.

What's efficient? Manufacturing antimatter is just converting slow energy into fast energy. Connect a nuclear power plant to the manufacturing apparatus and you're good to go for hundreds of years. Assuming you solve the storage problem and have a good use case for the stuff.

 

[Roboramma]

What's efficient? Manufacturing antimatter is just converting slow energy into fast energy. Connect a nuclear power plant to the manufacturing apparatus and you're good to go for hundreds of years. Assuming you solve the storage problem and have a good use case for the stuff.

How easy do you think it is to make antimatter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Cost

Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make.[58] In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons[59] (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen.[58] This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions).[60] In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.[61]

Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

ETA: So, by efficient I mean something better than a process that costs $25 billion/gram.

ETA 2: Also:
http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/antimatter/

However, antimatter currently takes far too long to produce, and at too high an energy cost, for either weapons or fuel to be practicable. CERN claims it has taken several hundred million pounds to produce just a billionth of a gram, and that to make a gram of antimatter would take about a 100 billion years.

 

[jimbob]

I think the bigger issue is that the only way we have of making anti-matter can only make it in pretty insignificant quantities. No one is going to be making anti-matter drives or weapons any time soon, unless they find a more efficient way of producing the stuff. I'm not convinced that any efficient way of producing it is even theoretically possible though.

What's efficient? Manufacturing antimatter is just converting slow energy into fast energy. Connect a nuclear power plant to the manufacturing apparatus and you're good to go for hundreds of years. Assuming you solve the storage problem and have a good use case for the stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Artificial_production

On 26 April 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes). This was longer than neutral antimatter had ever been trapped before.[49][50] ALPHA has used these trapped atoms to initiate research into the spectral properties of the antihydrogen.[51]

The biggest limiting factor in the large-scale production of antimatter is the availability of antiprotons. Recent data released by CERN states that, when fully operational, their facilities are capable of producing ten million antiprotons per minute.[52] Assuming a 100% conversion of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would take 100 billion years to produce 1 gram or 1 mole of antihydrogen (approximately 6.02×1023 atoms of anti-hydrogen).

That is pretty inefficient.