HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » That's what I'm talking a...

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 08:50 PM

That's what I'm talking about! 1TW new solar/yr by 2020?

Three Charts That Illustrate Why Solar Has Hit A True Tipping Point
By Stephen Lacey on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm
A new report from the prominent global consulting firm McKinsey shows why solar photovoltaics have hit a tipping point.
As the economics of solar PV continue to improve steadily and dramatically, McKinsey analysts conclude that the yearly “economic potential” of solar PV deployment could reach 600-1,000 gigawatts (1 million megawatts) by 2020....

...

1. Because solar mostly competes with retail rates, the economic potential for the technology in high resource areas is far bigger than actual deployment figures would suggest. McKinsey predicts that the cost of installing a commercial-scale solar PV system will fall another 40 percent by 2015, growing the “unsubsidized economic potential” (i.e. the economic competitiveness without federal subsidies) of the technology to hundreds of gigawatts by 2020.




2. The most important cost reductions in the next decade will come not through groundbreaking lab-scale improvements, but through incremental cost reductions due to deployment. The McKinsey analysis shows how the dramatically these cumulative cost improvements can change the economics of solar. (For more, see: Anatomy of a Solar PV System: How to Continue “Ferocious Cost Reductions” for Solar Electricity.)





3. Solar is already competitive in a variety of markets today. As the chart below illustrates, there are at least three markets where solar PV competes widely today: Off-grid, isolated grids, and the commercial/residential sectors in high-resource areas. Of course, the competitiveness of the technology varies dramatically depending on a variety of local factors. But this comparison shows just how steadily the cross-over is approaching.



...



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/

8 replies, 2623 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply That's what I'm talking about! 1TW new solar/yr by 2020? (Original post)
kristopher Apr 2012 OP
kestrel91316 Apr 2012 #1
kristopher May 2012 #3
MichiganVote Apr 2012 #2
kristopher May 2012 #4
FBaggins May 2012 #5
kristopher May 2012 #6
kristopher May 2012 #7
XemaSab May 2012 #8

Response to kristopher (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 08:55 PM

1. I hear the distant, faint shrieking ans wailing of one NNadir...........

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #1)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:33 AM

3. How can that be?

When we've been authoritatively assured solar is "trivial".

A possible 1TW/year by 2020. I have to admit even I am stunned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:28 PM

2. i believe in solar

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #2)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:35 AM

4. So does McKinsey apparently.

They are one of the most respected economic analysis firms in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #4)

Tue May 1, 2012, 12:36 PM

5. They're one of the most respected economic analysis firms in the world?

I'm sure Enron thought so.

Why don't you ask them how their 1980 prediction for the size of the 2000 cell phone market worked out?

And remember when GE piled on with the "nobody could have predicted" nonsense re: the financial collapse? Guess who they were relying on for their economic analysis in 2007 that liquidity wouldn't be an issue?

I can also tell you that the DUers over on the Education group aren't very pleased with this firm's "analysis"...

... but I probably overreact. It's likely that you hadn't heard of them before today and this claim of "most respected" is really another way of saying "I want this to be true"... just like someone becomes an "expert" to anti-nukes as soon as he says something they like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #5)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:46 PM

6. Yes they are. I didn't hear you objecting to their projections on nuclear.

There are a lot of criticisms leveled at them, and one of the main ones comes from a view that I share - they represent a view that is founded in preserving the existing systems we have, including our energy systems.
Whether I agree with them or not the significance of this projection on solar is important precisely because they are inclined towards finding more value in traditional energy sources like coal and nuclear than I think is warranted. In this report, in fact, they are quoting both new nuclear and new coal as competition at far lower costs than is justified by what is happening in the world where externalized costs are increasingly playing a significant role in decision-making.

In short, this report uses assumptions that are not particularly favorable to solar. It is primarily oriented towards market forces operating independently of policy direction and even then it doesn't take into account the erosion of market share that coal and nuclear will experience with rapidly escalating renewable penetration. As such, it is hard to see it as anything other than a conservative appraisal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2012, 04:50 PM

7. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #7)

Sun May 6, 2012, 10:00 PM

8. If you were a character in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Would you be Dr. Horrible, Captain Hammer, or Penny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread