sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

When it comes to power, solar is about to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade

Technology / analysis
When it comes to power, solar is about to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade

[Australian] opposition leader Peter Dutton might have been hoping for an endorsement from economists for his plan to take Australian nuclear.

He shouldn’t expect one from The Economist.

The Economist is a British weekly news magazine that has reported on economic thinking and served as a place for economists to exchange views since 1843.

By chance, just three days after Dutton announced plans for seven nuclear reactors he said would usher in a new era of economic prosperity for Australia, The Economist produced a special issue, titled Dawn of the Solar Age.

The June 22 2024 solar special issue.

Whereas nuclear power is barely growing, and is shrinking as a proportion of global power output, The Economist reported solar power is growing so quickly it is set to become the biggest source of electricity on the planet by the mid-2030s.

By the 2040s – within this next generation – it could be the world’s largest source of energy of any kind, overtaking fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Solar’s off-the-charts global growth

Installed solar capacity is doubling every three years, meaning it has grown tenfold in the past ten years. The Economist says the next tenfold increase will be the equivalent of multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight, in less time than it usually takes to build one of them.

To give an idea of the standing start the industry has grown from, The Economist reports that in 2004 it took the world an entire year to install one gigawatt of solar capacity (about enough to power a small city). This year, that’s expected to happen every day.

Energy experts didn’t see it coming. The Economist includes a chart showing that every single forecast the International Energy Agency has made for the growth of the growth of solar since 2009 has been wrong. What the agency said would take 20 years happened in only six.

The forecasts closest to the mark were made by Greenpeace – “environmentalists poo-pooed for zealotry and economic illiteracy” – but even those forecasts turned out to be woefully short of what actually happened.



And the cost of solar cells has been plunging in the way that costs usually do when emerging technologies become mainstream.

The Economist describes the process this way:

As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases – and costs go down further.

Normally, this can’t continue. In earlier energy transitions – from wood to coal, coal to oil, and oil to gas – it became increasingly expensive to find fuel.

But the main ingredient in solar cells (apart from energy) is sand, for the silicon and the glass. This is not only the case in China, which makes the bulk of the world’s solar cells, but also in India, which is short of power, blessed by sun and sand, and which is manufacturing and installing solar cells at a prodigious rate.

Solar easy, batteries more difficult

Batteries are more difficult. They are needed to make solar useful after dark and they require so-called critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt (which Australia has in abundance).

But the efficiency of batteries is soaring and the price is plummeting, meaning that on one estimate the cost of a kilowatt-hour of battery storage has fallen by 99% over the past 30 years.

In the United States, plans are being drawn up to use batteries to transport solar energy as well as store it. Why build high-voltage transmission cables when you can use train carriages full of batteries to move power from the remote sunny places that collect it to the cities that need it?

Solar’s step change

The International Energy Agency is suddenly optimistic. Its latest assessment released in January says last year saw a “step change” in renewable power, driven by China’s adoption of solar. In 2023, China installed as much solar capacity as the entire world did in 2022.

The world is on track to install more renewable capacity over the next five years than has ever been installed over the past 100 years, something the agency says still won’t be enough to get to net-zero emissions by 2050.

That would need renewables capacity to triple over the next five years, instead of more than doubling.

Oxford University energy specialist Rupert Way has modelled a “fast transition” scenario, in which the costs of solar and other new technologies keep falling as they have been rather than as the International Energy Agency expects.

He finds that by 2060, solar will be by far the world’s biggest source of energy, exceeding wind and green hydrogen and leaving nuclear with an infinitesimally tiny role.

In Australia, solar is pushing down prices

Australia’s energy market operator says record generation from grid-scale renewables and rooftop solar is pushing down wholesale electricity prices.

South Australia and Tasmania are the states that rely on renewables the most. They are the two states with the lowest wholesale electricity prices outside Victoria, whose prices are very low because of its reliance on brown coal.

It is price – rather than the environment – that most interests The Economist. It says when the price of something gets low people use much, much more of it.

As energy gets really copious and all but free, it will be used for things we can’t even imagine today. The Economist said to bet against that is to bet against capitalism.The Conversation


Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

30 Comments

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution

Solar will be the biggest energy source by 2040?! Yeah right...

Are they conflating electricity with energy? 🤔

Up
7

Sounds great until you realise it won't be replacing dirty energy, but supplementing it.

Up
3

The world will be far hotter place by 2040 with a lot less population..

Up
2

Predictions like that have been made forever, and most of them are 100% wrong. 

Up
4

Noted - will check back with you in 2040 ..let me guess you will be long gone?

Up
0

Keep up - you obviously haven't checked the data lately. most of them are 100% correct.

Up
1

I will wager that the total usable energy available in 2040 will be less than in 2030, even though solar makes up a larger part of it.

Up
1

Many people look at all of the technology leaps that have happened with computers, mobiles etc and assume it can't possibly apply to solar technology, then when you dig it's because they are skeptical of climate change. That's like me disagreeing with how a computer works because I prefer doing things by hand. 

Battery technology is the absolute cutting edge of technology R&D. Billions and trillions are on offer for each leap in efficiency, charging, life span, cost reduction, new materials etc. Most of this is to make your phones better, but those gains are usable elsewhere. 

Up
0

My skepticism is how humans keep filling the vacuum with more wants instead of more needs.

Just look at the size of houses these days. Or the amount of food wastage we have. Or keep building bigger and wider roads to service peak traffic flows. Yes there are a lot of efficiencies out there, but we just keep wasting energy and resources on a (?) better lifestyle.

Up
7

Solar does really badly in the day during winter when it is in high cloud cover or permanent shadow... I thought anyone with half a clue and some basic knowledge about solar generation would know you need sunlight to generate solar power but then there is a moron born every second who thinks every house including those with no sunlight access can use solar.

Given many days there is less then 1 hr of indirect clouded shaded sunlight across many NZ homes, esp those in poor neighbourhoods, that vitamin D tablets are commonly prescribed by GPs down south in winter so the chances of heating the homes needing the power and heating the most is nil. There are far better renewable generation options and distributed small renewable power generators for a Whole community would be far better then yet more inequity played out in power sector where the poorest coldest households suffer while the wealthy with wide sunny spaces benefit from free grants. Lets fund community renewable power generation with options that actually work more in winter, rather then claim its ok as the wealthy households are alright up North with solar. eh. Lets consider reality and admit solar will never work for many households and for those who rent they will never be able to install them even if the house was suitable. Lets actually fund more realistic renewable power generation for the communities who need affordable power the most and cannot even afford to have the lights & heater on at night when it reaches below 3C, let alone a replacement roof suitable for mounting, large batteries & solar panels (that often don't capture much light in winter and even in summer).

Up
2

You  need to waffle ideologically less, and research more.

I've been running a house for several sunless days, on 300 watts of solar PV. Am currently. 

Hint - try starting from a non-skewed base-line. 

Up
5

Oh so does most the population of NZ have home ownership (including populations excluded in stats NZ housing data living in "non-private dwellings" like motels, hotels, boarding houses, itinerant, mixed family & migrant households and institutions) and can they all afford solar now or does more then 50% of the population have below a median working income (including all beneficiaries, unemployed, retirees, homeless, those living in itinerant facilities etc).

How about the tech can solar panels capture energy without any sunlight? Protip your sunless does not mean without sunlight... cloud cover reduces light but not completely. LEARN HOW LIGHT WORKS. Geez how on earth do you cope in your role not knowing the basics of light transmission. Do you not know about rainbows as well? Here is a hint for your "sunless" days. I really hope you do make it to that early high school science text. The glaring errors are really sad I am truly sorry for anyone who has to deal with you in person.

Perhaps you could learn the basics like simple mathematics and how solar generation works first before moronically assuming everyone can have their own personal solar panel on their own personal home... that for tens of thousands of families also does not exist in NZ at the moment.

Also learn to read basic text & improve your reading comprehension. I was suggesting instead of pushing for products & policies that predominantly benefit the most wealthy in NZ with significant losses and costs forced on the poor perhaps look to real options for renewable community power generation focusing on communities that are socioeconomically deprived... you know the people who are literally going without power when they need it the most.

But sure the wealthy selfish investors with no clue about how solar power works say they are alright jack with their personal solar panels and only their lives matter. How narcissistic and arrogant can you get. You are a key example of the failures of NZ education and it is sad to see with every mistake you make that literally ruins the cause towards actual sustainability initiatives in NZ. Your attitude is why there is so much hatred against the Green party and why more people do not follow sustainability initiatives. You are literally poisoning your own well by pouring bs down it and in turn harming sustainability initiatives, (a field I am experienced in on a technical engineering & research basis and push for), as a whole. Hence my utter contempt of your attitude (I lost respect and continue to have lowering expectations for your science understanding with each sunless comment). In case you don't realize it I am making a sharp point against your unethical and morally corrupt attitude. I am on purpose being brutally honest. Something a bubble of friends, yes men and acolytes will not do for you. Thus they are harming your growth & education overall. 

Up
1

Not supporting or defending him but I'm guessing you haven't been following PDK's back story. Last I heard he lived near Dunedin, and being off-grid for something like 15 years or more now means he's well versed in solar. You may have interpreted his use of the term "sunless" differently than he intended.

Up
0

This incoherent ramble is surely written by some AI.  I can't imagine a real human generating such trash.

Up
0

I actually think it would be far more optimal for you to mostly live in an area that experiences real sunless days where you have limited impact on others lives... say why not go deep in Antarctica or the Arctic. Go on I dare you to learn what being sunless actually means and see how well your solar panels do say on the dark side of the moon, or a deep sea trench. I think it would be a very educational experience for you without causing harm to other people with your attitudes.

Or just live in many deprived and poor conditions without permanent housing. I am sure you will clue on to the errors of your arguments. But maybe not. Perhaps even then you will still be claiming without light & solar installations you can generate solar power... I get it that was your argument... but it is still hard to believe someone could be that lacking in knowing how sunlight & solar generation works.

Up
0

by powerdownkiwi | 3rd Jul 24, 5:42pm

I've been running a house for several sunless days, on 300 watts of solar PV. Am currently. 

In Northland I have a 1-kW solar system. It can't handle appliances like a vacuum cleaner, microwave, or (energy-efficient) front-loading washer, let alone anything that draws more significant current. Have a log fire for heating, and have to use LPG gas bottles for hot water and oven. Not sure what off-gridders would do if the previous idiotic government had banned gas, as they were planning.

Every winter our solar becomes.extremely unreliable, necessitating messing around with a noisy smelly backup generator. 

After a while we got mains power run in. Still use the solar to run the basics, but in winter have to switch to mains for several weeks.

Not sure how you get by on 300 watts - do you have loads of batteries? Sounds expensive. And if one battery goes bad it kills the others too, so you have to replace the whole lot, ouch.

IMHO battery technology needs to see massive improvements and price drops before solar power is really viable.

Up
1

The size of your PV array is irrelevant.

Either you are grid-tied, and you run a high power appliance by pulling the difference from the grid.

Or you're off grid with batteries, and you run a high power appliance by pulling the difference from your batteries.  The size of your array is irrelevant, it's the discharge capacity of your batteries and the size of your inverter that matter.

The array needs to be sized to support your daily usage, otherwise your batteries would just go flat, but array size is irrelevant to the instantaneous power draw of appliances.

Up
3

Most systems going in now are 5k.w plus. That allows them to run some cooking appliances , (jug , toaster , air fryer etc , and send the excess in summer to heating the hot water. 

PDK is running a very minimal system that suits his needs , and 300 watt would have been a reasonable size system 20 years ago, but times change and systems have got bigger. 

Hence , we have people happy on 300 watt , and people struggling with 5000 watts . 

Demand ( and discipline is everything ), its a frustrating industry to be in.  

Up
3

Nuclear's the way to go, but the kiwi psyche isn't equipped for it. This country is on the ropes occasionally with the network on the very edge. 

Kiwis have been killed in cars in their thousands, but a nuclear reactor of which there's hundreds all over the world is "too dangerous".

Up
4

Funnily enough, I was reading about the amazingly designed Ford Nucleon and Volga Atom earlier.

Up
0

Absolutely agree! Less land required, less material required, less waste (nobody wants to mention all this toxic solar panels and wind turbines going to landfill after 25 to 30 years) and way more environmentally friendly. Oh I forgot - way cheaper in the long run!

Up
1

Not too dangerous, but too expensive

Up
2

Yes and no on the expensive front. Really it is a case of if NZ cannot even engineer roads and simple buildings without critical failures can we be trusted with power generation of more scientific and engineering complexity then gravity & fluid, electromagnetic or burn based systems (systems that are instead considered in many ways hands off). In most cases we cannot even be trusted to maintain a simple power pylon so the costs to have a minimum level of engineering capability and quality assurance on nuclear generation in NZ is very high. But in other countries it would not be such an issue to build and operate. There is also an issue of sourcing materials & tools as well in NZ which means we need closer sources of manufacturing in the country to be less expensive... which we lost in a big way. So given NZ has poor skills, low quality engineering work, lack of significant manufacturing industries and poor management when it comes to infrastructure it would be significantly expensive for us.

We cannot even manage to have basic public knowledge about xrays, radiography & radiation and they stopped teaching large parts of physics and chemistry in most high school levels with the new NCEA syllabus (an attempt that if the ministry removes most the science curriculum and allowed random suppositions as course assessments more students might pass; an attempt which has already failed in many ways). So future generations will be even less capable and knowledgeable about power generation. Hence expect even worse options then our existing ones down the line until we right the loss of essential education, skills and engineering ability. Until then any new form of suitably scaled power generation will be exceptionally expensive (both financially, socially and environmentally). Due to the fact of most manufacturing taking place overseas in highly polluting nations using non renewable power, hugely environmentally damaging material sourcing, high logistics costs and less local skills being developed resulting in more management and maintenance failures and higher human resource costs (including on a social services basis).

We have been setting ourselves up for failure for a long time and continue to remove key essential knowledge in our community about basic principles and we have allowed that degradation to critically affect the lives of the NZ public & govt coffers. In essence we cannot even maintain a simple water pipe system carrying drinking water let alone nuclear generation cooling systems. Our main capital is so unskilled they lose over a third of their water supply alone to failure of management and maintenance. It is so bad even given a year they cannot resolve most the water loss. So yeah NZ and nuclear energy generation... not going to happen without huge $$ and if we cannot afford to manage water pipes and do not have the skills available for doing it at scale we are really screwed even without adding nuclear to the mix. 

Even if there was money available tomorrow would you even trust NZ orgs to manage it effectively? We really need a bigger wakeup call to the public zeitgeist then a murmur of discontent. We already sped past critical failures that killed people and did not blink.

Up
2

I’m guessing you didn’t read The Economist article either? Read anything about the cost of Hinkley Point C recently, but somehow we will just do better than that in NZ? 

Up
3

The author is yet another academic working in a parallel universe.

If solar makes power in SA so cheap, why is their domestic power price the highest in Oz - 45.5c a unit, near twice the price of Victoria? To quote the explanation on the finder website "

  • Renewable energy sources like wind and solar tend to have lower running costs; however, they often can't cover demand on their own. This means many states use more expensive coal and gas plants to meet energy needs. In South Australia in particular, there's a heavy dependence on wind power followed by gas, which is more expensive than black or brown coal."

Many days, SA supplies more electricity from diesel engines than it does from batteries - twice as much over the last 48 hours. They also import a lot of coal power from Victoria and Queenlsand How do you deal with the duck canyon?  They also have to install and run a lot of expensive grid infrastructure to do ancillary services like voltage stability and inertia that coal powered plant provided for free.

Despite what proponents say, there is a lot of difference between running a grid and running an off-grid house. In general terms, about half the power is used to run motors and half the motor load is pumping water. Try starting the big motors needed on a solar grid and see what happens.  

Up
4

And yet worldwide, solar is the fastest growing and lowest cost electricity source. How do you explain that away? 

Up
3

And the coal used for its manufacture & continued maintenance with panels is even larger still. We have far better renewable options and even far better ways of installing, maintaining and operating solar generation yet we have gone down the route of only serving and providing benefit lolly scrambles for the most wealthy who never needed solar generation in the first place and demonstrate the most wasteful harmful use cases of it for virtue signalling even though it is substantially more harmful to communities & the environment (esp in comparison to large scale generation) to fund these measures.

Even focusing on renewable power generation initiatives & transmission options around Maraes, community and medical centers and water capture, filtration and storage has far more benefits in the long term for the community health, environment, lowering emissions and sustainability. Yet instead, nah lets turn solar power into yet another form of BMW/Tesla/boat/housing wealthy investors can parade and hold over the poor while they are literally dying without housing & respiratory support when the power is out and the fires clog the air thick with smoke. Couldn't hurt right... except for the very real deaths we have & the shift against initiatives driven in large part by the fact of how ill suited they are to the public. But hey all those who end up in hospitals can be told it was their own fault and life choices. They should have brought housing & installed solar otherwise they must be in denial of climate change eh. You don't make a huge shift for most the population who are in poverty by lording your wealth over them. Mary Antoinette learned that.

Up
0

Simply Larry because it isn't.

Up
0

Solar is now so "cheap" that in the US, Europe and Australia, it won't be installed without subsidies. That is the counterfactual to your teeshirt slogan. 

Up
1

This is intriguing but still raises questions. Putting aside the white elephant in the room of population size, I have the following questions;

  • What are the ecological impacts, immediate and long term from the batteries and panels?
    • How do we solve those and recyle the elements as they get harder to find in nature?
  • If Solar can replace all fossil fuel and GHG producing power sources, and replace 66% of the vehicle fleets with EVs (bear with me please?) what would the remaining pressure be on the remaining fossil fuelled transport requirements? (How would the balance of being 'carbon neutral' weigh out?)

Now discussing population, at best this is just a delaying tactic, but let's be honest, it may be viable if there is a solution for the problems in the first point. 

Up
0