UK firm's solar power breakthrough could make world's most efficient panels by 2021

[Miguelito Loveless]

29. *sigh*

A hybrid natural gas / wind-solar power system will destroy the natural environment the same as coal. It's a "light" cigarette.

I do not advocate for Methane/Wind-Solar systems. I advocate solar/wind with battery tech, such as Li-ion, gravity and compressed air.

The only way to quit smoking is to quit smoking. The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels and then let the pieces fall where they may.

Not going to happen. Modern civilization cannot simply turn off x% of its power generations system. I know, I know, global warming is an existential threat, but this solution of "letting the chips fall where they may" moves the the collapse of civilization from the future to NOW.

These wind and solar schemes are most successful where natural gas and/or hydroelectricity is cheap. In many places the capacity of hydroelectric schemes to support wind and solar has reached its limit.

Source, please? Because my experience is the complete opposite. Solar and wind are concentrated in areas where electricity is expensive. The avg electricity price in the EU is about twice the U.S., and they are switching over gangbusters. Coal plants are being shuts down for weeks in the UK, not exactly a bastion of sunlight, but with a huge amount of wind resources. Yes, there are some problems in areas where solar has grown rapidly, but the solution to the problem is upgrading infrastructure, and again, battery plants stepping in to replace peaker plants. This has been demonstrated with the wildly successful Hornsdale battery plant in Australia. As the tech is improved, the price comes down. PG&E is now looking at battery plants instead of peaker plants because they can be built faster (12-24 months) and require WAY less maintenance.

I think many people who now enjoy the bounties of an industrial economy would embrace nuclear power rather than give up their consumer lifestyle. A nuclear powered economy does not need wind and solar power, which may be the reason many people oppose it, not some nebulous and misinformed fear of "nuclear waste."

What?

I am onboard that nuclear power is WAY safer than traditional fossil power, but that ship has sailed, no matter how much we may dislike it.

1) The plants take too long to build, and invariably fall behind schedule, years behind.

2) Nuclear plants go over budget. Sometimes double, or tripling in price.

3) You can't just handwave away the waste issue. The problems are not "nebulous". Until someone comes up with a safe way to store the waste for tens of thousands of years, it is a non-starter.

4) Nuclear cannot exist without subsidies. The only reason they can operate "profitably" at all is because the tax payer is on the hook for accidents and waste storage.

I oppose shutting down existing nukes unless they are an imminent danger, because I don't want to see them immediately replaced with FF plants. That said, they cannot be built fast enough, and cost WAY too much to build to be helpful in our current situation.

Solar and wind power enthusiasm is just another form of climate change denial, especially when it is practiced by affluent consumers.

Well, as prices come down (and they have dropped 75% in the last decade), they are rapidly heading toward a price point everyone will be able to afford. Solar/wind/hydro are also the only power generation sources where the fuel comes to you. No exploration, drilling, pipelines, tankers, refining needed.

Calling solar/wind "climate denial" is just wrong.

In any case the environmental impact of every adult in the world owning a car, even a fancy electric car, would be catastrophic.

I am unaware of anyone advocating for "every adult" owning an EV. The preferred methods of travel are: walking, biking, public transit, EVs, PHEVs, hybrids and efficient ICE. However, few parts of the US are designed for these solutions. Our populations are too spread out into suburban sprawl.

There is NO magic, instant solution to the problems we face, only choices where some are better and some are worse. Our only hope of progress is better choices. If you need a car to get to work, and you can charge at home or work, then your choice is between a gas burning car, or perhaps a used Nissan Leaf. The Leaf has plenty of range for 85% of commuters, is cheaper to run, and has fewer maintenance costs. Also, a used model can be had for under $12K in a lot of areas. If you need range, them maybe you look at a Chevy Volt, which is a PHEV, with 38-53 miles of electric range, and then has an onboard gasoline generator for when you need to make long trips (total range is 300-400 miles). We've drove one for years, and our gasoline usage went to around 40 gallons a year, total, down from 600+.

New EVs have, in 10+ years fallen from a high of $120K+, to a low of just under $30K. They should fall under $25K within the next three years. I notice you throw out the term "fancy electric car", insinuating that they are luxurious, and things only the super-rich can afford. And in some cases, you are correct. However, this is true of every major consumer good over the last century, from gasoline cars, to refrigerators, radios, TVs, color TVs, washers, dryers, computers, cell phones, and now EVs. Adjusted for inflation, an IBM PC back in the day cost about $15K in today's money, yet people now routinely carry around computers in their pocket that only cost a few hundred dollars, and are 3x+ order of magnitude more powerful.

The affluent are the first adopters of new, expensive tech, then it gets cheaper, better, and ubiquitous. EVs are looking at price parity with ICE cars within 5 years, and those cars will be cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, last longer, and will be safer.

People with first world incomes almost universally have huge environmental footprints. Odds are the guy with solar panels on his roof and a Tesla in the driveway isn't making the world a better place. His environmental footprint may be a few hundred times larger than that of someone who doesn't own a car, walks to work, and has never flown anywhere.

Sorry, but I track my footprint, and long term it will be less than if I had stayed the course. My wife and I made a decision years ago that we would transition off fossil fuels, go solar, and drive electric. Counting just electric generation, we kept 60K kgs of CO2 out of the air, when we throw in unburned gasoline we didn't produce 29K kg of CO2. There's also a LOT of PM2.5 pollution that didn't go into the air for people to breath.

Oh, and we also did other things, improved insulation, smart thermostat, LED bulbs, hybrid-electric water heater when our old one died, etc. Yes, we do use more electricity than the average house, but we don't burn gasoline. We also produce surplus power, which goes back on the grid and powers our neighbor's houses.

So, I must disagree based on practical, real-world experience.

When everyone has clean water coming out of a faucet in their own home, a flush toilet connected to a modern sewage plant, easy access to birth control without harassment by idiot religious zealots, etc..., maybe we can turn our attention to the problems of first world consumers and their toys.

Maybe the expensive toys and habits of first world consumers are the problem.

On this I totally agree, but would point out that as the major polluters, we need to clean up our act, while we also must help other countries with water, sewage, BC, etc. However, clean water and sewage require power, and if we are going to help provide that power, it needs to be CLEANER power than what the usual suspects wish to provide. A decentralized power structure is easier to build in the absence of good roads, and huge pipelines to provide fuel for the power generation. The sun and wind are free, and work on site.