Patiently impatient - Belief in the potential of the sun

Dec 15, 2011

It is not a matter of physical resources. Nor is it a matter of technology. At a reasonable cost, 10 billion people could live on our level. The problem lies in the readjustment to a new, sustainable energy system. Can we bring this about sufficiently quickly?

Each year, the Earth is reached by 10,000 times more solar energy than the total of coal, oil and . At the same time, – which have been developed since the 1950s – are now so efficient and cheap that they could more than satisfy the world's entire energy requirements. There is no doubt that the sun represents the future," states Björn Sandén, Professor of Environmental System Analysis.

"Certain forms of nuclear energy still have major physical potential, as does power deriving from coal. But the greatest resource, and the one that entails fewest problems socially, environmentally and in terms of safety, is solar energy."

What about wave power, wind power and biomass? "Of course these should also be used but whatever way we look at it, they only make up a fraction of the energy we receive through continuous solar radiation. That's why we should be talking about the sun," states Björn Sandén.

Dramatic position

The potential is enormous. Colossal in fact. This is particularly so if you contemplate the joint development of solar energy, nanotechnology and materials technology. It could revolutionise the order of things, not only for our energy system but also for the way we construct buildings and manufacture clothes.

Development is rapid. During the past 10 years, the solar cell industry has grown worldwide by 40-50 per cent per year, which sounds good. The question is whether it is sufficiently good.

"Living in a small, tranquil country where nothing much happens, we might feel that in the short term society is stable. But the picture changes if we extend the time horizon. Viewed in the long term, we find ourselves in quite a dramatic situation."

There are now seven billion people living on and we are using 50 times more energy than we did 200 years ago. There is a thrilling, head-to-head race going on between our growing demands and the development and application of new knowledge.

Where will it end? Björn Sandén doesn't have the answer.

"The world is made up of complex, global systems and in truth no one has real control over the dynamics in the systems."

Ketchup effect

"Changes can take place more quickly than we might believe. We only need to look at the global economy. A crisis in one country quickly leads to unemployment in another without anyone having the time to work out why. Civilisations have collapsed in the past and it is quite possible that present-day society is also on the verge of collapse. Surprisingly, such complex dynamics can also have a positive side," states Björn Sandén.

"We might feel that something major and turbulent is currently taking place in society but in reality it began 50 years ago. That's the case with sun, wind and bioenergy. Slowly but surely, new energy systems have developed quietly in the background before the top finally flies off the ketchup bottle. And once the ketchup starts to flow, everyone says: "Goodness, how quickly things are moving!"

There is thus reason to be hopeful. Björn Sandén cites an encouraging illustration. In the 1990s, the head of a non-profit solar energy association in Aachen in Germany came up with the idea of having a cost-price system for in the city. Anyone who fitted solar panels on their roof would have their electricity subsidised by two Deutschmarks per kilowatt-hour.

"At first a lot of people thought they were out of their minds. But the power company was able to spread the cost among all the consumers and soon the concept spread to a further 40 cities. In 2000, it was announced that the idea would be implemented throughout the whole of Germany. Now it has spread to 40 other countries, including China."

But not in Sweden. In Sweden, a technology-neutral policy is applied. At first glance, this might seem admirable, but politics should not determine which forms of technology we use. The problem is that if politicians waive responsibility and the opportunity to make decisions, market forces will decide. As the market often thinks in the short term, Björn Sandén maintains that there is a very tangible risk that we will become ensnared into new one-way streets with technology that fails to address problems in the long term.

"No policy is technology neutral. Ultimately, technology-specific support is always granted and the only question is who will receive it. In the end, it is the one that shouts loudest or the one who happens to be most popular at the time. Established technologies are always favoured at the expense of those that are in the process of developing."

The courage to make mistakes

"Fundamentally, a technology-neutral policy is an incorrect way of thinking," says Björn Sandén. "Technology has always been political. The steam engine, the combustion engine, electrical systems, computers – they have all been created by and for the society in which we live. It is therefore vital that politicians have the courage to think technology in a visionary, strategic way. It is not sufficient, as is the case today, to simply sit, administer and make as few mistakes as possible, when we find ourselves on the brink of a ravine.

"If we are to invest in readjustment to a sustainable system within 50-100 years, we must help to bring to the fore a number of different technologies in parallel as it takes several decades to move from concept to a large-scale market. And if the technologies out on the periphery are to stand a chance we must invest in control mechanisms that are technology-specific," says Björn Sandén.

He continues: "There's no need to be afraid of making mistakes. Of course, you should be careful with public money but it doesn't cost a great deal to stimulate niche markets when new technology can be given the opportunity to grow. Not if you're in there from the beginning."

Björn Sandén does not want it to sound as if the fault lies with the politicians. It must be borne in mind that politics has rules.

"All those involved in a system have limited freedom of action. Even Barak Obama, who in a sense is the world's most powerful man.

We may have limited power but we still have collective responsibility.

"It could be relevant to turn things around and ask ourselves how we can induce engineers to become more interested in politics. I don't have the answer. My humble contribution is to teach about socio-technological systems – the link between technology, politics and economics – and to participate to some extent in social debate. The rate of change might appear sluggish. This is the nature of complex systems. That's why it's important to be patiently impatient," states Björn Sandén.

"On the other hand, renewal always starts somewhere. The solar industry, for example, emerged thanks to what was accomplished in Germany. Everything started with a solar cell enthusiastic in Aachen. The same thing could happen in Sweden," states Björn Sandén.

"Perhaps that's what's happening at the moment. Are things taking place behind our backs and are we failing to appreciate their full significance. Who knows?

Explore further: Many tongues, one voice, one common ambition

Provided by Chalmers University of Technology

3.6 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Exercise produces positive effects on the intervertebral discs

Jun 28, 2011

Physical exercise has a positive effect on the formation of cells in the intervertebral discs. This is shown by a study from the Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, presented at the annual meeting of the International ...

Californians bask in solar energy

Jan 04, 2007

Soaring energy costs, environmental consciousness and financial incentives have combined to make solar panels part of the California housing landscape.

Now you can determine the solar efficiency of your roof

Oct 17, 2011

It is becoming more and more common to install solar panels on roofs in order to obtain green electricity, but not all roofs are equally suitable. Scientists from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, have ...

Recommended for you

Many tongues, one voice, one common ambition

8 hours ago

There is much need to develop energy efficient solutions for residential buildings in Europe. The EU-funded project, MeeFS, due to be completed by the end of 2015, is developing an innovative multifunctional and energy efficient ...

Panasonic, Tesla to build big US battery plant

9 hours ago

(AP)—American electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc. is teaming up with Japanese electronics company Panasonic Corp. to build a battery manufacturing plant in the U.S. expected to create 6,500 jobs.

Simulation models optimize water power

10 hours ago

The Columbia River basin in the Pacific Northwest offers great potential for water power; hydroelectric power stations there generate over 20 000 megawatts already. Now a simulation model will help optimize the operation ...

Charging electric cars efficiently inductive

10 hours ago

We already charge our toothbrushes and cellphones using contactless technology. Researchers have developed a particularly efficient and cost-effective method that means electric cars could soon follow suit.

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2011
It is therefore vital that politicians have the courage to think technology in a visionary, strategic way


yes, their strategy is typically to have illegal stock options and buy or steal everything for themselves on the public dime, in order to supress and control such technologies.

Cheap, renewable energy would allow much of the existing paradigm in the U.S. to be dismantled. Our existing oil tyccoon and coal tyccoon politicians know full well they cannot allow this to happen.
rubberman
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2011
LMAO....the truth is rated a one. Sorry Nano, it wasn't me. Maybe somebody working at a gas station.....
NotAsleep
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2011
I could be wrong but it seems like there were a lot of arbitrary numbers thrown around in this article...

As soon as "green" tech can get away from using precious heavy metals, the green sector will take off. Unfortunately, this would require lots of funding that the current US administration doesn't seem to be willing to provide and that big companies don't seem motivated to spend.

Save us, graphene!
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2011
I see, solar energetic lobby is starting its propaganda when the cold fusion is in sight.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2011
I could be wrong but it seems like there were a lot of arbitrary numbers thrown around in this article...

As soon as "green" tech can get away from using precious heavy metals, the green sector will take off. Unfortunately, this would require lots of funding that the current US administration doesn't seem to be willing to provide and that big companies don't seem motivated to spend.

Save us, graphene!

And what is wrong with green tech using heavy metals?
As far as i know they can be recycled and arent thrown into the environment, unlike coal plants that spit out radiation, greenhouse gasses and mercury into the environment.
chip_engineer
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2011
"Anyone who fitted solar panels on their roof would have their electricity subsidised by two Deutschmarks per kilowatt-hour."

Or about 130c/kWh when retail power is 8-16c/kWh. The neighbors without solar has to pay that 130c, no wonder their energy is so expensive.

This is called a Ponzi scheme, only works for a while. Take away the subsidies and let the panel buyers face the real cost.

Harvesting infinite amounts solar power is like being on the Titanic and handed a teaspoon to help chuck the incoming water overboard. Enough teaspoons could actually do the job but not fast enough.

All "free" energy is intrinsically diffused, land, metal, concrete, silicon costs lots of money, let it work for high density energy instead.
chip_engineer
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2011
kaasines

"And what is wrong with green tech using heavy metals?
As far as i know they can be recycled and arent thrown into the environment, unlike coal plants that spit out radiation, greenhouse gasses and mercury into the environment."

Being a silicon guy, silicon PV panels can only be recycled in the "send it to India" sense where it could have a second life.

Once it fails, it is just toxic waste like any other electronics, you can't separate the elemental parts, maybe some gold but still.

Also Indium Tin Oxide is still a scare resource, but China still cranks them out so maybe they found something else.
chip_engineer
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2011
As I already point out, the Tombstone BP Shoreham Long Island solar plant produces only 4.5MW or so at $65/W continuous, it is likely typical. It is presented as a 32MW plant, that is just the nameplate power, the greens refuse to acknowledge this.

Try a Solar installer website, use the calculator to price your kW rating and location. For northern home owners a 1kW continuous system may total $35k, that includes 7kW of nameplate panels for $7k-$14k. Add in inverters, cables, racking, union labor, taxes, and it gets to $35k quickly. Of course the taxpayers will cover half or more. Some smug owners have even gotten subsidies for almost all their installs. Not recommending that.

NotAsleep
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2011
Kaasines, I'm pretty certain I didn't tout any virtues of coal power plants.

Heavy metal mining is extremely polluting. Just because the machines are tagged with the "green" label doesn't mean they're good for the environment.

An equally important issue is sustainability. Like oil, heavy metals will run out if we start using them in common manufacturing. On top of that, the more we use, the harder we will have to work to extract them from the ground which will drive heavier pollution. It wasn't until recently that fracking was considered economical to extract natural gas from the ground... heavy metals will follow a similar path.

The solution is out there, it just has to be completed
chip_engineer
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2011
nano

"Cheap, renewable energy would allow much of the existing paradigm in the U.S. to be dismantled. Our existing oil tyccoon and coal tyccoon politicians know full well they cannot allow this to happen."

No it wouldn't and it isn't cheap either, just highly subsidized and out of mind, see the Tombstone BP Brookhaven solar plant. $300m for only 4.5MW continuous, the 32MW is only nameplate.

I think the oil companies rather like solar, many have been in the production of PV panels, many like BP are still building plants and making a nice profit at it or at least earning faux green credits for the gulf oil disaster. Subsidies for solar, or oil, they don't care. As long as the customer doesn't know the true price, it all looks quite good.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2011
Being a silicon guy, silicon PV panels can only be recycled in the "send it to India" sense where it could have a second life.

Once it fails, it is just toxic waste like any other electronics, you can't separate the elemental parts, maybe some gold but still.

Wow... are you NotAsleep's second account or something? I have never heard a more ignorant statement on here.
CapitalismPrevails
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2011
Well somebody has to say it since nobody else has in this commentary. Thorium nuclear reactors are the way to go http://www.youtub...eBSoEnRk .