Quote:
Originally Posted by Penforhire
I'm not convinced about trend 1. Its worldwide uptake is currently due mostly to government sponsorship. Long term it has a shot but we're more likely to see nuclear power long term. Why? Because solar only works while the sun shines. We'd need an efficient low-cost energy storage method to power your house from solar at night or on cloudy days.
Or are you thinking of a true world-wide grid, where we get solar energy from around the globe? That'd be a possibility if we continue improving high-temperature superconductors. But we wouldn't be off the grid then. Same for orbital generators transmitting via microwave energy (and I'd hate to be in the beam path if it wobbles, lol).
|
The cost per watt in 1974 was $1,000 watt. today it's around $1 in quantity. No one big drop, just steady price erosion. Following that curve has the price per watt in 10 years at 25-50 cents a watt. Generated power runs a watt equivalent of $.75 to $1 a watt. The problem of energy storage and release is a limiting factor, but not insurmountable. It's low effeciency, but worst case, you could split water and later burn the hydrogen in an infernal combustion engine. It's solveable...