Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

If we actually deploy 50 GWh of hydrogen storage, and demonstrate that it can cheaply and reliability be built at scale then your point would be valid. But until then, hydrogen represents a theoretical solution not an actual solution.

Nobody is arguing the solar and wind power isn’t cheap, but the cost of power on those cloudy windless weeks is going to be real high to make having all that standby generation around. It’s the cost to achieve the same reliability and 99% carbon free that is expensive.

Money is imaginary and global warming isn’t so let’s just print some bonds or move some numbers around in some database and build it all! - an electrical power engineer

All of the Americas experience night time simultaneously for at least 8 hours a day. Even if we ran HVDC lines to the Sahara, there's still a period of time where most sunlight is shining on the pacific ocean.

Sure cell batteries might not work, we can try out flow batteries, we can try liquid metal batteries, we can try hydraulic hydro storage, we can try out hydrogen, we can try compressed air, we can try electrolyzing iron or aluminum, we can try another dozen different things and it is highly likely that at least 3 will work out just fine.

So 1 kilowatt-hour is 3.6 million joules. One liter (kilogram) of water weighs approximately 10 newtons.

So take one cubic meter (1000 kilograms) of water and move it up one meter, and you have stored 0.0028 kWh. You can see this is where the math becomes tricky without using geology for help.

Let's say you can create a height differential of 50 meters by building in a smart way - each cubic meter of storage you build will now store you 0.139 kWh. And a cubic meter is quite a lot. A full Olympic-size swimming pool stores only 2500 cubic meters, equivalent to only 347 kWh.

That's only the battery capacity of three and a half Teslas, equivalent to the daily consumption of ~12 US homes. You need a lot of these 50-meter elevated Olympic-size swimming pools, and the water and generators to run them. I suppose it's sort of feasible engineering wise, but I doubt it'll be cheap enough. Comparing with the Teslas - can you get this done for the less of the order of $300,000, minus the cost of three luxury cars worth of components?

With batteries, we're getting there fast, and in a way that's economically sound.

Right, because I was un-asking the question. There's no such thing as "energy needs", just energy conversion and dissipation, so your question is nonsensical. Up a couple of levels I linked to Marco Schulte, who's using an Arduino Nano, with maybe half a million transistors in it, to detect when his espresso machine turns on and count up the seconds of espresso brewing on Nixie tubes.

Have "transistor needs" thereby increased by half a million transistors? No, clearly this could have been done with 50 transistors or less. Or not done at all; plenty of espresso machines get by without timers protruding from the top, and plenty of people get by without coffee. There was no need, just consumption. But at this point we have something like 15 or 20 sextillion transistors in the world, so speaking of "transistor needs" is nonsense. Transistors are not rationed like covid vaccines in a backward country, where you only get to use as many as you can prove you need. They're still not free, though—though you can use half a million transistors as easily and cheaply as you can use one, a chip with sixteen billion transistors costs a little more than a chip with half a million, and a machine with a hundred billion transistors (16 GiB of RAM or Flash, for example) costs more than that and also takes up space and uses a significant amount of power. And once you're up into the trillions of transistors the cost goes up linearly with transistor count.

So, in short, Marco Schulte is using half a million transistors to detect his espresso machine turning on because transistors are cheap enough that he doesn't get any advantage he cares about by using less.

This phenomenon is not limited to transistors. Demand for just about anything will increase if it gets cheap enough. Forgive me if I point out that this assumption, that demand curves are generally downward-sloping, is fundamental to economic theory; it's not something I need to offer an argument for in a particular case, because the exceptions are few and far between.

— ⁂ —

Of course, that doesn't tell us how much the demand will increase. The 100× ballpark comes from taking, not the 39% yearly exponential growth in installed photovoltaic capacity over the period 01993 to 02018 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PV_cume_semi_log_cha..., but the much slower 23% yearly exponential growth we've seen over the last few years; extrapolating it 30 years into the future; and then dividing by 5 to make the estimate "conservative." Of course it's only really conservative if we don't hit some limiting factor before that point, as we did, for example, with oil in the 01970s. That exponential growth will surely level off at some point, at which point such empirical extrapolations become nonsense.

So what's the limiting factor? I don't know.

— ⁂ —

What will people be using abundant solar photovoltaic energy for in 30 years? Probably mostly things that are too absurd for us to imagine now, like Marco Schulte's espresso machine, whose coffee timer has roughly the computational power of the 24 AN/FSQ-7 computers that made up NORAD's missile defense system in 01965. I can come up with lots of uses for lots of energy that aren't so absurd, though they aren't likely to be the real answer:

- Mining Bitcoin. There's no limit to how much energy you can spend on that, because it's purely competitive, like soccer. It takes all the hashing you can do just to stay in the same place with respect to the other miners.

- Making more solar cells. The raw materials (except silver) are abundant, and the processing is highly automated, but it takes a lot of energy. So having a lot of solar cells sitting around producing cheap electricity makes it cheaper to make more solar cells, which in turn makes the electricity they produce even cheaper.

- Smelting aluminum. Currently 20%–40% of the cost of smelting aluminum is just the cost of the energy, but it's only that low because aluminum smelting pots are designed to be efficient and not waste too much energy. You can always trade off some efficiency for other desirable attributes of the design, like cheapness. Probably this would reduce the cost of aluminum per unit of strength below the cost of steel.

- Smelting ferrosilicon, which is used as a feedstock for, for example, magnesium. More generally all kinds of mining and smelting processes use a lot of energy, and have even energy-hungrier alternative processes that we don't use because they're more expensive than the ones we do use.

- Desalination for irrigation. The Sorek reverse-osmosis plant produces drinking water at a total cost of US$0.58/kℓ at 70 atmospheres, which is 7.1 kJ/ℓ; energy is something like a third of the cost, and as with aluminum, you can presumably make other aspects of the plant cheaper if you can afford to waste more energy. Suppose this less efficient design uses 20 kJ/ℓ. Growing rice needs about 5 feet of water (acre-feet per acre) per crop, because a rice field is basically a swamp; with 2 feet of water per year, you can get pastureland or vineyards instead of a swamp. 5 feet of water (1.5 m) per year at 20 kJ/ℓ is just under 1 W/m². So turning the Sahara (9.2 million km²) into rice fields would cost 9.2 terawatts, which is about half of total world marketed energy consumption as of 02021. At current prices, the requisite solar panels (which would themselves occupy about ½% of the Sahara) would cost US$1.4 trillion.

- Direct air capture of CO₂ to reverse global warming, which requires minimally about a gigajoule (250 kWh) per tonne on entropic grounds, and maybe 10 GJ/tonne if we can't figure out how to approach the theoretical efficiency. We need to remove about 1.29 × 10¹⁶ kg to get back to pre-industrial levels (see Derctuo for the calculation) and if we do that over 25 years at this 10%-efficient 10 GJ/tonne level, it will take 160 TW, about 9 times current world marketed energy consumption.

— ⁂ —

Now, right now, most of these projects would be uneconomic, because energy is so expensive, so it's tempting to reject them out of hand as implausible. No doubt von Neumann would have done the same if you'd told him a prophecy of Hypercard, which shipped 30 years after his death in 01957. How much more so your ignorant USan man on the street, whose knowledge of computers in 01957 was limited to DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE, OR MUTILATE, a UNIVAC trying to take over the world in The Invisible Boy, and breathless newspaper articles about "giant electronic brains"?

On the flip side, what would someone in the 01957 USA have thought if you told them that in 01987 all the US manufacturers of small planes would be bankrupt, leaded gasoline outlawed, and the interstate speed limits reduced to 55 mph?

The future is not only stranger than we imagine; it is stranger than we can imagine.

— ⁂ —

So, I ask you, a third time: Can you think of any other limiting factors I don't know about? What other possible limits do you think we might encounter between here and Kardashev Type 1?

This whole debate started when you were caught making ignorant statements regarding basic chemistry and thermodynamics. You're not going to win by just doubling on everything or moving goalposts. It's past time to admit you were wrong.