Earlier Modern Adoption of Solar Power?

[CountDVB]

One of the big things now ehre in the 2020s is that from starting from about the late 2010s or so, solar power has become pretty dang feasible to implement now. Alot of the stuff like things such as cost, infrastructure and so on seem to be fix. Of course, it took a pretty long while, up until now to be able to get this far and I admit I do not know all the factors leading up to this.

This leads to the key question: How much earlier could we have adopted solar power or at least potentially so on the grander scale of things.

Like I know Jimmy Carter began pushing in the late 1970s before cut off by Reagan. If that didn't happen, could we adopt it sooner? How much money you think we could go and how plausibly sooner could we do it?

For me, I am thinking maybe by the mid 2000s it would be comparable to the mid 2010s regarding alot of the problems solved for it. However, I'm not entirely sure if I'm overshooting things or underestimating how far we could go. Hence why I am asking all of you on how sooner could we have the solar panels or similar of OTL.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

POD for this is simple: GOP strategists in early 70s realize wind/solar job potential for sunbelt to help flip the area. You get OTL's fossil-fueled GOP, but you get republican willingness to use solar/wind, making both power sources bipartisan.

This means you avoid OTL's 25-30 years or so of not funding or researching solar/wind/renewables in general or related technologies like battery technologies. Maybe 15% solar and 6-7% wind by 2022 in the atl is doable.

 

[sdgottsch]

I think the biggest issue is research and development to get solar panel efficiency increased. In the 1960's efficiency was 14% and the industry didn't get over 20% (for regular home market type panels) until the mid-2010's. We are now in the 30% efficiency level and the cost to manufacture/install have gone from $8.50/watt to $2.77/watt.

Then you have to get the battery industry research and development galvanized to store the excess and the ability to move the power around to grids which need it (new infrastructure for power lines).

While I agree with the above about ~15% solar, the issue is the location is the key...Minnesota and the Northern Tier states probably less useable while the Southeast and Southwest have a bunch of Sun and could use it.

 

[marathag]

Then you have to get the battery industry research and development galvanized to store the excess and the ability to move the power around to grids which need it (new infrastructure for power lines).

Over 120 years old, and Nickel-Iron are still in the mix, for being very durable and low maintenance over many years.
Despite being lowest in power density.

 

[CountDVB]

POD for this is simple: GOP strategists in early 70s realize wind/solar job potential for sunbelt to help flip the area. You get OTL's fossil-fueled GOP, but you get republican willingness to use solar/wind, making both power sources bipartisan.

This means you avoid OTL's 25-30 years or so of not funding or researching solar/wind/renewables in general or related technologies like battery technologies. Maybe 15% solar and 6-7% wind by 2022 in the atl is doable.

So we’d be like 5 or 10 years sooner? I am referring to just technology and so on given how infrastructure and who’s supporting it can be a bit of a different beast. Like, when can we get it earlier tech wise compared to lue timeline?

thank you for your feedback

 

[CountDVB]

I think the biggest issue is research and development to get solar panel efficiency increased. In the 1960's efficiency was 14% and the industry didn't get over 20% (for regular home market type panels) until the mid-2010's. We are now in the 30% efficiency level and the cost to manufacture/install have gone from $8.50/watt to $2.77/watt.

Then you have to get the battery industry research and development galvanized to store the excess and the ability to move the power around to grids which need it (new infrastructure for power lines).

While I agree with the above about ~15% solar, the issue is the location is the key...Minnesota and the Northern Tier states probably less useable while the Southeast and Southwest have a bunch of Sun and could use it.

Why did it take so long to get to 20%? Was it the investment cut, the technology or something else? Would it be possible to get to 20% by like the late 1990s or early 2000s for example?

 

[Nivek]

Why did it take so long to get to 20%? Was it the investment cut, the technology or something else? Would it be possible to get to 20% by like the late 1990s or early 2000s for example?

Battery technology and conversion one have some hard limitation, there a reason why we use sightly advance versions of the 90's batteries currently..maybe with some funding could help but those are hard limits of modern material science

 

[Driftless]

In early days, probably a way to ease into the solar power idea is to promote passive solar designs in new construction and remodelling, wherever practical and possible. Use tax incentives as a persuader. You may have gotten less push back on the idea, when technology had a notable development curve ahead. People not sold on "hippie" ideas could be sold on tax breaks.....

 

[Workable Goblin]

Why did it take so long to get to 20%? Was it the investment cut, the technology or something else? Would it be possible to get to 20% by like the late 1990s or early 2000s for example?

It's comparing incomparable things. 14% efficient solar panels in the 1960s would have been extreme bleeding edge experimental cells tested in laboratory conditions, i.e. too expensive and not robust enough for mass usage (comparable to the 40%+ efficient panels you see today, but again only in laboratories). That's why at the time solar cells were feasible for satellites and...not much else. There's no really good alternative to solar power in satellites, so even extremely expensive and fragile solar cells were worthwhile there. It took a lot of work to figure out how to turn those laboratory cells into practical everyday panels that people could buy and put on their roofs, and it's not something that there's any real obvious way to speed up just by doing one weird trick.

There are two main things that are needed to make any noticeable advance in solar technology over OTL. First, more consistent and ongoing R&D funding. This is actually less important, because after the 1970s R&D funding was not too terrible, even in the Reagan years, but having more can't hurt, and neither can not having an administration that is in complete denial about what needs to be done to help the country. Second, and more importantly, more funding and effort for taking that research and developing means of mass-producing it, commercializing it so that end-users can actually afford to buy it and use it. This was lacking in the United States, which led the U.S. to have a lot of sophisticated technology that other people commercialized. This is also really important--one of the biggest factors in why solar took off at the end of the 2000s and in the 2010s was that mandates (mostly in the E.U.) led to increased demand for solar, which led to people (mostly in China) heavily investing in manufacturing solar more cheaply, which in turn increased demand for solar.

As for what you could expect, I would guesstimate an, as you say, perhaps 5-10 year advancement in mass solar deployment, with solar taking off in a big way during the very late 1990s or early 2000s instead of the late 2000s and early 2010s. This would mainly be driven by the payback period of panels dropping low enough for people to be interested in using them to save money.

 

[Juumanistra]

The OP wants grandiosity from solar power?

There is only one correct answer: A bona fide powersat constellation. North American Rockwell wanted to use Star-Raker to build, what, one a year for twenty years starting in the late-Eighties? Working from memory, I believe they guesstimated 40,000 tonnes a piece for a 5GWe array, so you'd only need to lob four-fifths of a megatonne into orbit for 100GWe of generating capacity. Good thing that the Star-Raker fleet will be able to maintain that average of two-and-change sorties per day, right? NAR is positive that turnaround times will be short and the it'll be really cheap. And since when was North American Rockwell ever anything less than completely honest about the turnaround times and operating costs of a reusable spaceplane?

I mean, sure, it'll be program that's got a cost that makes the Integrated Program Plan's look quaintly small. But this is working on a grander scale.

 

[marathag]

Passive Solar is easier, not relying on PE panels and batteries.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Passive Solar is easier, not relying on PE panels and batteries.

Passive solar is easier, but it also only goes so far. It fundamentally isn't suitable for doing a lot of things, and anyway shows up mostly as lower energy usage than would otherwise be expected, rather than positive energy gain (like photovoltaic cells).

Anyway, the OP is clearly asking about active generation of electrical power with solar energy, not heating up buildings or running greenhouses or anything like that.

 

[CountDVB]

Second, and more importantly, more funding and effort for taking that research and developing means of mass-producing it, commercializing it so that end-users can actually afford to buy it and use it. This was lacking in the United States, which led the U.S. to have a lot of sophisticated technology that other people commercialized. This is also really important--one of the biggest factors in why solar took off at the end of the 2000s and in the 2010s was that mandates (mostly in the E.U.) led to increased demand for solar, which led to people (mostly in China) heavily investing in manufacturing solar more cheaply, which in turn increased demand for solar.

As for what you could expect, I would guesstimate an, as you say, perhaps 5-10 year advancement in mass solar deployment, with solar taking off in a big way during the very late 1990s or early 2000s instead of the late 2000s and early 2010s. This would mainly be driven by the payback period of panels dropping low enough for people to be interested in using them to save money.

So basically what would help would be more and more companies and private investment along with greater public investment then? Hmmm, makes sense there.

I guess if political pressures led to a large shift in mandates, then the shift would begin. Even if it wouldn’t be as cheap, said political pressures could lead to government subsidizing and other clever financial methods to overcome this rather than just rely on cheap labor.

And about the time period I guessed. Thank you very much for all your help!

 

[CountDVB]

Passive Solar is easier, not relying on PE panels and batteries.

Passive solar is easier, but it also only goes so far. It fundamentally isn't suitable for doing a lot of things, and anyway shows up mostly as lower energy usage than would otherwise be expected, rather than positive energy gain (like photovoltaic cells).

Anyway, the OP is clearly asking about active generation of electrical power with solar energy, not heating up buildings or running greenhouses or anything like that.

I do figure that passive solar would have its place and could be used in some matter of ways.

 

[octaviuz]

I do figure that passive solar would have its place and could be used in some matter of ways.

I think solar thermal could also be useful, both for things like water heaters and for reflector arrays driving boilers (which is dramatically simpler technology for electric generation).

 

[Coivara]

I think its unlikely, even nowadays Solar Power is honestly pretty weak-sauce and mostly driven by subsidies and ninnies who are irrationally scared of nuclear energy.
Ironically the best play for it might be the fact Fossil Fuel companies realize earlier that Solar-only is pretty much fiction and it will always need some Fossil Fuel backing, so they start supporting and researching solar power as an "alternative" energy source - which conveniently weakens Nuclear.

Orbital Solar is probably your best bet, but they lacked the kind of lift capacity for that, back when.

 

[marathag]

Orbital Solar is probably your best bet, but they lacked the kind of lift capacity for that, back when

And the Tinfoil Hat brigade would just love that the Government is involved with an 'Orbital Death Ray' platform at LEO

 

[whippingcool&86]

I think the space heating considerate a sophisticated solar source to fluctuate the indoor room temperature at the large building. For instance, during the brutal winter cold weather without snow (temperature in low 30s daytime), the manager recommends an enormous amount of heating air to ensure the ambivalence on-duty working conditions. This type of space heating mainly utilizes transpired collector.

Therefore, in winter, I speculate space heating cost an extremely small or moderate pricey for full maintainable running high to beat against the infiltrated outside cold air.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I think its unlikely, even nowadays Solar Power is honestly pretty weak-sauce and mostly driven by subsidies and ninnies who are irrationally scared of nuclear energy.

No, it's currently driven by the fact that it's literally the cheapest source of electricity that exists on the planet--yes, even without subsidies. Relative to nuclear power, solar power has substantial advantages in cost (although only for the last fifteen to twenty years or so) and scalability (it's much easier to build a small solar power installation than a small nuclear plant), besides also being unaffected by the horrible cost and schedule disease that has affected the nuclear industry nearly everywhere (except Russia, China, and South Korea, maybe India) over the past several decades. Preferring solar over nuclear power in the 1970s might have been irrational, but today it is not, in fact it is the opposite position which is clearly irrational based on the objective characteristics of each system.

Space-based solar power would destroy all of these characteristics by turning solar into a massive mega project system dependent on very expensive launch costs to construct; it's a neat idea, and it might be feasible at some future point if launch prices drop low enough, but it's going to make use of solar power less, not more, feasible.

 

[steamboy]

The problem is that at the moment, solar's not really that efficient, if you could get a more widespread use of nuclear power, this would be immediately more beneficial to the planet as a whole.