-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Brandon in the Basement
January 8, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Time for Some Ju-Jitsu
December 10, 2012 | 51 comments
The Energy Spectator
Paul Krugman Flunks Moore’s Law
He apparently has spent too much time in the sun.
There’s something about solar energy that turns otherwise intelligent brains to mush. Paul Krugman, the celebrated Nobel Prize-winning economist, has now joined the crowd.
In an op-ed last week entitled “Here Comes the Sun,” Krugman invoked Moore’s Law, of Silicon Valley fame, to marshal the case that solar energy will soon be taking the place of coal, oil, gas nuclear and all those other nasty things. Here’s the way he went about it:
For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.
Our mastery of the material world… has advanced much more slowly.… But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power.… [A]s a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.
Well, serves you right for relying on Scientific American. As anyone who has read that once venerable magazine of late can tell you, it’s much more about politics than science.
In the first place, Moore’s Law has nothing to do with price. It’s about information. Literally, it describes the number of components that can be placed in an integrated circuit. Moore noted in a 1965 paper that the figure had doubled every two years from 1958 to 1965 and thought it would probably continue at that pace “for at least ten years.” In fact it’s continued that way ever since and has now accelerated to once every 18 months.
Moore’s Law is not a Law of Nature, like the Laws of Gravity. It is only an empirical observation about our rate of innovation. We may eventually run out of room at the bottom. Moore himself predicted in 2005 that in twenty years we would reach the dimensions of individual atoms and progress might end — unless we started working at the subatomic level. Other commentators have pushed the limits even much further out.
So what does all this have to do with solar energy? Well, nothing. “It is a common (but mistaken) belief,” says the Wikipedia page, “that Moore’s Law makes predictions regarding all forms of technology, when it has only actually been demonstrated clearly for semiconductor circuits.”
Not that people haven’t tried. Al Gore started the whole thing in The Earth in Balance when he referred to solar collectors as “small flat panels of silicon or similar materials that are designed to produce currents of electricity [emphasis added].” Somehow he got the idea that because computer chips and solar panels were both made from silicon, they would follow a similar trajectory. Even Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists seem to have gotten the bug around 2004 when they jumped into “alternate” technologies, proclaiming they would do for energy what they had done for computing.
Moore’s Law is about information, not energy. The reason computer chips have gotten smaller and smaller is that we keep using less and less energy to store the same amount of information. Think of each logic gate as a light bulb that can be turned on and off to represent a “1” or a “0.” The original computers used vacuum tubes that consumed lots of electricity. Now we use transistors printed on microscopic circuit boards that require only the faintest electrical current. We may eventually get down to the level of individual electrons, but the point is that all this is accomplished by using smaller and smaller energy differentials to represent the ones and zeroes.
When you go looking for energy, however, you can’t do that. You can’t go down, down, down into the microcosm using less and less energy to produce more and more energy or even the same amount of energy. Energy is energy. You’re stuck with what’s available.
With solar energy this is all very easy to calculate. The average amount of solar energy falling on a square meter of earth is 400 watts. It will never be any different. With present technology, we can convert 25 percent of this to electricity. This means powering a 100-watt light bulb on a space the size a card table. If we could raise this conversion to 35 percent — a 40 percent increase — it would be a technological marvel. That’s a lot different than doubling every two years.
What that means is that the only practical way to produce more solar energy is to build bigger and bigger projects. It now takes a facility of about 20 square miles to produce 1000 megawatts — the same output as a large coal or nuclear plant. The Department of Interior is talking about covering 400 square miles of Western desert with solar collectors to produce the output of about ten reactors. We’ll see what the environmentalists have to say about that. All this works in America because we have lots of empty space, but it is not likely to work in densely populated areas.
There is always the possibility of rooftops. This has potential, particularly since solar peaks at the right time, on hot summer days when air conditioning strains the grid. Solar could be very useful in helping utilities meet the perennial problem of supplying peak demand. But all this is not going to be cheap. However prices may be dropping, they are not going to follow any exponential path. Solar electricity is now three times as expensive as nuclear and five times the price of gas. Even if it becomes competitive, it is only available one-quarter of the time. It won’t be replacing nuclear, gas, or coal any time soon.
After I wrote my book, Terrestrial Energy, in 2008, I started giving a Power Point speech in which I pointed out the staggering land requirements of so-called “renewable” energy. I used a 2005 quote from Oliver Morton, news editor of Nature, who had proclaimed, “If scientists can discover a Moore’s Law of solar energy, it could change the world.” Lately, however, I have been leaving it out because it seemed too outmoded. It wasn’t fair to be holding Morton responsible for this early naïveté.
Thank goodness for Paul Krugman. Now I don’t have to rely on Oliver Morton anymore.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (112) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/paul-krugman-flunks-moores-law
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob K.| 11.15.11 @ 6:29AM
Krugman and Gore! Not only has "Scientific American" been politicized, so has the Nobel Prize and both have been dumbed down!
Great article!
gwkimball| 11.20.11 @ 5:20AM
Dumb down Gore? Surely you jest.
Peter Yankov| 11.15.11 @ 6:50AM
Krugman an economist?? In what sense?? Not in my opinion. Having studied economics doesn't mean he knows anything. He's a Marxist.
Vern Crisler | 11.15.11 @ 10:27PM
Yeah, I keep hearing about how "celebrated" Thugman is, but I still can't figure out for what.
c. j. acworth| 11.15.11 @ 7:22AM
All that Mr. Tucker says is true, but he is forgetting about wind power! See, you can cover the southwestern deserts with solar panels and get 400w/m, and put up wind turbines every 250 or so feet! So you actually get twice the energy per sq. meter! And while you are shading the desert flora and fauna to death, and using up what little water is available to clean the solar panels, you can also be killing hordes of migratory birds! Ain't green energy grand?
Bob K.| 11.15.11 @ 9:19AM
Right on c. j.!
Since Wind Power is really derived from solar activity anyway I'm sure that Krugman will find all kinds of economic benefits here, as long as the environmentalists don't find out about it!
TMBruner| 11.15.11 @ 3:24PM
That provides a pretty good metaphor for Keynesian economics: use the same thing twice and don't account for the extra usage.
Curtis Rasmussen| 11.15.11 @ 6:47PM
You still need the conventional power plants idling in the background, ready to activate to even out the power fluctuations from unreliable wind and solar sources.
Solar and wind will not eliminate a single fuel power plant, but will require the building of more to prevent brownouts and power failures.
Doctor_X| 11.15.11 @ 7:25AM
The best solar panels are not even made of silicon! First Solar Company and others such as G.E. are making more efficient panels and cost are coming down. I personally think we need to move solar closer to the consumer. Instead of large projects out in the desert we need to move them to the roofs of buildings and homes. We would also see a gain if we went with DC lighting in our homes. That would remove the loss from converting DC solar to AC. (And my employer would *KILL* me for suggesting this!) Also for solar to really work we need to control the demand side of the power equation. We can’t do that without upgrading to the smart grid which is 20-30 years out.
Dick Nome| 11.15.11 @ 8:27AM
One slight problem here in the NE / Upper Midwest. Solar doesn't work at night, not even during the full moon when P-A and Paulbots howl. Also when the cloud cover blocks the sun and the snow is falling and in mountain valleys. Keep your solar panels in Lefty-land CA.
MikeBee| 11.15.11 @ 9:27AM
Doctor X,
That's why there are two projects out there:
Dow has started a company which is creating roofing material which will serve two purposes: 1) keep the elements out of your house, just like conventional roofing material; and 2) capture solar energy, to send back into your house. Not a bad idea, but will probably cost too much for a homeowner to purchase. We'll see.
Also, General Motors is embarking on a project to make large parking lots covered. Instead of parking in the open, people would park underneath roofing. The roofing panels would be covered with solar panels, and would power electrical outlets, which people can use to charge their electrical cars. Not a bad idea, but, as Dick Nome points out below, probably not reliable in certain areas of the country.
DaveD| 11.15.11 @ 10:06AM
All very well and good, BUT, there still remains the number one problem with solar generated power - lack of 24/7 availability. At best, solar power is only available 50% of the time - at best. That's ignoring clouds, storms, dust and dirt corrupting the collectors and the fact that the sun's strength is measurably weaker in the early morning and late afternoon due to atmospheric attenuation.
Wind power isn't any better. A light breeze doesn't produce as much electricity as a steady wind. Gusting conditions produce peaks and valleys that need to be smoothed out through supplementary sources.
Every solar plant, every wind farm is backed up with secondary generation using fossil fuels. If it wasn't so damn serious (politically) it would be funny.
Bob Grant| 11.15.11 @ 10:29AM
Wind and solar serve only as VERY expensive supplemental energy sources but as the article and some comments here indicate, will never surpass the the proven ones as primary sources of energy.
Getting the mush heads to understand this "inconvenient truth" will be the primary obstacle to finally having a sane energy policy.
Dick Nome| 11.15.11 @ 11:56AM
We can stop calling oil and NG fossil fuels. They are not biogenic. Both are formed under heat and pressure deep in the mantle of Mother Earth and constantly be re-generated. Gee, is that renewable?? I guess so, and all natural to boot. Drill, baby, Drill.
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 11:13AM
All I know is I'm not going into a hospital with wind mills. Cause if the wind dies, you die.
HeeHaw.
The other dirty little secret about renewables is that when you build a windmill or a solar bank you also have to install a similarly sized conventional generator, usually a gas turbine. Because the wind does die and sun does go down, and the clouds do block the sun, and you still have to feed the grid - or it fails.
That's why T. Boone Pickens was so big on windmills three or four years ago. He was telling you to demand windpower, so he'd get to sell gas. And you'll end up paying for both! Laugh's on you, sucker!
Follow the money, just follow the money.
Tomas| 11.15.11 @ 10:52AM
A high school friend's parents built a solar home in northern New York State in the 1980s. It was essentially an insulated semi-greenhouse. The south face was a glass-enclosed area that collected the sun's heat, much the same way a greenhouse does. The east and west walls were single-walled, the north wall double-walled. The air was heated in the south-facing space, rose to the attic, fell in the north wall to the open crawl space, where it was re-heated in the south wall space (which had decks). The house was essentially surrounded by a blanket of warm air.
It worked great. Except at night and on cloudy days. The house had auxiliary electric heat, a terrific wood fireplace in the center of the building, and a fan in the attic space to help circulate the air in the winter.
The cost of heating the house was a fraction of any other homes in the area. But, it was never completely free of its dependence on electric and wood heat.
We can use the sun to help us reduce our consumption of other sources of energy, but it will never eliminate those other sources. Sound energy management recognizes this and works within the limitations of all energy forms.
As soon as you see someone advocating an energy source as "exclusive," that's when you run away from that advocate. They know not of what they speak.
-
StanO| 11.17.11 @ 1:19PM
Inverter efficiency has actually gotten fairly high. Even the cheap ones in your PC are 80%, but a quick search showed some at 92% for solar usage.
Appleby| 11.15.11 @ 8:22AM
Because we are on the shores of a Great Lake, we are using geothermal to cool buildings on the waterfront to save power off the grid. But this will only work if one lives or works near the shore. The best way to bring down the cost of energy and require less is to return to building the way our grandparents (if we are old enough, otherwise our great-grandparents) built when they heated with wood or coal and cooled with fans: thick walls and recessed windows, and long underwear indoors. It is plain silly to expect to be comfortable in tropical attire indoors when the weather outdoors is arctic.
Pecos Pete| 11.15.11 @ 8:51AM
Solar requires the sun to shine. Snow storms, etc, prevent sun power and require a fall back to batteries. Batteries! A long storm and batteries begin to fail. Oh dear.
Wind powered electric generation is even more troublesome.
Doctor_X touches on the real weakness of wind and solar with the comment about the smart grid. The power grid can not currently support widely dispersed electric generation. Nor do they support the need for concentrated power at manufacturing plants.
Solar and wind generation of electricity for broad consumption are both doomed to failure.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 11:15AM
Batteries are only one way to store solar energy. For example, "Solar Power All Day and All Night: A Video Tour of Spain’s Gemasolar Plant" at
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/i.....-plant.cnn
A number of power storage solutions are emerging, and in any case, why not backup solar with geothermal, or even some nuclear. These engineering issues are constantly evolving and changing. Technology will go in surprising directions, changes come suddenly. Keep an open mind.
Skippy| 11.15.11 @ 3:17PM
I love scientific advances!
Develop it; build it; market it, and if it is cheaper than PG&E, I'll buy it.
Till then, it's 4 cords a year and gas heat backup.
And I live in Wine Country!
My sympathies to Mlle. Appleby.
I used to live on those lakes.
Brrrr!
Curtis Rasmussen| 11.15.11 @ 3:24PM
I think the term we are looking for is 'capacity factor'. In any given year, Wind turbines produce power 20% of the time, and solar produces even less due to cloud cover, night, dirt and dust, etc... Also, the cost of building a solar or wind plant is still as high as a coal plant. Using the same resources to build a plant that is running only 1/3 of the time compared to coal is ludicrous.
Let private industry solve its own problems. if there is money to be made from wind and solar in some niche market, then a shrewd entrepreneur can find it. Get the government subsidies and loan guarantees out of the way.
Aces and Eights| 11.15.11 @ 8:56AM
Isn't it amazing how much taxpayer money is spent to subsidize an inefficient product just to placate the egos of a very small number of narcissistic politicians?
dave clowes| 11.15.11 @ 9:14AM
it isn't their egos that are being placated, but their wallets and re-election funds.
Aces and Eights| 11.15.11 @ 11:03AM
And what purpose do their wallets and re-election funds serve? Their egos. Don't underestimate the importance such "people" place on their own egos. "WINNING!" elections, being "IN CHARGE!," and having throngs of sycophants look up to them and cheer them, these are the motivations that drive politicians, who measure success not by any objective standard, but on acquiring and holding public office and the attention this generates. In other words, it is far less important that solar energy is a practical, economical power source, than it is for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to garner attention and praise for championing it and funding it (with other people's money, that is.)
Frekki| 11.15.11 @ 8:58AM
I'm paying 10 cents a kilowatt hour in a non electric house (lights, TV and computor only). When solar panel are as cheap as tar paper call me.
Frekki| 11.15.11 @ 9:00AM
eieio, yes, it's computer. Spell check doesn't help comprehension.
Frekki| 11.15.11 @ 9:03AM
Man!, where's the coffee, it's "solar panels".
Aces and Eights| 11.15.11 @ 11:05AM
I think you should download a Starbucks Latte straight away! With that "extra shot" of espresso! :-)
Chalkdust| 11.15.11 @ 9:35AM
The clowns that "advise" the likes of Al Gore and Barry Obama have told them unless and until you can find a way to increase the cost of everybodies electricity by a factor of between x-5 or x-10, wind turbine/solar collector farms are dead,dead, dead issue.
The earths habit of circling the sun, ever-changing weather, frequent turbine break drowns, interstate transmission line losses, intra-building line losses makes any energy generated with other than fossil fuel or atomic energy unable to sustain a vigorous USA economy.
If it wasn't for taxpayer dollars being spread around so lavishly, not a single wind turbine nor solar collector farm would exist today. Anybody that doubts that statement is a, a, a, well... not very smart . Having said that, it doesn't preclude the use of residential solar collectors connected to battery storage systems for the use of DC lighting/convince outlets inside homes as a life-time investment. Solar water heating systems to heat/supplement domestic water, swimming pools and some mild whole-house heating applications are also viable in certain areas as a life-time investment.
For the gang of liberals, pine-cone eaters and other lunkheads that wish otherwise....I'm sorry it's oil, gas, coal, dams and atomic energy for the forseeable future. Drill baby drill!!!
StanO| 11.17.11 @ 1:23PM
You're right, people will do what makes sense. Traditional outside lighting will be gone soon, replaced with solar lights. Pools with roof heating are common.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.15.11 @ 9:44AM
Paul Krugman. Doesn't he have a Nobel Prize in Economics? Didn't Yasser Arafat get one for Peace? Didn't Al Gore get one? Didn't the THING in our White House get one for Peace, as well? And, didn't he get his, BEFORE he'd even been elected? (Perhaps he got his for voting 3 times, to deny Medical attention to BABIES, who somehow survived their Abortionist's Knife) Anyway.
Can somebody name for me, ANYONE on the New York Times Staff, who has ANY CREDIBILITY, in ANYTHING? Who? Thomas (I never saw a mirror I didn't wanna kiss) Friedman? What about Frank (I wish that was me in those tights, hanging upside down with my Boyfriend in La Cage) Rich. The Theatre Critic, and the guy who thinks that the world can't get along without his Idiotic, and ALWAYS WRONG Commentaries. But I digress.
As I recall. Paulie Shore spent the entire 8 years of GWB, railing against THE DEFICITS. George Bush's biggest deficit was in the $400Billion range. But, now, low and behold, with his guy running up TRILLION dollar Deficits every year? Ferret Face Krugman has had an Epiphany on the Road to Ruin.
Now, with George Bush's $400 Billion Deficits being a "Rounding Error" in the scheme of things, our Keynesian Hero - Paul - has changed his tune. According to him: "We're not spending enough." "Deficits are not a problem." And, my personal favorite: "There's nothing wrong with INFLAION."
So, let's hear it for a guy who's Batting a thousand. He's ALWAYS wrong. The very idea that Always Wrong Krugman would be touting Solar Power. is all anyone needs to know about that Industry.
And, as far as the Nobel Prize goes. I hold it right up there with the Pulitzer, when I say: I have more respect for The RAZZIES.
Chalkdust| 11.15.11 @ 10:02AM
T.L.P. This is the best, most stinging, dead-on rant so far this month. It makes me feel good just reading it.
fmm| 11.15.11 @ 11:28AM
Reminds me of a guy in school who we would ask what to do about any problem and then do exactly the opposite as he was always wrong also. Maybe they should rename Crutchmans Nobel Prize (spelling not a typo).
Cantalopian| 11.15.11 @ 11:47AM
Excellent, excellent commentary!
Sgt. Thomas Anderson| 1.2.12 @ 5:48PM
I'd just like to say, I don't disagree with you. But consider this;
$400 billion is a lot of money. Just because the current president sucks doesn't make the last one any better my friend, remember, George Bush?
Started a war with a country under false pretenses? (They did *not* have WMDs)
Ran up a massive deficit *also*?
Removed the largest natural wildlife preserve in the United States so it could be used for drilling oil, thus causing hundreds of species to go extinct?
Sure, the president sucks. But they all suck. Don't try and make it out like George Bush was a hero, he was a politician.
$400 billion could well be a drop in the bucket in comparison, but it was $400 billion that didn't need to get spent.
Coincidentally I really don't know where you got that figure, the U.S. spent more than $1 trillion on the Iraq war alone while under his leadership, and we were already in the hole before that?
And yes, the Nobel Prize is a joke, beyond a joke. It's an insult. Read the Wikipedia article, the people who have earned it before... I'm honestly a little surprised Hitler isn't on the list, it would be in keeping with the rest.
Anyways, I don't mean to attack you personally. But don't blame the current administration. Blame *all* of the administrations. Arguments could be made for any of them that hey, they did such and such, or lowered some tax, or whatever, but in reality, none of them did what needed to be done, or what they promised. We shouldn't just say, "Hey, politicians are liars." We should hold them to higher standards, not just let them slide. We should demand competency from our government, or revise it until it is competent.
"Whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government."
~The Declaration of Independence
People, our government isn't working. It's not working in and of itself, and it's certainly not working for us. It may be time for (the people) to come together, and consider an alternate form. It could (and should) be done peaceably, and be a gentle reform. However, we should NOT keep limping along with the same broken system we have now. Look at the people who have gotten elected. Republicans, look at Obama. Democrats, look at George Bush. Are you happy with how *our* country is being run? Are you able to say, contentedly, that we are in good hands?
This| 1.2.12 @ 5:52PM
I agree with this. It doesn't really matter what one side did, or what another side did. Guys, our government sucks. It's not doing its job. And we need something new. I'm a Republican, and I love that quote from the Declaration. We need revision, this system really, really isn't working. Can we come together on this? Can we agree that, hey, we don't even really like each other, but one thing that we know is that
1)Politicians are known for being scumbags
2)Our government can't seem to do almost anything right
3)We'd like something new
cowboysFan2011| 1.2.12 @ 5:55PM
Yes. Let's please just be done with what we've been putting up with. I'm not much into politics, but I've read the declaration of independence and I gotta say, that's not what we have now.
DemocraticMan| 1.2.12 @ 6:02PM
I'm a registered Democrat. I can also see the problem here. I wouldn't mind having a chat, even if there were a bunch of Republicans there, to discuss the future of our country. I know we disagree on a lot of things (a LOT) but fact of the matter is, I'd rather sit through having a massive argument with a bunch of you guys then continue dealing with this broken system. I support Obama, but fact of the matter is, he hasn't done *anything* of any real consequence. My fellow Democrats will no doubt disagree, but really guys? He didn't make the health care system he promised, he didn't stop the war in Iraq, he just renamed it... and I'm beginning to think the problem isn't the individuals themselves (Bush, Obama) but the system. It's really not working too great if we're sliding so far into this hole of debt, and having recessions, and still haven't brought our freaking troops home! I mean, how hard is that? Thank you Sergeant for this post.
Anthony| 11.15.11 @ 9:49AM
You too can send your child to Princeton University, for $60,000 a year, to be taught by the likes of Paul Krugman and Cornell West.
The corruption of American higher education is almost complete.
Cantalopian| 11.15.11 @ 11:53AM
Or send 'em to Duke. Have stupid, angry, creepy faculty torture your children for 60K a year.
Anthony| 11.15.11 @ 1:37PM
You mean set them up for a pubic lynching, all on the word of a drug addled prostitute, because the politics was sooo right in the twisted minds of the leftist faculty .
Great article in the AT on this, btw. The Duke president, (Bodhead) who is assumed to act on behalf of these kids when at college, In Loco Parentis, was quoted as saying these kids needed to be sacrificed for the sake and reputation of Duke.
They were also advised by a school official, a lawyer by the way, not to seek legal counsel.
These kids came within an inch of life sentences to prison, all with the help of the Duke Administration and faculty.
I only hope they took Duke financially to the cleaners.
JimH| 11.15.11 @ 10:03AM
Remarkable how those on the left will invoke what they claim to be science when they think it will support some nostrum they have, but look upon it with skepticism and impute selfish motives when it disproves some fondly held pipe dream of theirs. Terrestrial based solar power can be useful in isolated sunny regions, otherwise not so much. For solar to be truly effective you need orbiting collectors and beam the power down via microwave
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 11:19AM
Just don't wander into that microwave beam. You won't believe how fast you tan.
The orbiting solar collector thing was floated in the mid 70's. Haven't seen anybody transmitting AC current via microwaves yet. Except in my Radar Range. It's another technology we have just simply failed to utilize because of [evil corporations!] You know, the ones sitting on top of cold fusion and the 97 mpg carburetor who won't let us have them.
Dream on.
JimH| 11.15.11 @ 12:34PM
From what I read, admittedly a while back, the microwaves would be sent to large antenna farms and be quite diffuse in any one spot. A bird flying through migh feel slightly warmed. The biggest issue was reducing the cost of launching everything into orbit.
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 2:14PM
Jim;
Think about this - if the bird only gets slightly warmed, the energy density cannot be very high. Therefore to get a meaningful amount of energy you'll need a very large energy-receiving antenna farm. You'll also have to place into orbit solar collectors, controllers, and a re-radiating antenna, then build the antenna farm.
I'm thinking that a single gas turbine producing a similar amount of power would be an awful lot cheaper and less impactful on the environment.
And it's on the shelf. Do we even have a space travel program in this country anymore?
Stan Redmond| 11.15.11 @ 2:55PM
Orbital solar collectors will never work unless you live on said collector (ISS).
howard lohmuller| 11.15.11 @ 10:22AM
Mr. Tucker has pierced the bubble of occult confusion that is Paul Krugman. Sadly, it's not a difficult thing to do. Mr. Krugman has been writing nonsense for the New York Times and other publications with lax editorial standards for years because he is also Dr. Krugman, a PHD in economics who won a Nobel prize.
One hopes that Dr. Krugman might one day awake and say, as Ross Perot's Vice Presidental candidate did, "Who am I and what am I doing here?"
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 10:24AM
Articles bashing the “opponents” are tiring - I wish I was as intelligent as Krugman, or a tenth as accomplished. The fact is, no one, least of all Krugman believes in a “Moore’s Law” for solar energy; it’s just an analogy. The important, and simple, point solar energy advocates are making is that Solar Energy is the only energy source whose price of production is falling. Solar uses less land than coal mining consumes. While solar photo voltaic is available part time, concentrating solar is available 20 hours a day if heated water is stored for night time use. Many forms of back-up are available for solar, even nuclear if necessary. Solar combined with geo-thermal may provide an ideal energy mix which will power civilization for centuries. Fossil fuel energy sources are based on labor intensive, environmentally destructive mining operations. Why not replace mining with capital intensive, low labor energy forms like solar. In fact, isn’t that how economies grow, by replacing labor with capital, raising the efficiency of production so that more is available for less? Why shouldn’t this be true in the field of energy production too? Get the politics out of these discussions and stick to the science. We should all be thankful that dedicated scientists and engineers are pursuing all sorts of energy alternatives and that risk taking entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in pursuit of making a buck are eager to back their efforts.
Aces and Eights| 11.15.11 @ 11:14AM
"We should all be thankful that dedicated scientists and engineers are pursuing all sorts of energy alternatives and that risk taking entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in pursuit of making a buck are eager to back their efforts."
This is the problem. All those "venture capitalists" are running away from solar. Only the politicians are "eager" to back the "efforts" for so-called "alternative energy" and politicians don't spend their own money. They spend MY money! It is the politicians who disregard science and push politics into business and science. We on this page don't bring politics in to it.
And, so what that Krugman uses "Moore's Law" as a analogy? It is a poor analogy and betrays a government centered mindset, not a respect for economics, business, and science.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 11:26AM
Point taken, subsidies are political. But to me that just means that government supports industries which lobby government for funds. Sorry to disagree. Fossil Fuels get more subsidies than Alternative energy. "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....y-iea.html
Venture capital continues to flow into solar energy, see for example 1366 technology. Lots of examples. This is the system we are stuck with. Somehow in a chaotic way technology advances and we all benefit, solar or otherwise.
Moores Law may be a bad analogy, but its not a reason to be bashing a brilliant economist like Krugman. Everyone has a piece of the truth.
Stan Redmond| 11.15.11 @ 2:58PM
Fossil fuels WORK!!! And define subsidies please. Tax write-offs by oil companies in my book are not the same as the pure taxpayer money given to "renewable" energy companies. An oil company actually has to produce a product that everyone uses and spend their own money to develop the products. Solar and Wind are GIVEN billion and never spend their own money because they simply don't work economically.
StanO| 11.17.11 @ 1:31PM
And it's unclear whether these write-offs are any more than other businesses typically get.
That article refers to governements worldwide. Where some governments actually reduce the price to help consumers.
Wait what| 1.2.12 @ 5:30PM
Where are these governments that actually take care of their people? Please tell me, I want to move.
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 11:24AM
Ken,
I think you are as intelligent as Krugman.
Did that make your day?
Oh and economies grow through wealth creation not just the replacement of labor with capital equipment.
And why do we have to install a form of power that requires a more expensive back up source more than half of the time? So you pay for capacity twice that you could have paid for once. That is NOT economic growth! It is a misallocation of assets.
And if you want the politics out of the allocation of resources, de-elect liberals, Democrats, RINO's , statists and the rest.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 11:32AM
Agreed about the expensive part (not the inelligence part, I assure you). If the technology costs more then it will not win in the marketplace. But before long other forms of energy production could be lower in cost than Fossil Fuels. I expect they will, you do not. We differ. Time will tell. Its just technology after all. As for wealth creation, the only way I know of to create wealth is by deploying more productive technology, history and economics has proven this to be so.
Aces and Eights| 11.15.11 @ 2:33PM
Economics is not dependent on technology. Some things are just labor intensive and technology does not always alleviate that. The key is cost of production vs. what the market will pay, and labor is part of the cost of production. If labor is cheap enough, advances in technology come more slowly, and only when needed. One of the reasons for the rapid advance in automation technology is the high cost of labor, a high cost due in large part to high taxes and regulatory compliance costs, mostly surrounding the use of labor. If taxes were lower, and consequently the cost of labor lower, then we would see less automation and more employment. If it is cheaper to employ people than to automate, then business will employ people. This is simple economics. The Romans knew this 2000 years ago. Ancient Rome had working models of what we would describe as modern machines (a steam engine, for example). But these were never developed beyond the model stage at that time because Romans owned slaves and slave labor was plentiful and cheap, much like it is today in China and sub-Saharan Africa (I am NOT advocating a return to slavery). It is principally government that causes labor costs to be artificially high and that drives business to automate, despite the expense of automating. The bottom line is, technology is not the driving force of economics, but a tool to be used economically, as is labor. With less interference from government and lower taxes, employment would rise and prosperity increase.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 4:06PM
Sorry to be a pest about this, you make some good points, but economics would disagree with your statement "The bottom line is, technology is not the driving force of economics, but a tool to be used economically, as is labor." Robert Solow, the economist, won the Nobel Prize in 1987 for proving that Technology is the sole driver of economic growth.
Solow said in his Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 8, 1987 available in full here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe.....cture.html
"More precisely: the permanent rate of growth of output per unit of labor input is independent of the saving (investment) rate and depends entirely on the rate of technological progress in the broadest sense."
His seminal paper is here:
http://faculty.lebow.drexel.ed.....w_1956.pdf
If you can improve on what Solow said, let him know. He is a very nice man and would love to hear what you think, I am sure.
Aces and Eights| 11.15.11 @ 6:02PM
"Growth of output per unit of labor" (e.g "productivity") is not the same thing as "economic growth." You can have one without the other.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 6:32PM
Why argue with me? I'm just telling you what Robert Solow said. I believe him, why not? Go tell him what you think, or read the references for yourself, really. Agree or disagree, its actually interesting stuff for anyone with an interest in economics.
sparch| 11.15.11 @ 10:25AM
There are two nagging problems with "solar energy". One is there have been no earth shaking innovation in photo voltaic cells in four to five decades. There have been tweeks but do little to advance the overall efficency of the systems to a sustainable energy source . There appears to be no innovation in the works that would change this.
Second, in order to make these system cost effective, large amounts of government subsidies must be paid just to get an average payback in fifteen to twenty years. Without these subsidies, an average sized residential system would pay for itself in seventy to eighty years, well beyond the life of the system.
I liked the idea of looking at molecular, atomic and sub-atomic particles. unfortunately this is not solar energy but atomic fusion or fission. There is no other way to release energy from these particles. I for one don't cherish the idea of having a nueclear reactor on my roof.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 11:07AM
All forms of energy get subsidies, globally Fossil Fuels by far get the biggest subsidies.. See for example this article at Bloomberg - "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....y-iea.html
The invention of the Solar Cell itself was the big breakthrough. After a big breakthrough all development is incremental.
For example this company, 1366 Technology, http://www.1366tech.com/ , has found a way to cut the cost of producing solar cells by 50%.
Brian| 11.15.11 @ 12:13PM
Fossil fuels provide over six times as much primary energy as "renewable" energy does (as the numbers in the article you referenced show). I don't know what kind of point you were trying to make—other than simply beating up on fossil fuels—but it's not a very good one.
You can't just look at how much is being spent without considering how much you're getting in return for the money. Maybe that's how Krugman does economics ;-), but the rest of us want to know whether we're getting our money's worth.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 1:21PM
True, but still subsidies for fossil fuels exist whereas many claim that it is the Solar energy industry which unfairly get subsidies which is not true.
And throwing disparaging comments at Krugman adds nothing to anyone's position.
I have no idea how to determine whether you get your money's worth. But I do trust markets, and in the long run the markets will move towards the most efficient fuel.
Riff Raff| 11.15.11 @ 3:56PM
I'm not sure what you mean by subsidies for fossil fuels. Sheik "Mumbo-Jumbo" building a new refinery in Kuwait is not a subsidy as we understand subsidies. The Sheik not only owns the refinery, the oil in the ground, and the infrastructure to distribute it, he also is the government. So, the Sheik is both industry AND government. Is this counted as a "subsidy?" Or a capital investment? If counted as a subsidy, then the numbers are skewed.
Dick Nome| 11.15.11 @ 1:38PM
We can stop calling oil and NG fossil fuels. They are not biogenic. Both are formed under heat and pressure deep in the mantle of Mother Earth and constantly being re-generated. Gee, is that renewable?? I guess so, and all natural to boot. Drill, baby, Drill.
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 2:27PM
Dick,
I read about this theory, too. They call it abiogenic petroleum origin.
Lookkee here: http://www.wordiq.com/definiti.....eum_origin
I fell in love with the idea. But it's still unproven, a lot of people are against it. One might wonder whether there is a political component to the skepticism. After all, if the earth is going to regenerate the so-called "non-renewable" fuels they really aren't "non-renewable." Which would let a lot more air out of their anti-progress parade's tires...
But it's not disproved. Here's to hoping that it is...
Dick Nome| 11.15.11 @ 3:31PM
Not a theory, it is pretty well proven at this point. It's not PC. Ever wonder why the best oil finds are along fracture zones and fault lines. Check them out.
I remember in the 50s when plate tectonics was still a "theory".
Good Call| 1.2.12 @ 5:21PM
Haha, yeah, those were the days. And now global warming is a 'theory' that people are rejecting based on evidence like, "I went outside, and it was cold today! Doesn't feel like it's getting any warmer to me!" Perhaps one day humanity will mature, move out, and find out how the world actually works.
Bart Stratton| 11.16.11 @ 11:31AM
You're argument is laughably untrue. America depleted its crude oil reserves in the 50s, none of that oil has "renewed" because it take millions of years. Now, we extracting shale oil which is dirtier & more exensive to extract and refine the light crude.
Your idea that we can sustain a civilization by using up all our oil and waiting aeons for it to renew, is a fantasy with suicidal consequences in the real world.
This| 1.2.12 @ 5:24PM
This. Exactly what he said. I wonder when people will realize that even though the earth will renew it's oil supply in a great number of years, that doesn't mean we can use up all that we have and it'll magically reappear, just when we need it again?
StanO| 11.17.11 @ 1:36PM
Of course cost reductions will help, new installation techniques etc. But that doesn't increase the efficiency.
Re: subsidies is an often misused term, it needs to be defined. And are we talking about the US or other countries? And, are we talking raw dollars or a percentage of economic activity? Because a $5B subsidy in the oil industry is a drop in the bucket.
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 11:27AM
ANY FORM OF SUBSIDY MEANS IT'S NOT ECONOMIC! NOT PROFITABLE! WASTE OF MONEY! BAD IDEA!
Questions?
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 11:42AM
Well of course, I agree 100%. Subsidies are not an efficient use of resources. Subsidies are poorly determined by brute force in the political give and take. And yet we have them. Try and stop them if you can. But more important the cheapest technology wins in the end anyway. Markets remain far more powerful than governments. Got to run. Nice discussing with you.
DC| 11.15.11 @ 1:38PM
Ken, you're both intentionally deceptive and delusional.
You don't begin to agree with DTOM "100%." You and Krugman both believe that a "tax credit" and direct government payouts are, equally, "subsidies." They are not. A tax credit (or a tax deduction) is no more or less than the government allowing an earner to keep what he/she/it has earned. The money is not, and never was, the government's. A government handout/bailout/payout to a firm that would not exist (or might exist, but would die soon because it is unprofitable) but for that government money--which is taken from taxes collected--is a subsidy. If--or maybe because--you can't or won't understand the difference, you peddle this nonsense. Ask yourself: if all government subsidies were to vanish tomorrow, what percentage of US electricity would be generated by natural gas or coal, as opposed to wind/solar? Would the proportion of the latter "renewables" rise or fall? The answer is crystal clear to any actual economist (or anyone who's read more than 5 Tom Sowell columns).
Now for the delusional part--that "markets remain more powerful than governments." Well, I guess that could have been true about 125 years ago in this country. Today it isn't, as we have a government that has decided that certain markets (auto, financial, health care) will only exist at government discretion and under its pervasive regulation. Your Dear Leader has decreed it to be so, and your bootlicking Senate Majority supports this elimination of actual "markets," and their subordination to what is a classically fascist, corporatist regime. Mussolini would have loved it, and apparently, so do you and Krugman. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess. But you shouldn't mock yourself by pretending that the sky remains blue--when it's been turned hammer & sickle yellow & red.
Ken| 11.15.11 @ 4:22PM
I guess you did not read what I said: I agree with you subsidies (or tax credits)distort markets, are not helpful. But I suppose you know better what I think as you rant against me anyway.
And I stick to my other point. Markets are more powerful than governments, so powerful in fact that corporations lobby governments to intefere in the markets to their benefit.
Markets are so powerful that they have nearly destroyed the European financial system. And if markets were not more powerful than government, why is coal the preferred form of electricity generation: Its cheapest. If solar beats coal on cost, then solar will replace coal, obviously, and regardless of government attempts to change the market.
And as I asserted earlier, throwing around disparaging remarks adds nothing at all to your arguments. Keep an open mind, everyone will be better off for it. We are all deluded to an extent, that is a given and is the reason to discuss our various viewpoints - so that we may have clearer thinking.
Bart Stratton| 11.16.11 @ 11:37AM
Writing in all caps doesn't make it true. Using subsidies to offset inefficiencies and encourage innovation is a proven method to get progress. How do you think we got the internet? Government subsidies for innovations which were then commercialized.
Your comment about subsidies is based on your belief in the mystical force of market efficiency. Fact is, markets are inefficient. At best efficieny is an ecnomic ideal used to help us gauge whether a market is working properly.
Good Call| 1.2.12 @ 5:19PM
Even though your argument is good, you just know someone is going to come along and point out that you spelled efficiency wrong, and completely derail the conversation.
Coincidentally, I don't agree with you, but I absolutely appreciate the value and legitimacy of your argument, well done sir.
hardcard| 11.15.11 @ 10:51AM
I think I qualify for that Nobel Prize; algore,krugman, obama. Where do I pick up the prize money ?
fmm| 11.15.11 @ 11:37AM
As many state here, none of the existing alternate technologies can replace fossil fuels as they don't supply reliable power and don't have sufficient energy density. New technologies are REQUIRED before meaningful progress can be made. And don't look toward CERN for the breakthroughs. Getting government out of the alternate energy area and allowing private entrepeneurs and inventors to have intellectual freedom may one day give us a reasonable advance. I am not holding my breath.
Occam's Tool| 11.15.11 @ 11:47AM
Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, not MD, engineer, physicist, chemist. He is a complete dolt outside of his limited field, and even in economics, ouside of his subspecialty sphere, his ideas are specious.
Thank you| 1.2.12 @ 5:16PM
Thank you for that information, that was very helpful.
Thank you| 1.2.12 @ 5:16PM
Thank you for that information, that was very helpful.
George S| 11.15.11 @ 12:09PM
As always, it is about control and not technology. The ability for government to determine you portion of health care, education or energy consumption is the key to statism -- for all three things are the bedrocks of a life of happiness and freedom.
You think we can power F-16's to defend our cities with solar? Maintain standing armies and armadas of warships with sails? Energy is freedom and anyone who chokes off the supply has bad things in his mind.
I have nothing against solar technology. But if we want to implement it large scale, then that requires a lot of capital. How about we ask the very wealthy liberals to contribute? They do not invest in the technology because they know it doesn't sell. When the Krugmans and the Moores and the Gores empty their checking accounts into alternative energy research, then we'll take them seriously. For now, let the free market do its thing. Make me a solar panel that is feasible and saves money, I'm in.
Oldefarte| 11.15.11 @ 12:22PM
It's difficult to credibly add to what TLP has pontificated above, but I'll try. If memory serves me, didn't Solendra cost the taxpayers approximately $500 million? Wow shazam what a bargain. Anyone who would give consideration to the Krugmanns, the Gores etc of this world should have their pea brains examined. This bookworms run to their bookshelves to find soluntions to problems, and the problems linger long after their books have been consulted and closed. What morons [speaking of which, what has that COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN CHIEF lectured Americans about today perhaps?]!!!!
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 2:33PM
Ol smelly,
And remember that the 500 million taxpayer dollars is basically half a billion of investable funds that were taken from market chosen opportunities and diverted to politically chosen, non-economic projects, which were predicted to fail.
Anybody remember how much the Spanish economy suffered when they got very aggressive in their subsidies of alternative energies. I believe that every renewable energy job created destroyed 2.5 private sector jobs. Sound familiar?
Bill| 11.15.11 @ 1:17PM
Paul Krugman, made in NY, paid by the Obama Administration, and lived in a trailer.
Ron| 11.15.11 @ 2:08PM
I was back home in Indiana in 2009, driving north on I65...Outside of West Lafayette there is now a "wind farm." My G-D it was obscene...acres of wind turbines, even in the rain and wind, barely turning...can someone explain to me how the enviro-freaks think this is a good idea?
DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 2:35PM
Yea, been there - they are ugly aren't they? They kill birds, too. California's been losing 75 golden eagles a year to them - not to worry, they still have 2,300 golden eagles left...that'd be a 30 year supply. Where are the environuts on that? Hmmm!?
Dick Nome| 11.15.11 @ 3:27PM
My sister, a liberal, was in Italy last summer. They saw a hillside populated with windmills and were so inpressed they took pictures. When she showed them after getting back, 1st thing my brother and I noticed was, they weren't turning. It never occurred to my BiL and sister to notice that. Not turning, so no wind , no power.
Dr. Dave| 11.15.11 @ 4:30PM
Great article. The author neglected to mention one of the rate limiting steps involved in Moore's law - heat dissipation. I suspect we'll start seeing a gradual slowing of the pace of Moore's Law. You can only make micro-electronics just so small and powerful until you are forced to contend with the physics of heat dissipation We have a way yet to go but sooner or later we'll smack into the wall of physics.
The author brilliantly described why there is no "Moore's Law corollary" with solar energy. We can only harvest what is there. We might get up to 35%...but that will take a while (again, physics gets in the way). Solar and wind generation for commercial applications is a grand scale exercise in STUPID.
Irish22| 11.15.11 @ 4:59PM
Congratulate yourselves all you want. The laws of physics (and economics) are nothing compared to politics. The "green plan" is simply to raise the price of predictable energy through fiat or regulation until wind and solar become "cheap". You want your lights and heater/cooler on all the time? Shame on you!
Polish23| 1.2.12 @ 5:12PM
I think the statement;
"You want your lights and heater/cooler on all the time? Shame on you!"
Would be better if revised as;
"You want your lights and heater/cooler on all the time, hang the consequences, and who cares what toll it takes on the environment? Shame on you!"
Since I swear I almost sensed sarcasm before.
John Mark Agosta| 11.15.11 @ 5:40PM
Tucker's is a narrow reading of technical improvement in an industry; each industry settles on a production improvement rate or learning curve. Moores's law of component density applies to semiconductor devices. If solar can maintain a 7% a year improvement rate then essentially Krugman is right to cite it.
Francine Timberlin| 1.2.12 @ 5:09PM
Regrettably, it can't, since we can't surpass 100% effectiveness at harnessing solar energy. However, Moore's law is flawed in the same way, since we can't make transistors smaller than an atom, so I suppose there's an argument to be made there as well.
Isaac Burbank| 11.15.11 @ 5:58PM
The author gets off to a good start with his heavy-handed reminder that Moore's Law only refers to circuit components (transistors in particular), but there are primary factual errors in this article:
First, he mentions that there's no law that states that the price of solar energy will continue to decline, but then suddenly switches his argument to the amount of energy which can be generated per unit area and expects tries to somehow connect this to the price issue he began with. The amount of available sunlight per square meter being constant has little or nothing to do with the price of solar energy. Cost of manufacturing, installation, efficiency, and upkeep are the primary factors determining energy price. And all of these are improving at a very surprising rate. Solar energy is indeed getting cheaper at a rate greater than 7% per year.
Second, the author claims that solar is three times more expensive as nuclear power, which is blatantly false. Unless of course you're counting the cost After nuclear power receives it's 7+cents per kWh in subsidies. At this price, it would be cheaper for the government to buy energy on the market and give it to consumers for free. Nuclear energy is not only dangerous, but it's completely uneconomically expensive after its myriad subsidies are taken into account.
Marc Jeric| 11.15.11 @ 7:01PM
Nonsense - the "subsidy" this eco-nazi mentions is the federal government's liability insurance for which the nuclear power plants pay every year. The real cost on nuclear electricity is around 8 cents per kilowatt/hour - closely comparable to conventional sources. Also, the only realistic renewable energy source which is also very eco-friendly is hydro power - but then our eco-nazis are against that too.
Bart Stratton| 11.16.11 @ 11:18AM
Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three mile island are the real cost of nuclear energy.
No| 1.2.12 @ 5:07PM
It's invalid to measure the viability of a source of energy by the failure of a few attempts. That said, nuclear energy is most definitely not a good long-term option, since it produces nuclear waste. As Marc Jeric said, hydro power is the way to go. It can be passively gathered, it's very consistent, and doesn't produce a direct and constant negative effect on the environment. Ecosystems are ruined with hydro too, as with any ... well any building, really. But at least hydro doesn't produce as many harmful byproducts constantly, like smog from coal plants, or radioactive waste.
Marc Jeric| 11.15.11 @ 6:55PM
Solar energy? There is no such thing: it is intermittent, extremely expensive, not there when most needed. It is also the result of the Sun's continuous nuclear hydrogen bomb explosion. Well - think about it!
ApostayUSA| 11.15.11 @ 8:14PM
Awe....Really? Only a right wing hack would ignore the hundred Petawatts of energy available from the sun, simply to score some points against what they perceive as a left-wing hack. Now that's funny!
Last time I checked it a was American companies who brought their business to China to build PV panels, so if you want to blame somebody for the price of PV falling over the years you need look no further than the mirror. Come on! What isn't made in China these days?
So despite the ranting of a right-wing oil drinker, Solar Power, although a newborn in the world of energy, does not have a cloudy future at all. Solar energy's future is as bright as the sun.
Electricity is the future of energy. Let's generate it as cleanly as possible.
OK?
Riff Raff| 11.16.11 @ 1:44AM
You clearly are delusional.
"Electricity is the future of energy." This is like saying water is wet. Electricity IS energy. And solar power will never be a centralized source of electricity. It has a future as a DE-centralized, local (e.g. individual household or small business) source of electricity, but even that depends on cost breakthroughs that are not yet seen on the horizon.
As for the "hundred Petawatts of energy available from the sun" if you intercept these Petawatts in sufficient quantity you degrade the energy available to plants for photosynthesis and to warm the Earth by radiation. Energy can be used once. If you take it for one purpose, you lose it for another purpose. Go back to school.
SureBut...| 1.2.12 @ 5:01PM
Sure, only solar panels aren't 'clean energy' since there are tons of rare (read:non-renewable) and toxic chemicals used in their production.
By the by, bravo on somehow making this a political thing. Coincidentally, I'm a liberal. Fact of the matter is, solar energy is clean energy. Solar panels are not clean. Solar energy isn't infinite, and even if petawatts of energy are produced every second by reactions in the sun, the only energy we have access to here are radiation, i.e. heat and light. We don't have access to the full energy of the sun from here, just what it sheds and sends flying off into the cosmos.
POST American| 11.15.11 @ 9:53PM
----Krugman has gone from being
a Globalist RED China apologist,
to being a sicko-hant, and finally
---a PSYCHO-phant.
The definitive PSYCHO-phant
The US taxpayer underwritten RED China
------set up
----------sellout
-------------TREASON
----------------and unfolding EUGENICS OPS
are absolutely the ONLY thing to be looking at.
--------------HUAC/NUREMBERG 2012-------------
------Tick ---Tick ---Tick ----Tick ----Tick!
Bart Stratton| 11.16.11 @ 11:15AM
William Tucker you fail economics. While Moore's law is about computing power, ceterus paribus a doubling of power at the same price is the equivalent of cutting the price in half.
You also don't seem to grasp physics, you write that there is less power on the microscopic level, but in fact, there is more power level at that which is why nuclear bombs are so much more energetic than conventional bombs. I know I'm taking you slightly out of context here, but microscopic innovations in solar cell production could lead to massive improvements in efficiency -your general dismissal of that possibility sinks to the level of moronism. Two Fs for you, sir.
William Tucker| 11.17.11 @ 11:12PM
Dear Mr. Stratton,
You're right that if you go down far enough into the microsphere, you encounter a lot more energy. I wrote about this in The Spectator in 2008 in an article called "There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom."
http://spectator.org/archives/.....rgy-at-the
I thought it was a very important article and extremely relevant to the times, although nobody's ever picked up on it very much. What we're talking about, as you say, is called "nuclear energy."
Phil Frankson| 1.2.12 @ 4:37PM
Using latin in an English conversation doesn't make you seem more intelligent if your point is inaccurate. Moore's law says, period, that the number of transistors we can fit on a chip will double roughly every 18 months. Additionally, Moore's second law says that this will continue *until costs become too prohibitive*. One transistor doesn't cost a certain amount regardless of size, the cost of a transistor increases in an amount inversely proportionate to it's size. Just because one square inch of silicon may cost a certain amount regardless of the number of transistors on it, doesn't mean the cost of the equipment needed to manufacture that inch doesn't increase. Unless you genuinely think that when we're building electron gates a few atoms across, it will cost the same to manufacture a chip as it did when we first started building transistors. Please, please think before you post. And even if we get to 100% efficiency with solar panels, we'd eventually have to cover the entire earth in shade in order to power everything, because a set amount of sunlight hits the earth, and a set amount of energy can be extracted at the maximum from each square meter. Now, a question for the other commentators, does an idiot calling a person smarter than himself a moron count as irony?
Mitch Bogart| 11.16.11 @ 5:03PM
The REASON Moore's law works for computational silicon is this. Transistors are mainly the boundaries of two types of material. Boundaries have one fewer dimension. Think of a checker board. Regardless of the size of a board, you have the same number of black-white edges. As you are able to make smaller boards you can fit more of them on the same amount of material, though.
A solar cell or collector, however, has output proportional to its area. It's benefit, like a flat TV, is proportional to area. Shrink a TV and it gets less useful. See the difference, Mr. Krugman?
Willy| 11.17.11 @ 3:10PM
Paul Krugman, like another Nobel Prize winner living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is enamored by his own brilliance despite empirical evidence that he is dead wrong.
Marc Jeric| 11.17.11 @ 4:45PM
With Al Gore, that bloviating gasbag and functional moron in charge, we have nothing to fear. Except:
1) Solar energy is available only 40% of the time (nights, clouds, early mornings, late afternoons - take the other 60%);
2) Solar electricity, when available, is 5-10 times more expensive;
3) It is also environmentally destructive - kills birds, eliminate all life in the shade of panels, requires much water and labor in daily cleaning dust from panels; and
4)Solar energy comes from the continuous hydrogen nuclear bomb explosions by the sun.
bob| 11.17.11 @ 10:58PM
Imagine the environmental impact of 20 square miles of eternal shade.
gwkimball| 11.20.11 @ 5:39AM
Your central point, that it is a fundamental misconception to apply Moore's law to solar energy is correct. The fundamental reason is that energy is conserved and information is not. You can double the amount of information in the same space at will (wait 18 months). You cannot double the amount of sunlight that falls by diddling with a device. You can absorb more of it, but no more than all of it. Duh.
Krugman is completely wrong. It's depressing to see someone in his position who is clueless about basic science.