http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071205/full/450768a.html
The downside is that research investments in alternative energy research (which are not usually made by venture capitalists,) have remained flat for many years. This could be a problem, because there are still many technological and even basic science challenges that need to be addressed, before alternative energy like wind power, solar, and biofuels can really replace fossil fuels as our major energy supply. But the increase in venture capital going into companies that are using new solar and other alternative energies is a very promising development, since it signifies that the private sector has come to the conclusion that there is a strong market for the existing technologies, and that companies selling alternative energy products are now profitable and will become even more so in the future. One interesting (and hopeful) item in the article was the fact that one recipient of some of this capital investment was the Yingli Green Energy Holding Company, located in China. Perhaps this is an early sign that the Chinese are not ignoring the pressing need to start using alternative methods to satisfy their fast growing energy needs. More discussion of some of the positive trends in energy and environmental developments can be found at www.wherewestand.net.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
China has become a hotbed for solar investment. I am not going to name specific companies because this is not an investing blog, but there are a bunch of them. One problem this year has been a serious shortage of silicon, the basic building block on solar power cells. Too many companies are competing for the silicon supply! This situation should improve in a couple years. It is inevitable that costs will continue to sink for solar cell manufacture, which is good because it still costs more to produce electricity from solar than it does from CO2 emitting coal.
I think we are going to hear a great deal of noise from solar energy over the next few years. It is I believe going to undergo a massive expansion, with the most succesful firms becoming major economic players and some of the less well managed ones disappearing. The problem is that solar needs to expand even more massively to take the place of coal before it is too late to slow climate change.
It is a reality of our lives that our government subsidizes coal and oil in many ways, some of them visible and some not. it also subsidizes ethanol on a massive scale. So it would only be consistent if Congress and the Pres would sign off on the climate security bill that requires utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from renewables. But no, the problem with that is the coal and oil lobbies do not like competitition. So they are quietly killing the bill.
We need a new president and 5 fewer republican senators for this to happen. I don't like to be partisan, but this is how it is.
John and Heather
Actually there has been a very recent and dramatic downturn in the capital costs of both wind and solar energy, so they are now quite profitable. I think this is also going to be a trend
Right on target as ususal. Actually Chris, the Nature article did mention China and singled out one company by name that has attracted lots of investment capital.
You guys are right about needing a new direction from our governmnet on this. Its ironic that private industry is really taking the lead, I suppose because there is money to be made.
Yes, a good point. Many people are asking that question. Good to see you here, hope all is well. (Great book folks, buy it now!!)
I've wondered for some time why there isn't a larger investment of money and time into alternative energies.
Thanks for the comments. Julie, I agree. Viv, not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.
It's a shame our government spends money on protecting the oil and coal industry when it should be leading the way to a new clean energy.
Even in dark Minneapolis their are some solar panels on some roofs. There was sun out today.
Being in the midwest, I haven't seen the surge in solar energy use, but windmills are going up all over the place around here. Some companies in the area erect a windmill for their energy use, and then sell any excess energy produced to the electric company,who resells it to the public (at a profit). I think this might encourage more companies to build windmills for their energy needs. I'm sure they eventually pay for themselves, though I'm not sure how much maintanance they require.
Do you think hydrogen fuels will have an important part in future energy needs? Are they a viable replacement for fossil fuels? I just can't see myself driving a solar powered or wind powered car in the future. Perhaps an electric car that is charged by an outlet which ultimately gets its energy from solar/wind. I suppose that would work.
Yes, we need more research. Definately.
There is a whole group on Gather led by Sam Carana devoted to hydrogen and also electric vehicles. The technology is changing so fast that you cannot be sure what you will be driving ion a few years time. Think of telephone technology in the past decade.
Speaking of which JK, the improvements in solar panels are remarkable. You should check them out. They are also coming way down in price.
Yes, please send the links in a comment. Im sure lots of others will be interested.
Alternatives are growing by leaps and bounds, but are still limited by their intermittency.
Jamie,
"Do you think hydrogen fuels will have an important part in future energy needs? Are they a viable replacement for fossil fuels?"
Some day possibly, but my money is on bio diesel, a lot of bio diesel can be made in a small area by growing algae, the algae can even absorb C02 from the flue gasses of existing fossil fuel power plants making them a lot cleaner.
Reading omens and predicting portentious beginnings is a game for fools, just check out our Stock Market some time.
What do you really think would happen, if oil prices were cut in half, and the cost of a barrel of crude actually went back to $50.00 ???
That VC money would be gone so fast it would make your head spin, and we'd be "back to normal" just like what happened after 1973, and we learned how to hate OPEC for the first time.
Anyone that believes fossil fuels are going anywhere over the next 200-300 years, isn't really reading the tea leaves accurately.
Do you think the world has enough fossil fuel to last the next 200-300 years? thats not what I have read. Not with China and India coming on board. Would you send us a link or something, I have never seen such an optimisti view. Even coal, wouldnt do it.
You are right, that drops in oil prices have screwed up previous attempts to jump start alternate energy. But now there is a difference. Once this investment is made, it will be cheaper to keep on going with wind and solar even if oil drops to $50. In other words if the oil companies really want to keep control (I dont think they do, they are after all major investors in alternate energy now) they better do something fast before Germany and UK hit their goals of 30% or more alternative energy generation.
I'm not shy about mentioning specific companies. Nanosolar, a company that has pioneered a solar "panel", which is painted on inexpensive, conducting metal sheets, is building manufacturing plants in California and Germany. This is no mistake since governments of California and Germany have policies favorable to solar energy. Nanosolar states it is able to make solar cells 100x thinner, 100x faster than traditional solar cells, at 1/10th the cost. Nanosolar was cited in The Clean Tech Revolution as one of the companies most likely to bring about a $5K residential solar system by 2015.
Charles: "I'd be screwed relying on solar here in MN we've barely seen the sun in weeks."
Actually not. Solar is being used in Canada and Germany without any problem.
Yes I do, much longer actually, I was merely being prudent.
Shale holds much promise for American companies, because it is abundant and most of it is found in the United States. A Rand study says that the bounty could fuel American cars and homes for more than 400 years, if shale could meet a quarter of current American demand of about 20 million barrels a day. SOURCE
In 1900, we couldn't imagine drilling for oil at the bottom of the ocean, and the amount of oil the world thought it had, grew exponentially as drilling in the ocean became a reality.
Shale ALONE, has the ability to reshape the ENTIRE DYNAMIC of the equation, and offer up more damn oil than anyone has ever dreamed of.
Even coal, wouldnt do it
Wrong again bubba.
Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for 95 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. The United States has about 275 billion tons of recoverable coal, which could last us more than 250 years if we continue using coal at the same rate as we use it today. In addition, the United States has more than 25 percent of the world's estimated coal reserves. SOURCE
OK, solar is mentioned as being viable in California, and the southwest, and someone upthread mentioned it's used in Canada and Germany. But how would it work in seriously gray places like here in Ohio, or huge power consumers in New York or the northeast? Is wind power a better alternative in those places? Windmills on top of skyscrapers? Not being sarcastic, those are real questions.
In a few years I'll be building a new home in Florida, and hope to incorporate as many alternate energy options as possible, but for an existing older home in the midwest, what are my options now?
And I'm always interested when I see people say "why doesn't the government..." or the government should..." As a libertarain, I automatically substitute the word "taxpayers" for "government". How much of these costs are we the people willing to bear? Not only in tax dollars, but in jobs and supporting industries? I'm glad to see private VC in this. In my mind, it's the only way this will work.
Thanks for stirring up the old brain tonight.
The problem with venture capitalist is they tend to invest in things with a more short term value back on money invested. As a result, I'm not at all surprised that they are involved with lateral products of alternate energy. Still those products are not enough to replace fossil fuels. By investing in the research end of it, the knowledge garnered could indeed show more effective ways to use these products. There are some savvy businesses out there that are looking long term and in emerging research. Again, there are some immediate gains by so investing.
The outcry of citizens being forced into diverting money from other vital needs (like food, for instance) to fuel transportation and heating have begun to force the PTB to look to other sources to supplement existing fossil fuels. To bring down the costs. These 'supplements' are at best a quick fix. Bio-fuels, while promising, still aren't enough. Ethanol sounds great, but again it's only stretching the existing fuel, not releasing us from its hold.
A saw a comment about enough coal and shale to continue to 'fuel' us for 400 years…maybe so. I would imagine that estimate depends upon a lot of variables. Frankly I feel to continue to explore that area as a fix is short term. Unless of course a person is only concerned with their life-time. If the research monies are spent in that direction, it's not solving the problem is it? Wouldn't you say it's only prolonging the existing problem? If our focus continues in that direction what's the cost, both to our environment and our quality of life? I would rather focus our energies and money towards better forms of taking care of our energy needs. Forms that don't destroy the only home we have presently.
That's why I think it's exciting to see publicity for alternate energy sources. The more publicity for these lateral products there is, the more it will draw in funds. As long as you can demonstrate profit along the way, you can get the attention of venture capital companies. A snowballing effect. There isn't a quick fix. But there is something my father used to say, about throwing good money after bad. You can only fix a car or appliance for so long. Eventually the cost to 'fix' becomes more costly than buying new. We need new and different, not the same old patched junk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/americas/19braziloil.html
While Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras, has known of the field for more than a year, it only finished assessing its full potential in recent months. It announced on Nov. 8 that the field held some five billion to eight billion barrels of crude oil and natural gas.
Also if we want energy independence maybe we should allow companies to look a little closer to home instead of telling them sorry you can't look in the gulf or Alaska or other places here at home.
We should look for other means to fuel our economy but till something truly viable that doesn't cause more problems than it solves(ethanol) we should use the resources at home.
insane EPA restrictions have prevented any new refineries from being built since the 70's and with oil companies being to that the government is going to force them to not be able to sell their products we're never truly going to be energy independent.
Many claim to want energy independence but only on their terms(restrictions).
BTW Chris I was being a little facetious.
And if you think that those 2 are not capable of such behavior in defense of their gravy train, well think again.
Wherever you are be sure to check the local regs concerning installing solar P.V.s and wind turbines there may be restrictions.
For incentives you can check http://www.dsireusa.org/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1 this site also includes state specific information concerning interconnecting with the grid and net metering.
P.V. panels are less efficient in the northern areas but a system can be sized for just about any area, your place in Florida will not need near as many panels as your place in Ohio.
jJack,
"Anyone that believes fossil fuels are going anywhere over the next 200-300 years, isn't really reading the tea leaves accurately."
I don't doubt that you are correct but I believe fossil fuels will be around for quite some time because the cost to retrieve the oil will continue to rise and become so expensive that other sources will come into play to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
The guy who needs gas to fuel his trophy muscle car will have fuel for decades to come, but it's gonna cost him.
Chris,
"Pat S.- be careful in building a home in Florida. Do not build on land that is within 20 feet of sea level, because sea level is going to rise."
LOL even the IPCC has declared this AlGore "chicken little" declaration as unlikely.
In Minnesota, wind power has great potential and money is starting to go into that, in large part because of state legislation requiring investment in alternative energy technologies.
jJack: You are right about shale and untapped coal reserves, but the environmental damage and potential impact on climate change from fully exploiting those sources would be enormous. They should be considered last resorts if all else fails. I don't think you'd want your great-great-grandchildren to live on the wasteland left behind after it was all sucked out of the ground.
I believe the real long-term solution will be thermonuclear fusion (not the current fission-based technolgies that produce high-level radioactive waste). Fusion power could eventually provide sufficient power to sustain humans for billions of years, if they don't destroy the earth before the technology is developed. Only governments are willing to provide funding for such long-term solutions, because venture capitalists will not live long enough to reap any benefits. Governements MUST invest in such things if we are to find good solutions. And not all investments will pay off -- but we must still invest because SOME will pay off big time.
Pat: It's interesting that you have a knee-jerk negative reaction to funding supplied by taxpayers (theoretically for the primary benefit of the public) but not to private investment (theoretically for the primary benefit of the investors). Why is business inefficiency (in the form of outrageous excess compensation for executives) more palatable than government inefficiency (in the form of unneeded levels of bureaucracy, which may actually cost less than business inefficiency and benefit more people)? I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just curious.
I got my eyeball on Tesla Motors, If they have their 30k version available in 2009/2010 I will buy it no questions asked, ill even get the home charger that uses a solar panel to get your electricity from to charge the vehicle.
My major interest is in the environment. We need to remember that environmental damage is also a cost. If you doubt that, look at the regions of the world where sever environmental damage was allowed to progress (not the US, bot the former USSR and even worse, Eastern Europe). Several people have mentioned the environmental impact of shale and coal and deep oil extractions. We should be clear that we are not talking about ugly landscapes and loss of some exotic species of snail.
Serious environmental impacts (all documented as having occured in communist regimes, and starting now in China) include major health effects, complete loss of wildlife from rivers and forests, major forest damage, and loss of natural resoures such as farming land, and forests. (for details, see my book).
So, even for the most profit motivated capitalistic right wing whatever, the issue of the environment must be considered as part of the equation.
Thanks for your expert feedback on the venture capital side (way, way outside my own expertise). I agree strongly with you and Chris and others that research is vitally important to fund, but that it is not likely to come from investors who need to show a profit. Generally that is where the government comes in. This has been the pattern for health for some time. The NIH invests in research (yes, the tax payers foot the bill, Pat), and then the pharma industry takes the results and goes forward with the investment needed to produce drugs. Of course being a scientist, I will always say "More research please"
Fusion is great thing. But where are we on that? Any current estimates regarding timing? Is the research being funded? I have totally lost track after the cold fusion debacle.
The only reasons governments are willing to provide funding for nuclear energy is inertia and pork. Venture capitalists don't because nuclear is a bad investment. By comparison, venture capital is gravitating toward renewables.
It is nothing but spin that only nuclear energy can save us from climate change. Actually, nuclear is only an expensive and risky distraction. Ultimately, we will depend exclusively on renewables, and that will be because they are most economical.
Solar Revolution, Travis Bradford states, "The conclusion of the economic inevitability of solar energy has...been based on the assumption of improving relative economics for solar electricity. What has not been assumed is also important to consider....
The analysis supporting these conclusions dos not assume that governments will do more to encourage investment in renewable energy or that governments will impose disincentives on the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power....
The conclusions of this analysis do not rest on an assumed significant increase in the price of fossil fuels, though that is the most likely scenario....
Technological breakthroughs are also not assumed (or required) in this analysis. What is required is continued growth in cost-effectiveness and technical expertise of existing PV technology at recent historical rates...."
That's the problem with these greenie meanies, they just IGNORE anything that doesn't fit their CHICKEN LITTLE view of the universe.
Hermann Scheer, in his book, Energy Autonomy, challenges not only this assumption explicitly, but also the common myth that renewable energy cannot meet our energy needs quicker than other sources, such as nuclear.
These are assumptions, in part perpetuated by the established energy industries. Please keep that in mind, and - time permitting (I know everyone is busy) - please do some reading in the renewable energy literature.
Sorry I didnt acknowledge your point more directly. Others here did so, and I did agree wtih Dave, that while such reserves do exist (there is the acknowledgment) the cost of getting them, inluding the environmental cost, is not clear.
BTW, the coal link worked fine, but I could not get the shale oil one to work.
Next time a reall greenie goes at me, can I send them to you?
(PS, at least take a look at the book web site, I think you will be surprised).
See? doenst bother me a bit. Wasnt the first time, and I know it wont be the last.
Either way, it's irrelevant. There are also alot of stones left, but that doesn't mean we're stuck in the stone age.
I can appreciate your point of view here, but I would also point out that in California and Germany, where governments have taken a supportive role toward renwables, solar is advancing more even more quickly than in other places. For example, Nanosolar (linked above) has just built large manufacturing plants in California and Germany. Germany has just mandated
that all new homes are to be built with renewable energy for heating, and in California, solar homes are selling very well, despite the generally depressed housing market.
I'm not trying to argue, just give you something to think about as we slouch toward serfdom.
Again, I'm not trying to stir up an argument. The argument is over. My side lost. The instant politicians realized they could take from Peter and give a piece of the booty to Paul and rely on Paul's vote, the war was over.
Here's something to think about. The average power that can be taken from the sun is about 1KWh per square meter. The power in a gallon of gasoline is 34KWh.
Beth: If the government had not supported solar energy research many years ago, there would not be any VCs lining up to fund it now. Once a technology is shown to be feasible and the economics begin to look promising, THEN the private money begins to flow. It doesn't work the other way around. Why would someone wanting to make money in the near term invest in research that won't pay off for decades or more? Technology research is primarily done at Universities and research labs by forward-thinking scisntists, using government funding. If scientists discover something promising, they ask the government for money to fund more research. This money often comes from the defense department, which is always on the lookout for scientific breakthroughs. But this is still very much government money (and thus taxpayers' money).
Ken: I think we agree there are certain things it only makes sense for the government to fund. Take the miltary, for example. It's terribly inefficient, yet few people advocate raising private armies to defend ourselves. Why? Because the rich folks would be the ones being defended and the rest of us would become cannon fodder. It would fly in the face of the whole concept of a nation, in which all citizens hold a stake, contribute to making it great, and stand to benefit from its greatness. What we don't agree on is the list of services the government ought to provide. But that's what voting is supposed to be all about, right?
Penny wise, pound foolish.
Impractical.
I'm content to leave it there and use panels to collect it here.
Dave: "It is as close to a limitless supply of ebnergy as anything we are aware of."
Nuclear industry, unfortunately, has a long history under-performance, over-budget promises.
Dave: "It is also, in any practical sense, a long way off and (IMHO) should be getting more government support than it is now."
More reason to leave it alone, since solar, wind and other renewables are not a long way off, and are sufficient to meet our needs.
Dave: "...since I advocate for government support of technologies, I must accept that the ones I don't like will get support as well as the ones I do."
First, it's not just about technologies that we like. It's about technologies that are safe and sustainable. Nuclear is neither. Second, I only support government support for renewables ONLY TO THE EXTENT that fossils and nuclear have already enjoyed for decades. When renewables catch up, then I'm for cutting those supports.
Dave is right about fusion. Fusion is not nuclear. It is not even related to fission. Fusion, if it could be made to work is clean, non radioactive, limitless, and non polluting. It is perfect. It is also not real at the moment, or as Dave says in the immediate future. Unless there is a really major breakthrough.
How the Future Gets Made: Solar Cells
Solar Cells: Nice Tech But Not A short-Term Solution
Recent Developments in Solar Cells
The Future of Oil
These are from several months ago, but hopefully they aren't too dated.
Anyway, a notable example of such an economic approach is the Stern Review, October 30, 2006. Stern estimated the global cost at an annual $450 billion, or 1% of a Gross World Product (GWP) of about $45 trillion, if spending started last year and continued until greenhouse gas concentrations would be at acceptable level (550 ppm CO2 equivalent). Costs would include decarbonizing 60% the power sector, and cost would amount to a lot more the longer action was delayed.
There have been further studies, some actually pointing at a gain in average GDP as a result of action to combat global warming, e.g. see the studies mentioned by the World Resources Institute and this IPCC presentation
In my view, we have no choice but to act against global warming in the first place, we have to dramatically reduce emissions as soon as possible. But also, the sooner we act, the better off we'll be economically. Making deeper cuts than other countries sooner will put us at an economic advantage, rather than disadvantage us economically.
Action would mainly amount to a reallocation of resources, rather than extra expenditure. Right now, the cost of securing oil is horrific (Iraq!). If we did incorporate just a part of that cost in the price of oil, we would have electric cars on the road everywhere within a few years. Similarly, government spends huge amounts of money to subsidize farms to produce animal feed, while these animals emit large amounts of methane, and while the fertilizers that are used to produce this feed also cause emissions of nitrous oxide. If coal-fired power plants had to pay the price of only a small part of the harm caused by their pollution, renewables would already be a lot cheaper by comparison.
The New Reality is that renewables are less expensive than fossil fuel and nuclear. If market mechanisms were allowed to set prices, then renewables would have long priced fossil fuel and nuclear out of the market. The problem is that government keeps distorting the market by supporting the wrong industries. The nuclear industry seeks loan guarantees. Biofuel is also heavily subsidized, while road users do not even pay for the full cost of roads. Meanwhile, the better alternatives that we really need, such as wind and solar, receive comparatively little money, as is evident given that they constitute such a small proportion of the current market.
In January, the CEO's of 10 major U.S. companies urged President Bush to support mandatory industrial greenhouse gas emission cuts. In November, officials from more than 150 companies around the world singed a petition, companies jointly worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization, companies such as Shell UK, GE International, Coca-Cola Co., Dupont Co., United Technologies Corp., Rolls Royce, Nestle SA, Unilever, British Airways and Volkswagen AG. The petition was aimed at the UN conference in Bali, and contrary to the argument that mandatory pollution cuts would harm the economy, the business leaders' petition says ambitious emissions reductions would "create significant business opportunities."
Business Leaders Seek Action on Warming
Please also read my recent article The New Reality
Sam, as usual great information. I think the meat issue is a bit more tangled, and should probably be separated from general discussions of energy and pollution.
No. If only all the roofs in the U.S. were covered by even moderately efficient solar panels, we would have 5x the electricity we use. Sam Carana has written an article, Solar power and electric cars, a winning combination!, showing graphically just how much area would be needed for solar energy worldwide. Also, there is enough wind energy potential in the Dakotas alone to produce enough hydrogen for all of the U.S. transportation - Winning the Oil Endgame, p. 240.
Dale: "And I am not talking about providing ANY support to the current nuclear industry."
Good.
Dale: "I am talking about supporting University researchers developing advanced technology that will be safe."
sy: "It is also not real at the moment, or as Dave says in the immediate future."
Ok. Solar and wind are real at the moment, and improving. Let's deploy those now, since we need to replace fossils asap, and then look at fusion, if there is any need to.
Solar technology continues to improve. You mention Nanosolar in one of your articles. Nanosolar is also mentioned in The Clean Tech Revolution, Pernick and Wilder. These authors anticipate that Nanosolar (or another company, such as Miasole, HelioVolt, or Q-Cells) will manufacture a $5K residential solar system within by 2015. Already, new ways to finance solar systems are in existence, making them affordable, especially in states which rebate those systems, e.g., California and Colorado. In Germany, new homes are going to be required to use renewable energy, and in California, solar homes are selling very well despite a depressed housing market.
Scheer states that the primary barriers to an economy founded on renewable energy is primarily political and psychological. We have been programmed to think that fossils and nuclear are indispensible - and so we repeat false information about the inadequacy of renewables as if it were simply self-evident truth. Contrasting this, Bradford states that solar is inevitable. As I read information on solar, I think his analysis is closer to the truth - especially if we don't want to continue to fight resource wars in the mideast.
I know you understand this, but I just wanted to be clear that the comment from me that you quote relates to fusion energy, not to wind or solar. Thanks
A good article further explaining the new solar technology that Nanosolar is introducing:
The New Dawn of Solar
I'm not saying that to in any way discourage people about solar. I would dearly love to see the solar cell industry grow a lot faster than I expect it to. It actually has grown faster than my most optimistic hopes when I wrote that article, but it's still just a sliver.
I've been a big fan of solar cells since the early 80's. I thought they were going to take off then. But then the cost of oil and natural gas dropped, and Reagan cut industrialization funding for the industry. In the long run that may have been a blessing because if we had done a big push back then we would have entrenched early 80's manufacturing and cell technology, which might have made it harder to get new stuff like CIGS into the market. On the other hand, the industry would probably have had more money to plow into R&D so we might actually have better tech and manufacturing now. Hard to know without a time machine. There is always going to be the potential for a breakthrough a few years down the road, so we can't just keep postponing large scale manufacturing in the hopes that something better will come along.
I would dearly love to have the solar cell industry surprise me by taking off even more quickly than I expect. That would help solve so many problems. Oil revenue is fueling so many negative things in so many parts of the world. It's also playing a major role in pushing up our trade deficit.
At this point the solar cell industry is expanding about as rapidly as we could reasonably hope for. It's a consensus in the industry that any company that isn't producing a gigawatt of solar cells a year in three to five years will be a bit player. That's just amazing when you figure that maybe 12 to 18 months ago the largest manufacturer in the world was producing less than a third of that.
The cost of oil and natural gas dropped in the 80s because of advances in efficiency dropped demand. In the 90s, as Lovins says, we forgot about efficiency. Reagan's abandonment of renewables helped set up the crunch that we now find ourselves in.
Dale: "...that may have been a blessing because if we had done a big push back then we would have entrenched early 80's manufacturing....Hard to know without a time machine."
Possibly, but if you look at the parallel technological development in computers (much of the new technology actually is emerging from the same sources as compter technology), it is reasonable to think that your other theory ("...the industry would probably have had more money to plow into R&D so we might actually have better tech and manufacturing now.") would have been the case. Unfortunately, it's a mute point, in any case.
That said, however, it does make clear the role of public policy in encouraging or suppressing an industry. Germany and California have probably the most favorable policies for solar expansion, and it is no surprise that Nanosolar has located its new manufacturing plants in Germany and California. That is why your statement, "At this point the solar cell industry is expanding about as rapidly as we could reasonably hope for." is possibly inaccurate. Senate republicans have just squashed a meager 15% RPS for 2020. Yes, the solar industry is growing anyway at an amazing rate, but that is in spite of resistance from the established energy industries. And it is an often repeated myth that fossils and nuclear energy are indispensible. My point (and I get your point that you are enthusiastic about solar) is that the assumptions about the indispensibility of established energy structures are just that - myths. My second point is that the real barriers to even more rapid deployment of renewables - solar in particular - is political and psychological, not technological. We put a man on the moon in a decade with relatively primitive technology. Solar energy is not rocket science.
The one thing I will never understand is why Las Vegas is void of solar power.
I ordered and just received a copy of "WHERE WE STAND" from Amazon.com. So far, I've only had time to browse through it, but it looks like I'm going to really enjoy reading what you have to say. Besides being a professor, do you do environmental consulting work? and if so, who for? Thanks...
"The cost of oil and natural gas dropped in the 80s because of advances in efficiency dropped demand. In the 90s, as Lovins says, we forgot about efficiency."
It's not that we forgot about efficiency it's just that you can only get so efficient before it becomes cost prohibitive.
Take refrigerators they are about four times as efficient as they were in the 1970's but if you want to get more efficient still, then that take a look at the subzero models, better insulation and two compressors one for the fridge and one for the freezer, they also come with a much higher price tag.
20 years ahead of where we are now.
To quote the chairman of the IPCC panel and Gore's co Nobel winner. "We have more coal left than atmosphere." Burning all of it is not an option.