Limitations of New Solar Energy Technologies

I've been asked at various times, what I think of solar photochemical water splitting. TL&DR: it's a fundamentally fraught technology, rather like direct air capture. Yes, people have been working on artificial solar photosynthesis methods for a long time now. Solar photochemical water splitting was a hot topic in the 1970s, as I learned in the late 1980s when researching what I should pursue as a Masters thesis research topic. But my supervisor, the late, brilliant Dr. Garry Rempel, knew better. And I learned even more during my time at Solarchem, a company dedicated to the notion of making chemicals using the energy in sunlight. Here's a short list of the problems with solar photochemical water splitting: - sunlight is much better at wrecking stuff chemically than at doing chemical reactions (which is why Solarchem pivoted to wrecking chemicals with light!) So the thing used to absorb the energy, tends to degrade by means of photochemical side reactions, faster than you can generate value from (cheap) hydrogen. Nature solves this problem by growing new leaves... - solar is low energy density, so it needs very, very cheap collector area. Just covering an area with glass is expensive. Covering an area with glass which is also sealed sufficiently to keep hydrogen in and oxygen out...well, it's expensive - capacity factors of any such scheme are low- 16% annualized in Canada, for instance. This leads to the same problems for the H2 equipment as is encountered with solar PV, i.e. poor capital utilization. Hence, Solarchem pivoted to using artificial light, which operated 24/7 and improved capacity factor. The extra cost of electricity was minor in comparison to the savings in capital cost resulting from 100% capacity factor instead of 16% best case - collecting hydrogen at atmospheric pressure, while keeping it pure, is a great deal more difficult than collecting DC electricity, which is ALSO more useful and requires cheaper, simpler collectors Solar PV has simply won. Electricity is a more versatile and easier to collect and distribute commodity than hydrogen is. Solar photolysis didn't make sense even before solar PV was as cheap as it is today. And there's no way you can overcome the cost and capacity factor issues of electrolyzers, by building low capacity factor solar photolysis plants to make hydrogen. This is another idea that a better catalyst simply can't fix.

Ivanpah & Heliogen: Lessons from Concentrated Solar’s Decline Ivanpah was meant to be the future of solar. When it opened in 2014, its three glowing towers and 170,000 mirrors symbolized the promise of concentrated solar power. It had nearly 400 MW of capacity and the backing of Google, NRG, and the US Department of Energy. But it never met expectations. It relied on natural gas, underperformed, killed birds, and produced electricity that was too expensive compared to photovoltaics and batteries. Two of its three units are now shutting down early. CleanTechnica article: https://lnkd.in/guKMAg2W The same story has unfolded worldwide. Ten years ago, Spain, Morocco, and the United States all bet on concentrated solar. Today, only about 7 GW operate globally while photovoltaics exceed 1,000 GW. As panel and battery costs fell, complex thermal systems could not keep up. Even molten salt storage, once its competitive edge, was overtaken by cheaper lithium batteries. Heliogen tried to revive the concept with AI-controlled heliostats and high-temperature particle receivers. Backed by Bill Gates, it promised a leap forward. Instead, costs ballooned and its pilot collapsed. It was acquired by Zeo Energy for its storage intellectual capital, not its concentrating solar technology, never having built a commercial plant. Concentrated solar’s decline is simple economics. Photovoltaics and batteries are cheaper, faster to build, easier to maintain, and supported by global supply chains. Towers and mirrors cannot compete. The glowing towers of Ivanpah will remain striking, but they mark the end of an era. Photovoltaics and batteries have already delivered what concentrated solar only promised. As a note to media outlets, please stop using pictures of concentrating solar facilities to decorate articles on solar energy and renewables. They are not remotely representative, even if they have aesthetic virtues.

☀️ Could beaming solar power from space solve our energy crisis or create an orbital nightmare? Space-based solar power is no longer science fiction. China plans a 1-megawatt orbital station by 2030. Caltech successfully beamed power to Earth in 2023. Japan's JAXA is advancing wireless transmission tests. The promise is compelling: • 24/7 clean energy with 99% uptime • No weather interruptions or night-time gaps • Potentially unlimited scalability • Zero direct operational emissions Two competing technologies are emerging: Microwave Transmission: Massive geostationary satellites 35,000 km up could generate gigawatts. The beams pass through clouds safely with intensities comparable to midday sun. But these systems would weigh 80,000 tonnes and cost tens of billions. Laser Downlinks: Smaller satellites at 400 km using infrared lasers offer precision and lower costs—potentially $500 million per satellite. Startup Aetherflux plans a 2026 demonstration. The catch? Atmospheric interference and unresolved safety protocols. The engineering challenges are formidable: 🚀 Launch costs remain the primary barrier. Current estimates suggest $200 per watt versus $2 per watt for terrestrial installations. 🛰️ Space debris poses existential risks. With 40,000 tracked objects and 1.2 million debris pieces above 1 cm, adding massive solar farms could trigger cascading collisions—the Kessler syndrome that could render orbits unusable. ⚡ Conversion losses stack up through multiple energy transformations, bleeding efficiency at each step. 🔧 Solar panels degrade 8 times faster than on Earth from radiation and micrometeoroids. For managers and engineers, SBSP represents a massive systems integration challenge requiring simultaneous breakthroughs in robotics, materials science, and wireless power transmission. Early movers could shape global energy infrastructure for centuries. For CEOs, SBSP currently serves national prestige better than commercial returns. However, spillover benefits include advanced robotics and wireless power systems with terrestrial applications. The environmental trade-offs warrant scrutiny. Rocket launches deposit soot and CO2 in the stratosphere with uncertain climate impacts. The space debris crisis could worsen without international coordination on orbital allocation and disposal protocols. NASA's 2024 assessment suggests SBSP cannot compete with terrestrial alternatives. Yet China is committing billions anyway, viewing it as infrastructure comparable to the Three Gorges Dam. The European Space Agency's Project Solaris will decide in 2025 whether to proceed with full development. Check the comments for research articles exploring both the revolutionary potential and sobering realities of harvesting sunshine from the cosmos. What role should space-based solar play in the global energy transition? Share your perspective. #SpaceBasedSolar #RenewableEnergy #SpaceTechnology #CleanEnergy #EnergyInnovation

A bold prediction no one wants to hear: Half of all commercial solar systems installed before 2016 will be underperforming or non-operational by 2030. The solar industry is obsessed with the future. Cutting-edge panels (bigger is better). Sleek batteries. Dazzling projections for new installs. But here's the reality we can't afford to ignore: a silent crisis unfolding on rooftops across America—a crisis I've been tackling firsthand since 2012, traveling the country with SunPower to address some of the industry’s most pressing system failures. Across the country, tens of thousands of rooftop solar systems—once hailed as the clean energy revolution—are quietly decaying. Not because the technology failed, but because the industry did. We rushed to install. We cut corners. We promised 25 years of performance… and delivered systems that can’t make it past 10. Here’s what’s killing them: Inverters are dying—many are already out of warranty, with no replacements available. Wiring and electrical infrastructure that was never designed for 25+ years of exposure. Install quality? Forget it—an army of barely trained crews built the boom, and now we’re paying the price. Maintenance? There was no plan. Just a contract, a handshake, and a hope it would all work out. This is not just an engineering issue—it's a financial one. Underperforming assets are generating less revenue than forecasted, while increasing the risk of electrical faults, fire hazards, and insurance claims. And here's the kicker: almost no one is ready to deal with this wave of system failures. Asset managers, facility owners, and even EPCs are discovering that repowering, remediation, or decommissioning is far more complex and expensive than expected. This is where the next frontier of solar energy lies—not in installing the next 100GW—it’s rescuing the first 100GW. Revitalization. Repowering. Responsible end-of-life planning. The question isn’t whether it’s coming. It’s whether we have the guts to face it. Are we going to keep pitching the dream— —or finally clean up the mess we left behind?

Transmission bottlenecks and permitting hurdles hold projects in limbo The world is in the beginning stages of the fourth industrial revolution – energy – but it ain’t going to be easy. After decades of ignoring infrastructure needs and other issues, transmission bottlenecks, permitting hurdles, land constraints, and NIMBY-ism are holding up wind and solar projects in the US and other countries worldwide. In the US, Europe, and other countries, permission to connect to the grid can take five to ten years. In the US, developers are getting creative and hopping from queue to queue, trying to move projects along. The problem is global – in Europe, Africa, North, South and Central America, Japan, and even China, deployment of solar and wind is being held back by an aging utility infrastructure. In November, Australia, with its post-election focus on renewable deployment, announced a major expansion of its grid, primarily to support a rollout of renewable energy. The sad truth is that no country can realize its renewable goals without a significant investment in electricity infrastructure. Shades of the duck curve – new transmission alone will not solve problems created by a lack of grid capability. In the US and elsewhere worldwide, system operators have been warning that a rapid rollout of variable sources of electricity without storage would strain grid capability during peak electricity demand. Ten years ago, many experts considered storage too expensive; now, it’s a recognized necessity for the RE future. Solving the transmission problem and adding storage needs to go hand-in-hand with laws allowing homeowners and small businesses to self-consume during peak hours of electricity demand and providing incentives to offset the cost. Governments worldwide continue setting lofty RE goals without addressing the nitty gritty reality of variable resources, and it just is not working. A future where renewable energy technologies fulfill most (or all) of demand for electricity and heat calls for a complete revamping of utility business models, the energy infrastructure, laws, expectations, and technologies – this is the period of the energy revolution – the fourth industrial revolution – and it’s time for everyone to get on board.

The recent NASA report on Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) provides a comprehensive evaluation of its feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and potential environmental impact compared to terrestrial renewable energy sources. SBSP involves harvesting solar energy in space and transmitting it to Earth for electricity generation. The report assessed two designs, the Innovative Heliostat Swarm and the Mature Planar Array, both envisioned to deliver 2 gigawatts (GW) of power. While SBSP offers promising advantages like consistent energy generation and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the findings suggest that current technological limitations, astronomical costs, and challenges in areas such as wireless power transmission and in-space assembly render it uncompetitive against terrestrial renewables like wind and solar power, even by 2050. The estimated lifecycle costs for SBSP are significantly higher, ranging from 12 to 80 times the projected costs of terrestrial renewables, with launching and manufacturing identified as the primary cost drivers. The report highlights that breakthroughs in key areas such as reduced launch costs, advanced autonomous manufacturing in space, and higher-efficiency solar cells could improve SBSP's economic viability. However, it acknowledges that achieving these advancements will require substantial investment and decades of development. While NASA is already working on enabling technologies that could benefit SBSP, such as in-space servicing and autonomous systems, the agency’s role remains uncertain. The study recommends further research and international collaboration to explore the potential benefits and challenges of SBSP, emphasizing that investments in terrestrial renewable energy sources remain more practical and impactful for addressing near-term energy and climate goals. Global Alliance for Space Economy (GASE) Global Alliance for Clean Energy and Sustainability Global Council for the Promotion of International Trade (GCPITGHQ) Global Alliance for Responsible Technologies and Workforce