197 comments on Peak Oil Media: Buffett on Net Energy and Peak Oil and Lovelock on Putting Your Head Between Your Legs and Kissing Your...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
"On his own terms Lovelock hates wind chiefly because it is ineffective, he thinks, and therefore it is not worthwhile covering the countryside with them."
That's what he says, but IMHO if you read him carefully, the aesthetic objection is primary. He's quite vehement about the monstrous injury he feels they perpetrate on the countryside, and the arguments about effectiveness is vague, non-quantitative rationalization.
What do you think? Wouldn't you agree that UK on-shore wind is an effective replacement for natural gas and coal? I know you've argued that off-shore wind is excessively expensive, but on-shore is cheaper.
I'm personally somewhere in the middle, Nick about on-shore wind in Britain. It cost around £0.9 millions per MW installed in 2006 according to government figures, at 27% capacity factor which is good for on-shore that comes out to around £3.3 millions a MW, so it is perhaps in the same ball-park as nuclear energy.
The new Areva plant is around 1.6GW, or around 1.44GW actual output.
So if you assume 3MW wind turbines, you have to have around 1,500 of them to equal the output from one nuclear plant, or 15,000 or so of them to equal the proposed off shore build of 33GW nameplate, 10-11GW average hourly output.
A look at the wind maps of Britain shows that they would have to be mainly in the north and west, and would involve massive transmission lines.
It would also mean building access roads and other infrastructure over very environmentally sensitive moorland, and even then finding sites in good wind areas would be tough - the UK is not very big. The transmission line costs would be on top of the numbers we have already discussed, which it should be noted are now substantial under-estimates due to rising materials costs which impact wind-turbines many times more than nuclear plants due to their much higher use of materials.
At the end of the whole process, which politically is not going to happen on that scale as the Scots and Welsh have separate parliaments and will certainly not allow it, you would generate around 10GW out of a power requirement peak of 75GW.
So it is not going to make a substantial difference to the UK energy picture, and is essentially an irrelevance which distracts from the hard choices facing this country, which centre on the colossally expensive off-shore option, nuclear or fossil fuels.
Given the choice between 15,000 on-shore turbines with their huge environmental impact in the UK and 10 nuclear power stations I would go for the nuclear option every time.
The situation is radically different in areas such as Texas, although as others have remarked wind power there tracks poorly with use, unlike in the UK.
So to sum up, even if we totally devastate the countryside we will not have made a substantial dent in energy needs by building on-shore turbines, and the cost whilst less than off-shore would still be very large.
I have no objection to some wind turbines being built where appropriate, but it is essentially irrelevant to our energy requirements and the main objection is when it masquerades as a solution.
" it is perhaps in the same ball-park as nuclear energy."
I agree. As a note, don't forget that you're just discussing capital cost. On-shore wind operating cost is perhaps $.001/KWH, compared to nuclear's $.02.
" you would generate around 10GW out of a power requirement peak of 75GW."
You're comparing average wind output to peak requirements. If you compare average of 10GW to average demand of roughly 45GW (IIRC) that's about 22% of demand. That's very far from trivial.
"even if we totally devastate the countryside "
Access roads for onetime construction wouldn't be devastating. Besides, what will be the environmental effects of climate change on these areas? They're certain to be much, much larger (for example, all of the pine forests of the mountains in Colorado, US, and many in Canada are dying due to climate change). Ultimately, we're mainly talking about aesthetics as the primary problem.
" which politically is not going to happen on that scale as the Scots and Welsh have separate parliaments and will certainly not allow it,"
You're describing NIMBY. That's my point: UK wind's primary problem is NIMBYism, due to aesthetics. Lovelock is a classic example - he projects massive disaster of truly nightmarish proportions, and then rules out wind power because he doesn't like its looks!
I would point out that aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder - most of the UK looks nothing like it’s condition 3,000 years ago, before massive farming and development, and would horrify someone from 1,000 B.C. . Also, many people find wind turbines beautiful.
Your point about my comparison of 10GW of average power against 75 GW peak is a fair one, I just did not get around to drawing the comparison better - a better comparison is either the one you suggest, or to compare peak wind power production with peak, and since wind power tracks rather well in the UK with power consumption at peak in the winter it is around 2.5 times more than in June, as against an increase on power consumption of just under 4 times, from 20GW to 75GW - so we might say that the 33GW nameplate will produce around 5-15GW of actual output, or around a quarter to a fifth of total output, similar to the figure you give.
The running costs you mention are pretty low in both cases, and in the absence of whole life-cycle costs for wind-turbines perhaps somewhat moot, as more problems with maintenance such as faulty gear-boxes than have been anticipated and costed for in the figures you give could greatly increase that.
However, the real problem is that the costs are only even vaguely reasonable for on-shore - for off-shore they are astronomic.
There are actually no proposals to build 33 GW of on-shore wind power, and even could that vast number of windmills somehow be sited on land, you certainly would not be able to increase it to provide for running even the present electric output of society, let alone run a society which ran substantially without fossil fuels.
In contrast a similar power output at around the same cost would be produced by around 7 modern reactors on perhaps 4 sites in a double configuration, and the expertise in so doing could be used to series build enough reactors to provide for most of our electricity power at minimum estimates - the French already do so.
So is substantial on-shore wind really worth the bother in this country?
The real option we are being presented with in this country is in any case the vastly expensive off-shore one.
I actually have no objection to wind turbines being built where appropriate, but it is so far from a total solution or even a major economic contribution that it should attract very little of our attention - at the moment it is only a distraction from solutions which could really help - conservation initially followed by a large nuclear build and the installation of air heat pumps.
So we are not really talking about aesthetics as the primary concern, or at least I am not - if wind turbines really could contribute in a major economic way, as may be the case on the American plains, then we should pay the ecological price of building them, but for the marginal contribution they might make in the UK we would be far better off getting focussed on real solutions.
I have just come across Dr Bakhtiari's work on Peak Oil:
http://www.sfu.ca/~asamsamb/Macquarie%20Bank%20interview/Macquarie%20Ban...
Macquarie%20Bank%20interview.pdf
And I note that he predicted heavy rises in commodity prices due to expensive oil.
I had previously associated the rise in commodity prices largely with heavy demand from Chindia, but his analysis throws a different light on it, and one with severe cost implications for wind turbines.
They use around ten times more steel for every unit of power generated, and four times the concrete compared to a similar nuclear build.
My figures were already too generous to on-shore wind, as I was using 2006 costs since when there have been major increases in material costs, and it should be noted that I did not include connection costs.
In the light of Br Bakhtiari's analysis it seems safe to say that not only is on-shore wind more expensive currently than nuclear, but that the difference is likely to become progressively greater.
Runaway inflation would alter the situation greatly though, as the long lead times of nuclear power would impact the build much more than for wind turbine builds.
"I note that he predicted heavy rises in commodity prices due to expensive oil. I had previously associated the rise in commodity prices largely with heavy demand from Chindia, but his analysis throws a different light on it, and one with severe cost implications for wind turbines."
And I would note that Bakhtiari is an oil & gas expert, but not a commodities expert. He superficially notes that a number of commodity prices are rising, and assumes it relates to his expertise - oil. We see this often - oil industry insiders assume that everything is related to oil. This perspective finds it's way into PO analyses, which is surprising in a way, given that PO enthusiasts generally have little respect for the oil industry.
In fact, soaring commodity costs (like copper & steel) have very little to do with their oil inputs, and everything to do with capital expenditure lags and Chindia demand.
Since both the extraction of minerals and their processing is so energy intensive I am sure that after reflection you would agree that high energy costs can't but mean high materials costs - just look at the energy cost to refine aluminium as one example.
No doubt high demand from Chindia will also play it's part, but until we have changed our energy systems totally to renewables/nuclear and batteries high energy costs are automatically going to mean high materials costs, even aside from other cost pressures, which as you point out are themselves likely to be severe, so construction costs for wind turbines will be very heavily impacted.
"Since both the extraction of minerals and their processing is so energy intensive I am sure that after reflection you would agree that high energy costs can't but mean high materials costs "
Not really. First, for most minerals labor is much more important than energy, and 2nd, keep in mind that not all energy has risen greatly in cost. Oil has quadrupled, but natural gas hasn't risen nearly as much, and coal has risen very little (keep in mind that most coal is sold on long-term contracts, unlike oil).
"just look at the energy cost to refine aluminium as one example."
First, aluminium uses electricity, which hasn't risen much in price. 2nd, aluminium is the most energy intensive commodity of all - most use much, much less.
" high energy costs are automatically going to mean high materials cost"
Again, not really. This is a common error in PO circles, and it's really not so.
It's true that commodity costs have affected wind, but a bigger problem has been the shortage of turbine manufacturing capacity, due to the skyrocketing demand. Manufacturing is expanding, but it can't keep up.
We have short-term capacity bottlenecks in a wide variety of areas. That's one reason why it makes sense to ramp up everything we can - none of them alone can grow fast enough.
You remark on energy costs being more loosely related to energy costs sounds well-founded.
However, in a situation of very tight oil and with the constraints on natural gas production that have been noted on this blog it would seem that gas prices are also likely to rise a lot.
Coal also seems relatively constrained, and although the system of long term contracts may delay rises they will not halt them in the long run, so spot prices for coal perhaps act as some sort of proxy for the trends in the market.
I can't see demand from India and China slowing much for materials though, and financing new mines is not proving easy at the moment, so for the next few years at least materials costs seem likely to remain high - and as you say, the short term is proving problematic.
I accept your point about nacelle costs, but high material costs in general will have a far greater impact on wind than nuclear.
"Coal also seems relatively constrained"
Not really. It's a short-term question of building infrastructure - ports, rail, etc.
"high material costs in general will have a far greater impact on wind than nuclear."
Well, wind costs rose from an recent historical average of $1.50/watt to $1.80 in 2007 - that's not a big increase. The fundamental costs are falling due to increasing size & better technology, and turbine manufacturing capacity will catch up, so a price rise is a temporary blip.
By the time we could get the infrastructure built for significant coal use, and the exporting countries had done so, or we built new mines if resources are available, we could be deep into a nuclear build and save the CO2.
Have you a source for your wind-power costs - since you are talking in dollars, I assume that they relate to US costs, which has a different cost base to the UK and a better on-shore wind resource in many areas.
Even in the US the most recent figures I have seen are for the T Boone Pickens 4GW nameplate facility in Texas, which is going to cost $10bn and would generate and average hourly energy flow of around 1.4GW - much less during Texan peak demand in the summer.
If I have not lost a decimal place that is over $6 a watt rather than $1.8, unless you are talking about some kind of levelised cost which can show just about anything depending on the assumptions put in - presumably once again you are talking about nameplate capacity, which is just downright confusing in the case of wind, however as you say it may be useful in comparing the scale of the price rise - you don't though give a date for the $1.50 figure.
If I have the Picken's figures right though on a nameplate basis that still works out as $2.50 watt nameplate, not $1.80
The figures I have based my costs on are 2006 UK Government figures - costs will have risen since then.
"By the time we could get the infrastructure built for significant coal use, and the exporting countries had done so, or we built new mines if resources are available, we could be deep into a nuclear build and save the CO2."
New infrastructure in the US, such as rail, is a 1-3 year thing, not a 10 year thing. I think Australia has a port capacity bottleneck - I'm not sure on a timeline there. Anyone have info?
My source on recent historical costs was FPL, though I don't have a link. The 2007 data is nameplate (for comparison purposes) for both the US and the world - overall stats on new capacity and dollars spent (which may exaggerate costs, from a PPP standpoint) - I'll see if I can find a link.
Don't forget the scarcity pricing for wind turbines: manufacturers have a 2 year backlog.
Here is a link to the Pickens 4GW $10bn project:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/business/23wind.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&...
There is one heck of a price difference here, $2.50 watt against your figure of $1.80.
That's about a 65% price increase against your original $1.50
I am not saying your figures are like this, but I am pretty suspicious of costings in the renewables industry, they often seem to have taken off subsidies first, and in general got up to all sorts of games, just so long as they get their subsidies - the market basically stopped when Denmark stopped them.
I am particularly interested in your statement that the increase in costs is mainly due to supply shortages in the nacelles rather than rising material costs - have you got any breakdowns on this?
I'll see what I can find on Pickens, and nacelle costs.
" I am pretty suspicious of costings in the renewables industry, they often seem to have taken off subsidies first"
I'd note that we're talking about capital costs, and subsidies typically don't apply to capital costs.
"the market basically stopped when Denmark stopped them."
That doesn't tell us much. Developers may have been waiting for resumption, or gone somewhere else where things were slightly better. We should note that most sources of energy would halt without subsidies, explicit or implicit, such as guaranteed utility reimbursement for investment (a key factor in general), CO2 externalities, or Price-Anderson.
"There are actually no proposals to build 33 GW of on-shore wind power"
Exactly my point: the strength of NIMBYism in the UK apparently precludes serious consideration of such an option.
"So is substantial on-shore wind really worth the bother in this country?"
20%-25% of electricity supply is trivial???
Personally, I think a diverse set of power sources is a really good idea. Perhaps more importantly, wind can be built much more quickly than nuclear: The UK is going to need all the power sources it can get in 5 years, and the world needs all the low-CO2 power sources it can get.
In my comment that wind-power was trivial I referred to the likely land-build, not the off shore 33GW proposals, where the problem is the vast expense.
Supposing that you could place 33GW on land, it could certainly not be indefinitely expanded to produce more power, so we might as well get on with solutions such as conservation and nuclear which would deal with the problem as it is not substantially cheaper.
See my post above for the likely future costs of wind, on-shore or off-shore.
"Supposing that you could place 33GW on land, it could certainly not be indefinitely expanded to produce more power,"
Yes, but our problem is the short term, not the long-term. In the long-term, we can do anything. In the short-term, we have a lot of bottlenecks, and nuclear is no exception.
And again, 20-25% would be unimportant? 10% would be unimportant?
I agree conservation and efficiency (such as heat-pumps) are important. But again, you can't do them overnight. Think how slowly such things are moving now.
The heart of my objection is not to building turbines on land, it is that people have been misled into thinking that this alone, or maybe in conjunction with solar PV panels, will solve Britain's energy problem..
The whole of the renewables energy industry uses very immature technology, and projections for European grids and all -renewable power generation are so speculative as to be fantasy.
The solid solutions that we know how to do centre on conservation and nuclear power, at least for northern Europe.
Putting up a few wind turbines where objections are not too severe is being used as an excuse to delay any serious action at all.
Even the British Wind Energy Association says we won't get the projected off-shore build completed, at any rate in the time they have said.
"people have been misled into thinking that this alone, or maybe in conjunction with solar PV panels, will solve Britain's energy problem."
Well, not in the short term. Of course, neither can nuclear.
"The whole of the renewables energy industry uses very immature technology"
True. That's why costs are continuing to fall.
"projections for European grids and all -renewable power generation are so speculative as to be fantasy."
Not really, although it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's a matter of engineering, rather than new science, and it's certainly no more speculative than thorium reactors.
"Putting up a few wind turbines where objections are not too severe is being used as an excuse to delay any serious action at all.
Even the British Wind Energy Association says we won't get the projected off-shore build completed, at any rate in the time they have said."
I'm not sure it's fair to blame our paralysis on renewables.
I don't blame our paralysis entirely on the renewables industry, but the standard of coverage in the media is just awful, with readers being told that the projected 33GW nameplate capacity for off-shore wind will -provide enough power for every home in Britain' - oh no it won't, save on a windy summers day.
Cost decrease for nuclear power are actually likely to be far greater, with one innovation alone, annular fuel, likely to lead to very large cost reductions.
Having said all that, I think that we are fundamentally on the same page, and I would certainly support on-shore wind power more than the ultra-expensive off-shore alternative.
It is difficult to talk rationally about such a deeply stupid and lethargic entity as British energy policy, which operates on premises that we would both feel to be clearly false, that natural gas supplies are effectively unlimited, that Suadi will continue to supply all our energy needs, and that we don't need to bother about conservation - even the lax standards for insulation prior to 2005 were rarely enforced, the responsible officials deeming them unimportant.
I would take issue with you in your statement:
These are radically different issues, we would need only modest technical advances to power most of society with nuclear.
For solar PV, whatever may be the case in sunnier climes, the low winter solar incidence in Britain means that we have to make the most fantastic assumptions of cost reduction for it to contribute significantly, and in my view this is a prime case of the public being misled by a wholly unrealistic prospectus, and in fact illustrates perfectly my contention that the over-hyping of renewables has abetted the way in which we have taken our eye off of the real choices in favour of what is, for the foreseeable future, a fantasy.
"Cost decrease for nuclear power are actually likely to be far greater, with one innovation alone, annular fuel"
AFAIK, annular fuel is intriguing, but still in the research stage, and isn't attracting that much investment, much to the frustration of other nuclear enthusiasts with whom I've discussed it. I think it's roughly on the same level as kite wind generators, floating/tension leg off-shore wind platforms, and quantum dot PV efficiency of 60%, all of which are promising but unproven.
"I think that we are fundamentally on the same page"
Yes. Actually, I discuss this with you, where I wouldn't bother with some people, because you're open to new ideas & information.
"These are radically different issues, we would need only modest technical advances to power most of society with nuclear."
But not in the short term. That was my emphasis.
In the long-term, there's very little question that solar is falling dramatically in cost (though prices will take much longer to fall, given the disparity between demand and production) - this is quite realistic. Already, it's very close to grid-parity with peak, retail pricing in sunny places. As it reaches this point in more places there will be a virtuous cycle which will dramatically increase demand and production volumes, and further reduce prices through economies of scale.
Again, wind is better in winter, and provides a nice synergy with solar.
I see wind, solar and nuclear all growing (wind & solar growing much, much faster, roughly doubling every 2 years for solar and 3 years for wind), and working well together.
I like solar PV a lot, in sunny places, it is when they keep insisting on sticking it where the sun don't shine that I loose patience - for as far ahead as we can see in Northern Europe all it will do is cost a fortune and cause problems for the grid, when they have to make up for it's being hopeless in mid-winter.
AFAIK though you are too optimistic on solar and wind costs, and present expansion is largely subsidy driven - but I do not rule out cost reductions, just the costs apart form on-shore wind are still pretty horrid.
Looks like you are right on annular fuel, as I have now had a chance to check a bit further, at least in the US - I would imagine that if the French or Japanese pick it up they will be considerably more dynamic.
"present expansion is largely subsidy driven"
Wind subsidies in the US are quite small: the 1.8 cent PTC is worth about 1 cent per KWH, after you factor in the 10 year restriction, and the conversion from tax credits to cash (which requires quite a lot of work for non-profits). Wind is now often competitive with natural gas.
There's no question that solar electrical generation is non-competitive with FF currently. Prices have stayed high due to an excess of demand, but costs are falling quickly (which means profits are skyrocketing). Take a look at Nanosolar and First Solar, both of which report plummeting costs. Here's a couple of decent articles: http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/03/07/as-solar-sector-goes-global-inves...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8UPOVFO1.htm
You have a better wind resource in the States than in most places in the UK.
The spend on subsidies is really quite shocking here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3257728.ece
No wonder a lot of people here get a sinking feeling in the wallet when they here the word 'renewables!'
I am not too familiar with First Solar, but found this commentary by SW on Nanosolar who pretty apparently has expert knowledge persuasive:
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3477#comment-287663
3477
In reality, whilst I am not familiar with the US wind market In have found every claim and costing I have looked at in detail on renewables either grossly exaggerated or wildly misleading, or simply fantastically uneconomic - we would have solar thermal plants springing up by the dozen already if that were not so.
I hope that changes and that we move on to have reasonably economic renewables, but it is just that, a hope, not technology we can confidently deploy in great quantity at the present.
Well, I think you should look more closely at First Solar. They're publicly traded, and their production, cost, revenue and profit claims are verifiable. Nanosolar is plausible (they're very well funded by knowledgeable investors), but fairly secretive (which is not unusual for a company in their position), which makes them hard to evaluate. That's why I included First Solar.
I saw that post on TOD about Nanosolar. It sounds plausible, and I have to admit I haven't learned enough about CIGS to evaluate it. I would note that it's anonymous (both the TOD and the poster's blog are as well), and even if authentic it's admittedly posted by a competitor.
The Time article is interesting, but it's clearly written by an uneducated reporter ("a load factor of just 7%, meaning it produces a fourteenth of the power it was designed for" is just incorrect), and has relied heavily on wind critics for info. I wouldn't be surprised if UK wind is heavily subsidised, though. It would be interesting to see an updated, thorough comparison of total lifecycle costs.
I've reviewed some of the apparently authoritative UK wind studies, and found them to be surprisingly flawed (old data, incorrect analyses).
No one suggests that CSP or PV are competitively priced yet, on pure market price. You have to look at cost trends, and external costs (CO2, sulfur, other risks, etc) to realize how attractive they are.
Again, take a closer look at First Solar.
The Times article referenced official figures, and although I have not checked back to that I have seen the same figures elsewhere, and believe them to be about right - a quick google would get you to the sources if you have serious doubts.
As regards 'projected' renewables costs, well, give me the right assumptions and I will project anything - you will find they tend to go remarkably silent when asked what they can do today.
As regards Nanosolar, I refer you to your own excellent advice which you gave me when you did not quite like my selection of references for wind power - be very careful of what you give credence to, and don't believe every press release you read" :-)
I'll hang fire on First Solar, and just prepare to be stunned if they turn out modules at $1 watt
"As regards Nanosolar...don't believe every press release you read""
I don't. I do look at the quality of investors, though, and Nanosolar's are very good. Please note, that those comments on TOD were entirely speculative - the commenter admitted to not actually knowing anything specific except that his company was having difficulty doing the same thing.
I've been following solar for quite a while (ever since I read the first LTG in 1979). CIGS thin film has always been difficult to manufacture, and it's taken years to mature, but there are no fundamental barriers, and it appears that it has finally arrived.
I still have an article from Scientific American from 1981 which projected out PV costs for 30 years: it was remarkably accurate. That downward cost curve continues, and is accelerating.
"I'll hang fire on First Solar, and just prepare to be stunned if they turn out modules at $1 watt"
Well, they say that they're very, very close, and they are a publicly traded, verifiable company:
"During the fourth quarter of 2007 we benefited from the full capacity and economies of scale of our Frankfurt/Oder plant. This combined with continued throughput and conversion efficiency gains afforded us strong operating leverage and decreased our manufacturing cost per watt by 12% year over year to $1.12 per watt in the fourth quarter of 2007, further solidifying our cost leadership position in the industry"
http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=294090
If installation and Balance of System (panel enclosure, inverter, wiring, grid connection) can be reduced to $1.38/watt (and that's perfectly reasonable on new construction residential rooftops, or a industrial/commercial retrofit installation), then that's 14 cents per KWH, more than competitive with peak retail costs in most places, and average costs in many places.
Now, please note that First Solar isn't going to sell it's product for $1.12 any time soon, not when people are willing to pay much more. But, that will change, as competitors ramp up, and First Solar reduces it's costs further.
No-one could be more pleased than I if solar pans out soon - it would pretty well haul our chestnuts out of the fire on peak oil - if people can see an alternative they can develop then they are less likely to go to war, instead they are likely to gear up to get it going.
I must admit I am a little concerned about these rare earth cells though, as I don't know how much they use compared to the resource base.
My own favourite is amorphous silicon, it might not be quite as efficient per square meter but the material is inexhaustible, much less fussy than crystalline silicon and better in cloudy weather.
http://www.solarvoltaic.com/images/doc/solar%20abstract.pdf
solar%20abstract.pdf
Should be cheap, too.
"No-one could be more pleased than I if solar pans out soon - it would pretty well haul our chestnuts out of the fire on peak oil"
Yeah. Now we just have to ramp it up...
"I must admit I am a little concerned about these rare earth cells though, as I don't know how much they use compared to the resource base."
They don't use much - the layers are very thin, just a few microns.
It's a real horse-race between various forms of PV. Sharp maintains that they'll be able to reduce silicon PV costs as quickly as CIGS, which is quite a statement. Sharp (a large, reputable company which has a lot of businesses besides PV) also predicts utility parity in just a few years, and the CEO of Sharp has said that "by 2030 oil will be out".
I know the layers are thin, Nick, but there ain't a lot of these rare earths around, and no-one is telling us how much these things use exactly so we can get a handle on it.
This guy predicts a silicon surplus, and remarks that there is not another Germany, and the market is still reliant on subsidy.
I think Japan may make a move actually, to go for even wider spread adoption.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/67253-contradictions-in-the-solar-market...
Contradictions in the Solar Market - Seeking Alpha
Thin-film amorphous silicon requires very little material, and Evergreen Solar's cells can be continuous-cast at about 100 microns thickness. We're not going to run out of material for PV.
EP, I hope you don't think I was worried about running out of silicon!
It was cadmium, tellurium, indium and gallium that I was concerned with.
These layers are very thin (just a few microns, or millionths of an inch), so the amount per watt of capacity is a few milligrams. That makes the material cost less than 1 thousandth of the manufacturing cost.
Nick, in general I am not fan of Limits to Growth type analysis, as if you have energy in good supply and cheap you can get most materials, and both solar and uranium power mean that we should not really be short of that, although there could be problems transitioning.
I make exceptions though in two cases, for fossil fuels and rare earths and metals.
We both accept the case for FF so I won't argue it, but it seems to me that there are at least some grounds for concern on rare earths too.
Perhaps the most restricted is tellurium, which First Solar uses:
(Wiki)
Since it is used in Blu-Ray discs as well as solar panels, then in the event of a massive expansion of solar power it seems that there might be difficulties.
This is not a show-stopper, as you can use other materials in solar panels than tellurium, but is perhaps worth noting.