Connect with us

Electrification

The Exponential View of Solar Energy

Published

on

The Exponential View of Solar Energy, and Why the Cost of Solar has Plummeted

The Exponential View of Solar Energy

The human brain is terrible at comprehending exponential growth.

Much like the power of compound interest is a magical force for investors, it is also possible for innovations and technological breakthroughs to build off each other in the physical world, creating a similar compounding effect.

In this chart, we look at how solar technology has surpassed all expectations from an economics perspective, including those initially set by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Then later, we’ll also look at a new set of predictions for solar energy economics over the next 30 years.

Solar Energy: The Technological Overachiever

Back in 2010, the cost of utility-scale solar power ranged between $0.25-$0.37 per kWh. This meant it was at least three times as expensive as fossil fuels, and that solar was highly cost-inefficient at the time.

Going forward, most organizations projected a linear path for whittling down the cost of solar.

The IEA, for example, forecast that the global cost of solar would drop to roughly $0.22 per kWh by 2020. In reality, however, the price dropped to about one-fifth of that at $0.04 per kWh.

YearActual (BNEF Global) - $ per kWh2010 Forecast (IEA) - $ per kWh
2010$0.28$0.36
2020$0.04$0.22
Change-85.7%-38.9%

Almost all industry forecasters, including the IEA itself, missed the exponential factors at play.

Wright’s Law

Ramez Naam, the co-chair for energy and the environment at Singularity University, points out in his blog that the exponential decrease in solar costs stem from Wright’s Law:

For most technologies, every doubling of cumulative scale of production will lead to a fixed percentage decline in cost of the technology.
-Wright’s Law

Professor Naam says this occurs through “learning-by-doing”, and more specifically:

  1. Innovation that improves the technology itself
  2. Innovation that reduces the amount of labor, time, energy, and materials needed to produce the tech

Put another way, the more solar panels we make and the more we install—the better we get at the whole process over time. And once we’re making thousands or millions of panels, the costs come down exponentially, much like with lithium-ion batteries.

The Future of Solar Costs

Over the years, Naam has taken his own stab at forecasting the cost of solar energy into the future, leveraging the idea of Wright’s Law.

Here’s what he sees coming, based on using a 30% learning rate* for solar:
Future cost of solar based on 30% learning rate Wright's Law

*The learning rate is the fixed percentage decline that occurs with every doubling of the scale of production.

Based on these projections, even the costliest of solar installations will be more economical than the cheapest of utility-scale fossil fuel plants. This means solar can basically go anywhere, and make sense from a cost perspective.

Underestimate Solar No More?

For fun, here’s a final look at how IEA projections have constantly underestimated solar installations, which are one of the key factors dictating the “learning rate” under Wright’s Law:

missed iea solar capacity forecasts

With solar energy costs plummeting to record lows and global installations continuing to ramp, it’s possible that solar forecasters may no longer forget about the exponential nature of solar production.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist
Click for Comments

Electrification

How Clean is the Nickel and Lithium in a Battery?

This graphic from Wood Mackenzie shows how nickel and lithium mining can significantly impact the environment, depending on the processes used.

Published

on

How clean is the lithium and nickel in battery

How Clean is the Nickel and Lithium in a Battery?

The production of lithium (Li) and nickel (Ni), two key raw materials for batteries, can produce vastly different emissions profiles.

This graphic from Wood Mackenzie shows how nickel and lithium mining can significantly impact the environment, depending on the processes used for extraction.

Nickel Emissions Per Extraction Process

Nickel is a crucial metal in modern infrastructure and technology, with major uses in stainless steel and alloys. Nickel’s electrical conductivity also makes it ideal for facilitating current flow within battery cells.

Today, there are two major methods of nickel mining:

  • From laterite deposits, which are predominantly found in tropical regions. This involves open-pit mining, where large amounts of soil and overburden need to be removed to access the nickel-rich ore.

  • From sulphide ores, which involves underground or open-pit mining of ore deposits containing nickel sulphide minerals.

Although nickel laterites make up 70% of the world’s nickel reserves, magmatic sulphide deposits produced 60% of the world’s nickel over the last 60 years.

Compared to laterite extraction, sulphide mining typically emits fewer tonnes of CO2 per tonne of nickel equivalent as it involves less soil disturbance and has a smaller physical footprint:

Ore TypeProcessProductTonnes of CO2 per tonne of Ni equivalent
SulphidesElectric / Flash SmeltingRefined Ni / Matte6
LateriteHigh Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL)Refined Ni / Mixed Sulpide Precipitate / Mixed Hydroxide Precipitate13.7
LateriteBlast Furnace / RKEFNickel Pig Iron / Matte45.1

Nickel extraction from laterites can impose significant environmental impacts, such as deforestation, habitat destruction, and soil erosion.

Additionally, laterite ores often contain high levels of moisture, requiring energy-intensive drying processes to prepare them for further extraction. After extraction, the smelting of laterites requires a significant amount of energy, which is largely sourced from fossil fuels.

Although sulphide mining is cleaner, it poses other environmental challenges. The extraction and processing of sulphide ores can release sulphur compounds and heavy metals into the environment, potentially leading to acid mine drainage and contamination of water sources if not managed properly.

In addition, nickel sulphides are typically more expensive to mine due to their hard rock nature.

Lithium Emissions Per Extraction Process

Lithium is the major ingredient in rechargeable batteries found in phones, hybrid cars, electric bikes, and grid-scale storage systems. 

Today, there are two major methods of lithium extraction:

  • From brine, pumping lithium-rich brine from underground aquifers into evaporation ponds, where solar energy evaporates the water and concentrates the lithium content. The concentrated brine is then further processed to extract lithium carbonate or hydroxide.

  • Hard rock mining, or extracting lithium from mineral ores (primarily spodumene) found in pegmatite deposits. Australia, the world’s leading producer of lithium (46.9%), extracts lithium directly from hard rock.

Brine extraction is typically employed in countries with salt flats, such as Chile, Argentina, and China. It is generally considered a lower-cost method, but it can have environmental impacts such as water usage, potential contamination of local water sources, and alteration of ecosystems.

The process, however, emits fewer tonnes of CO2 per tonne of lithium-carbonate-equivalent (LCE) than mining:

SourceOre TypeProcessTonnes of CO2
per tonne of LCE
MineralSpodumeneMine9
Mineral Petalite, lepidolite and othersMine 8
BrineN/AExtraction/Evaporation3

Mining involves drilling, blasting, and crushing the ore, followed by flotation to separate lithium-bearing minerals from other minerals. This type of extraction can have environmental impacts such as land disturbance, energy consumption, and the generation of waste rock and tailings.

Sustainable Production of Lithium and Nickel

Environmentally responsible practices in the extraction and processing of nickel and lithium are essential to ensure the sustainability of the battery supply chain.

This includes implementing stringent environmental regulations, promoting energy efficiency, reducing water consumption, and exploring cleaner technologies. Continued research and development efforts focused on improving extraction methods and minimizing environmental impacts are crucial.

Sign up to Wood Mackenzie’s Inside Track to learn more about the impact of an accelerated energy transition on mining and metals.

 

×
Continue Reading

Electrification

Life Cycle Emissions: EVs vs. Combustion Engine Vehicles

We look at carbon emissions of electric, hybrid, and combustion engine vehicles through an analysis of their life cycle emissions.

Published

on

Life Cycle Emissions: EVs vs. Combustion Engine Vehicles

According to the International Energy Agency, the transportation sector is more reliant on fossil fuels than any other sector in the economy. In 2021, it accounted for 37% of all CO2 emissions from end‐use sectors.

To gain insights into how different vehicle types contribute to these emissions, the above graphic visualizes the life cycle emissions of battery electric, hybrid, and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles using Polestar and Rivian’s Pathway Report.

Production to Disposal: Emissions at Each Stage

Life cycle emissions are the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted throughout a product’s existence, including its production, use, and disposal.

To compare these emissions effectively, a standardized unit called metric tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) is used, which accounts for different types of greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.

Here is an overview of the 2021 life cycle emissions of medium-sized electric, hybrid and ICE vehicles in each stage of their life cycles, using tCO2e. These numbers consider a use phase of 16 years and a distance of 240,000 km.

Battery electric vehicle Hybrid electric vehicleInternal combustion engine vehicle
Production emissions (tCO2e)Battery manufacturing510
Vehicle manufacturing 9910
Use phase emissions (tCO2e)Fuel/electricity production261213
Tailpipe emissions 02432
Maintenance 122
Post consumer emissions (tCO2e)End-of-life -2-1-1
TOTAL 39 tCO2e47 tCO2e55 tCO2e

While it may not be surprising that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have the lowest life cycle emissions of the three vehicle segments, we can also take some other insights from the data that may not be as obvious at first.

  1. The production emissions for BEVs are approximately 40% higher than those of hybrid and ICE vehicles. According to a McKinsey & Company study, this high emission intensity can be attributed to the extraction and refining of raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel that are needed for batteries, as well as the energy-intensive manufacturing process of BEVs.
  2. Electricity production is by far the most emission-intensive stage in a BEVs life cycle. Decarbonizing the electricity sector by implementing renewable and nuclear energy sources can significantly reduce these vehicles’ use phase emissions.
  3. By recycling materials and components in their end-of-life stages, all vehicle segments can offset a portion of their earlier life cycle emissions.

Accelerating the Transition to Electric Mobility

As we move toward a carbon-neutral economy, battery electric vehicles can play an important role in reducing global CO2 emissions.

Despite their lack of tailpipe emissions, however, it’s good to note that many stages of a BEV’s life cycle are still quite emission-intensive, specifically when it comes to manufacturing and electricity production.

Advancing the sustainability of battery production and fostering the adoption of clean energy sources can, therefore, aid in lowering the emissions of BEVs even further, leading to increased environmental stewardship in the transportation sector.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Popular