Solar Photovoltaics

When most people think of “solar power,” they think about one of two things – vast arrays of solar collectors laid out in hot deserts (the left-hand panel below) or smaller arrays on rooftops or highways (the right-hand panel below). This is perhaps the most ubiquitous method of converting solar energy into electricity, but it is not the only method. These arrays of solar collectors are known as “solar photovoltaic” installations or Solar PV for short.

Solar photovoltaics, large and small

Source: Left-hand panel is US Air Force, right-hand panel is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0

Solar PV installations consist of individual collectors called cells, which are packaged together in bundled modules. An individual cell does not generate enough electricity to power much of anything, which is why they must be bundled together. A single module might be enough to provide electricity for a single parking meter or roadside telephone. A number of modules can be further bundled together to form an array (see below). Multiple arrays might be needed to provide electricity for a building or a house.

Solar cell, module, and array

Source: Argonne National Laboratory [3]

There are many different kinds of solar PV cells in existence (and even more being developed in research laboratories), but they all work in more or less the same way. Unlike virtually any other type of power plant (be it coal, natural gas or wind), there is no turbine in a Solar PV cell. In fact, there are basically no moving parts at all. .

Solar PV cells harvest solar energy through a phenomenon called the photovoltaic effect, discovered in 1839 by the French physicist Bequerel. Photons of solar energy interact with electrons to “excite” them, causing them to move through conductors, thus producing an electric current. The first solar PV module was made at Bell Labs in the 1950s, but was too expensive to be more than a curiosity; in the 1960’s NASA started to use PV modules in spacecraft and by the 1970s, people started to explore their use in a wider range of terrestrial applications.

This following video explains a bit more about how Solar PV cells work and describes the different Solar PV technologies in use today. One of the potentially most important evolutions in Solar PV technology is the use of semiconducting materials other than silicon in Solar PV cells. These materials are of interest because they could, in concept, allow more of the sun’s energy to be captured on a single array. But they face barriers in the form of high costs and, in some cases, questions about the availability of raw materials.

Video: Photovoltics, a Diverse Technology (4:26)

Most modern Solar PV technologies are relatively inefficient compared to other forms of electricity generation. Remember here that “efficiency” refers to how much of the fuel that is injected into an electricity generation system is actually converted into useful electricity, versus being rejected as waste heat or otherwise escaping from the generation system. While modern coal-fired and gas-fired power plants can have efficiencies as high as 60% (or sometimes even higher), most Solar PV cells convert sunlight to electricity with an efficiency of 20% or less (see below), though this number has been rising over time.

Efficiency of different Solar PV technologies over time

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory [4]

Whether the efficiency of Solar PV cells is all that important is a matter of some debate. On the one hand, higher-efficiency cells would require less land or space to produce a given amount of electricity. Land use (or the number of rooftops) can be a significant limiting factor in the deployment of Solar PV. On the other hand, fuel from the sun is free and there is no scarcity of sunlight, so whether Solar PV cells can achieve 30% efficiency versus 20% efficiency may not be such a big deal, and may not be worth the extra economic cost to produce such high-efficiency cells.

---

Concentrated Solar Power

If you have ever left a cold drink out in the sun during the summertime (or if you have children, if you have ever left water in the kiddie pool out in the sun for a long time), you would notice that the formerly cold water gets warm – maybe even hot. If it happens to be summertime where you are living right now, try it! Whether you realize it or not, this little science experiment is the basis for a second way of harnessing the sun’s energy to produce electricity, called “concentrated solar power” or CSP. (This technology is also sometimes called “solar thermal.”)

The Gemasolar CSP plant in Spain is using molten salt to collect solar energy concentrated by an array of mirrors. This molten salt acts as a thermal battery enabling the generation of electricity even when the sun is not shining.

Credit: Gemasolar2012 [5], by Ion Tichy [6] (CC BY-SA [7]) from Wikimedia Commons [8]

The following video explains how CSP works. The basic idea is that a collection of mirrors reflects the sun’s light (and heat) onto a large vessel of water or some other fluid in a metal container. With enough mirrors reflecting all of that sunlight, the fluid in the metal container will get hot enough to turn water into steam. The steam is then used to power a turbine just like in almost any other power plant technology

Recently, more advanced CSP systems have begun to replace the water or synthetic oil with molten salt as the fluid that is heated molten salt can remain as a liquid from 290 to 550°C. Once it is heated in the tower at the center of the array of mirrors, the hot liquid salt is stored in a highly insulated tank and when there is a demand for electricity, it is sent to a heat exchanger where it turns water into steam, driving the turbine to generate electricity. When the molten salt passes through the heat exchanger, it gives up heat, so it cools off. It is then recirculated to the tower at the center of the mirrors, where the concentrated sunlight heats it back up. These systems have enough liquid salt so that it can act as a thermal battery, storing the solar energy for more than a week before it cools off to the point where it cannot make steam. These kinds of power plants are expensive at the moment, but the technology is still quite new and so we expect prices to drop quickly, as they have for other renewable energy technologies. In fact, a CSP system in Spain using molten salt is now capable of producing energy on demand, 24 hrs a day rather than being limited to times of peak sunlight. The ability to schedule power production versus having to take the electricity when it comes is of great value to the folks that operate electricity systems. Nevertheless, there are still a few obstacles for CSP:

• CSP is difficult to make work on a small scale. A lot of land, usually in sunny deserts, is typically needed. So CSP does not scale up and down to large and small installations like Solar PV can.
• CSP is currently quite expensive — roughly twice as much per unit of energy as Solar PV. However, this is a very new technology and prices are expected to go down in the future.

Solar Energy Potential and Utilization

In addition to being free as a source of energy (it does cost money to harness it and turn it into electricity), energy from the sun is practically limitless. The surface of the Earth receives solar energy at an average of 343 W/m². If we multiply this times the surface area of the Earth, about 5x10¹⁴ m², we get 1715x10¹⁴ W. But, 30% of this is reflected, and only 30% of the Earth is above sea level, so the usable solar energy we receive on the land surface is about 360x10¹⁴ W. We need to reduce this further because not all of the land surface is suited to installation of solar PV panels — we don't want to cut down forests, and ice-covered areas are not suitable, so we reduce the area by about one half. Over the course of a year, this amount of solar energy adds up to 66x10²² Joules. In 2018, we used about 600x10¹⁸ Joules of energy, which is just a shade less than 0.1% of the harvestable solar energy we receive on the land. This means that even if we got all of our energy from the Sun, we would not make a dent in the total! The potential is vast — 10,000 times what we need!

Let’s consider what it would mean for us to get all of our energy from Solar PV — how much of the Earth’s surface would we need to cover with panels? The black dots (radii of 100 km) in the figure below represent areas that could generate enough energy from sunlight to completely power the planet for an entire year. Practically, there are barriers to running the planet entirely on sunlight (everything would need to be electrified, we would need very large quantities of battery energy storage, and so forth), but the dots are useful as a demonstration of just how vast the energy production potential from solar is.

Global average solar irradiance. Areas in red have a higher-strength solar energy resource on average. The black dots indicate areas with sufficient solar energy potential to supply the entire world’s energy demands.

Source: Total Primary Energy Supply [9]
Optional: If you are interested in a more detailed view of solar energy resources in your area, a company called Vaisala 3Tier [10] produces maps that you can download for your own personal (non-commercial) use.

Click here for an audio and a written description of the Global average solar irradiance image.

ADD TRANSCRIPT

One of the important differences between Solar PV and CSP is that CSP requires more intense sunlight, and as such, it is not a viable option in many places. In contrast, Solar PV works just about everywhere — it is more versatile. Another important difference is in scale — CSP is really suited to utility-scale power plants, whereas Solar PV works at both the utility-scale and the very small scale.

The map below shows the PV potential for the world. The variability in the map is mainly a function of cloudiness and latitude. Many of the big, utility-scale solar PV plants are located in the red areas, but there is a surprising amount of Solar PV energy being harvested in places like Germany and Japan, both of which are fairly cloudy. But, even in a fairly cloudy place like Pennsylvania, you can see from the map that we could expect about 1460 kWh per year from a 1 kW PV array. From this, you can calculate how many square meters of PV panels you’d need to provide the electricity for a house that uses the typical 10,800 kWh per year. If you divide 10,800 kWh by 1460, you see that you’d need about 7kW of solar panels, which would fit on a typical house roof. The main point here is that Solar PV is a viable energy source in most parts of the world where people are living. In contrast to Solar PV, energy from CSP is only viable in places where the daily totals in the map above are higher than 6 kWh/day. Nevertheless, there are many regions where CSP viability and human population coincide, so it too can be an important energy resource in the future.

This world map from the World Bank Group’s Global Solar Atlas shows the estimated potential for Solar PV energy in terms of kWh energy produced from a solar PV array of 1 kW. It is important to understand that daily totals are an average value — the output each day will vary according to how cloudy it is and how high in the sky the Sun is. The yearly totals are just the daily total times 365.

Credit:Global Solar Atlas [11] [4]

The Changing Economics of Solar Energy

The generation of solar energy – primarily through Solar PV – is a story of exponential growth. Since 2000, the global Solar PV industry has grown by around 25% per year on average, so installed capacity has been doubling every 2.7 years (see below). Even so, solar represents a very small sliver of total global power generation — for now.

This shows the history of global solar energy generation in Exajoules (EJ) of energy each year (1 EJ = 10¹⁸J). This growth history is following an exponential curve. In 2018, this represents a small fraction of global energy consumption, which is almost 600 EJ.

Source: David Bice, data from BP Statistical Review of Energy, 2018 [12]

The nice thing about exponential growth is that it is easy to project it into the future. Over the time period shown in the graph above, solar energy generation has grown by 25% per year; if we continue that into the future, we find that before long, we would have enough solar energy to make up a substantial portion of the global energy needs by 2030 (see figure below). By the year 2040, this growth would rise to 1360 EJ, more than twice the global energy consumption of the present. Of course, that makes no sense — we would not produce more energy than we need, and this reminds us of an important fact, which is that exponential growth cannot continue forever.

This shows the history of global solar energy generation in Exajoules (EJ) of energy each year (1 EJ = 10¹⁸J). This growth history is following an exponential curve. In 2018, this represents a small fraction of global energy consumption, which is almost 600 EJ.

Source: David Bice, data from BP Statistical Review of Energy, 2018 [13]

One reason to trust this projected future growth is that the price of solar energy has fallen dramatically over time as can be seen in the graph below. In fact, if the generation of solar PV energy has been growing exponentially, the price has been dropping exponentially.

The price history of solar PV cells in $/watt shows an incredible decline in price. This is due to technological advances and the economy of scale as more and more PV cells are manufactured.

Source: Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977 [14] by Rfassbind [15]from Wikimedia Commons [16]

The price decrease is following a pattern that has been given a name: Swanson’s Law, which states that the price drops by about 20% for each doubling in the number of PV cells produced. This law suggests that the prices of solar PV energy will continue to decline in the future.

This brings us to an important question — how does the cost of solar energy compare to other sources of energy? Energy economists have come up with a good way of comparing these costs by adding up all of the costs related to producing energy at some utility-scale power plant (a big wind farm, a big solar PV array, a CSP plant, a nuclear plant, a gas or coal-burning power plant). This is called the levelized cost of energy and you get it by taking the sum of construction costs, operation and maintenance costs, and fuel costs over the lifetime of a plant and then dividing that by the sum of all the energy produced by the plant over its lifetime. This cost provides us with a way of comparing the energy from different sources. Since the boom in natural gas production due to fracking, natural gas has been the lowest cost form of energy (which is why coal is being used less and less), but energy from solar and wind have been decreasing rapidly, as can be seen in the following graph. When a renewable electrical energy resource such as solar or wind becomes equal in cost to the cheapest fossil fuel source of electricity, we say that the renewable resource has reached "grid parity". Once grid parity is achieved, the renewable resource makes sense from a purely economic standpoint, and as it drops below the grid parity point, it is the smartest electrical energy resource.

The levelized cost of solar energy in the US has been dropping fast in recent years and has been slightly cheaper than electrical energy from natural gas since 2015. The point in time where the two are equal is when solar energy achieved what is called grid parity. Wind energy reached grid parity by 2012, so at this point in time, both of these renewable sources provide cheaper energy than the cheapest fossil fuel source.

Source: David Bice, data from Lawrence Berkeley Labs [17].

Part of the reason that solar and wind have expanded in recent years has to do with government policies — a number of countries have instituted subsidy and incentive programs that offset a large portion of the construction/installation costs of solar and wind technologies or devise rules that otherwise give advantages to electricity generation from renewables. Subsidies enacted in various countries have included feed-in tariffs (which guarantee an above-market sales price for solar power); rebates (which directly offset capital and installation costs); and favorable tax treatment (which is like an indirect feed-in tariff). Germany has one of the world’s largest Solar PV markets not because it has the best solar resource on earth but because it has been willing to support a generous feed-in tariff on solar power. (For many years the tariff was over 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, or more than five times the average power price in the United States; in recent years the tariff has been reduced.) These government policies have effectively stimulated the growth of these renewable energy resources, which has, in turn, resulted in lower prices.

How Wind Turbines Work

In a conventional power plant (fueled by coal or natural gas), combustion heats water to steam and the steam pressure is used to spin the blades of a turbine. The turbine is then connected to a generator, which is a giant coil of wire turning in a magnetic field. This action induces electric current to flow in the wire. The workings of a wind turbine are much different, except that instead of using a fossil fuel heat to boil water and generate steam, the wind is used to directly spin the turbine blades to get the generator turning and to get electricity produced.

The inner workings of a wind turbine consist of three basic parts, seen in the figure below. The tower is the tall pole on which the wind turbine sits. The nacelle is the box at the top of the tower that contains the important mechanical pieces – the gearbox and generator. The blades are what actually capture the power of the wind and get the gears turning, delivering power to the generator. The direction that the blades are facing can be rotated so that the turbine always faces into the wind, and the pitch of the blades (the angle at which the blades face into the wind) can also be adjusted. Pitch control is important especially in very windy conditions, to keep the gearbox from getting overloaded.

Modern wind turbines sit upon towers that are typically 80 meters high or taller, with rotating blades that are 50 meters or longer.

Source: Wikipedia: Lamma wind turbine [20] CC BY-SA 3.0 (Creative Commons [21])

The amount of power (in Watts) collected by a wind turbine is explained in the following equations:

The physics of wind power

Source: David Bice

Click here for an audio and a written description of the physics of wind power equation.

This figure explains the physics of wind power. So we begin with this notion of the moving wind having some kinetic energy which is 1/2 m v2 . So that is kinetic energy. Power is related to energy in the following way: It is energy per unit of time. So if we want the power that we can get from that moving wind, we have to take the kinetic energy, and then the mass flux rate instead of just the mass. Mass flux rate is how much mass is moving per unit of time. That is dm over dt, change in mass over change in time. And that is equal to the air density times the area swept out by the windmill blades times the velocity, so that velocity and area multiplied together gives you something with the units of measure are cubic meters per second, and then you multiply that by the density and that gives you kilograms per second and that’s the mass flux rate. If you put all that together you see the wind power is equal to one half times the air density times the area swept by the blade times the velocity cubed. So you see the velocity is super important in this. Now then it turns out that there is an efficiency limit, something called the “ Betts Limit” that means that the power you can actually collect is 0.3 times the air density times the velocity cubed.

This is clearly a lot of power! But, mechanical inefficiencies related to the gears and the generator mean that we might only get 30% of this figure, but that is still a lot of power from one turbine.

All wind turbines have a minimum wind speed that differs depending on the size but is typically about 4-5 m/s (10 mph) and maximum wind speed above which they shut down to avoid damage, usually around 20-25 m/s (about 50 mph). Most wind turbines have a maximum spinning rate, reached a bit above the minimum velocity, and when the wind speeds up, the pitch of the blades is adjusted so that the rate of spinning remains more or less constant. The figure below shows a typical "power curve" for a small wind turbine.

Power curve for a 1.5 MW wind turbine

Source: US Department of Energy, Idaho Office

Click here for an audio and a written description of the power curve for 1.5 MW wind turbine.

This figure shows the power curve for a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine. So on the Y-axis is the power and the X-axis is the wind speed in miles per hour. And what you can see is that there is sort of a threshold speed that is something like 6 miles per hour wind speed you start to get some power. And as the wind speed increases, the power output rises rapidly until you get to about 30 miles per hour. At that point the power sort of saturates and flattens out and with more wind you don’t get any more power. So it reaches its capacity at 1.5 megawatts and it generates that up until 50 miles per hour and above that the power drops off rapidly because the wind turbine has a shut off mechanism will turn off if the wind gets going to fast because of the turbulence that can cause damage to the wind turbine. So they just shut down if the winds get to great.

The wind, as you may have noticed, is highly variable in any given place, but as a general rule, it is stronger and steadier as you rise up above the ground. This is because friction between the wind and the land surface slows the wind. But there is also a lot of regional variation in the wind velocity. Both of these factors (elevation above the ground and location) can be seen in the maps below, showing the average wind speed in the US at two different heights.

United States - Annual Average Wind Speed at 30 m

Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [22]

Click here for an audio and a written description of the U.S. Annual Average Wind Speed at 30 m.

These two maps of the United States show the average annual wind speed at two different heights above the surface. The upper map shows the wind speed at 30 meters height and the one below shows it at about a hundred meters. You can see a couple thing right away. One is that there is just a lot more wind at greater velocities at this higher elevation above the lands surface. You get to 100 meters and there are a lot of places in the central part of the US where you get wind speed from 8 to 10 meters per second, which is really moving along quit fast. And you also see this lower map of 100 meter of wind speeds of the offshore regions everywhere on the west coast and the east coast and around the Gulf of Mexico there are very high wind speeds. Also the Great Lakes are like this. The primary reasons these offshore regions have such high wind speeds and also why higher up you have such wind speeds are because there are less friction in those settings. So you go higher up from the surface there is less friction from the air and all the trees and the roughness of the land surface. That roughness slows the wind down and as you rise above that to 100 meters you get away from that disturbance and have higher wind velocities. You can also see that in the mid-continent region, both the 30 meter and the 100 meter heights, that’s the area with the greatest wind potential. You have these annual average wind speeds that are quit high and this is primarily because this is flat part of the country. There are not a whole lot of topography in those areas so the winds can really get going and be maintained. They do not encounter mountains and valleys and the sort of complexity that you see in other areas where further out west the wind speeds are not that high. So you can look at this and see right away that if you wanted to develop wind power, the best places are in the middle of the continent and at a high elevation 100 meters above the surface. That is why you see so many tall wind turbines to get up that high.

United States - Land-based and Offshore Annual Average Wind Speed at 100 m

Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [22]

Click here for an audio and a written description of the U.S. Land-based and Offshore Annual Average Wind Speed at 100 m.

These two maps of the United States show the average annual wind speed at two different heights above the surface. The upper map shows the wind speed at 30 meters height and the one below shows it at about a hundred meters. You can see a couple thing right away. One is that there is just a lot more wind at greater velocities at this higher elevation above the lands surface. You get to 100 meters and there are a lot of places in the central part of the US where you get wind speed from 8 to 10 meters per second, which is really moving along quit fast. And you also see this lower map of 100 meter of wind speeds of the offshore regions everywhere on the west coast and the east coast and around the Gulf of Mexico there are very high wind speeds. Also the Great Lakes are like this. The primary reasons these offshore regions have such high wind speeds and also why higher up you have such wind speeds are because there are less friction in those settings. So you go higher up from the surface there is less friction from the air and all the trees and the roughness of the land surface. That roughness slows the wind down and as you rise above that to 100 meters you get away from that disturbance and have higher wind velocities. You can also see that in the mid-continent region, both the 30 meter and the 100 meter heights, that’s the area with the greatest wind potential. You have these annual average wind speeds that are quit high and this is primarily because this is flat part of the country. There are not a whole lot of topography in those areas so the winds can really get going and be maintained. They do not encounter mountains and valleys and the sort of complexity that you see in other areas where further out west the wind speeds are not that high. So you can look at this and see right away that if you wanted to develop wind power, the best places are in the middle of the continent and at a high elevation 100 meters above the surface. That is why you see so many tall wind turbines to get up that high.

The graphs above show annual average wind speeds in the US at 2 different heights above the ground surface. For reference, 10 m/s is 22.3 mph. You can see that the wind speeds at 100 m are far greater than at 30 m — this is the friction effect of the land surface (which is minimal above large water bodies). As you can see, the Great Plains have great wind potential, as do the Great Lakes and offshore areas on both coasts.

The area covered by the turbine’s blades is another important factor in determining power output. While wind turbines are available in a wide variety of capacities, from a few kilowatts to many thousands of kilowatts, it’s the larger turbine sizes that are being deployed most rapidly in wind farms. Several years ago the image on the right side of the figure below of a Boeing 747 superimposed on a wind turbine gave an astonishing representation for the scale of the state of the art wind technology. Now turbine rotor diameters are approaching the size of the Washington Monument!

Over the past decade, wind turbine blades have grown from being about the size of the wingspan of a jumbo jet to being about as long as an American football field.

Credit: UpWind: Design Limits and Solutions for Very Large Wind Turbines [23], 2011. European Wind Energy Association

Market Deployment of Wind Energy

Over the last 20 years, growth in the total installed capacity of wind energy generation across the globe has been growing rapidly. Germany was the first country to lead the development of wind power, but the US and China have dominated the growth since 2010. China is especially impressive in terms of its recent growth.

The growth in wind power capacity over the last 20 years. Both China and the US are growing exponentially.

Source: BP Statistical Review of Global Energy, from Our World in Data [24] (CC BY 4.0 [25])

Click here for an audio and a written description of the growth in wind power capacity over the last 20 years graph.

This figure shows the accumulative installed wind energy capacity in gigawatts for a number of different countries during a period of time from 1997 to 2016. There are a variety of countries shown here: Italy, France, United Kingdom, Spain, India, Germany, United States, and China. So currently China has the greatest installed energy capacity, more than 140 gigawatts. The United States is second place with about 80 gigawatts, Germany is third with about 50, and the rest are all below 30 gigawatts. And you see a couple of interesting things here looking at the trends over time. One is that Germany got an early start on it. They were the world leaders in wind energy production up until 2007, then they were surpassed by the United States. But then China surpassed the United States in about 2010 or 2011, and they have really skyrocketed over the last decade or so. They are on a trend that is going to make them by far the biggest producer of wind energy in the world.

Part of the reason for this growth is the steady decline in the cost of wind energy, as discussed in the previous section on solar energy. But government policies are another important factor. The United States has one of the most volatile markets for wind energy in the world, while those in Europe and China have been among the most stable. This is due in part to differences in how governments in these countries treat wind energy. In many parts of Europe, wind energy (and other renewable generation technologies) enjoy subsidies and incentives known as feed-in tariffs. The feed-in tariff is essentially a long-term guarantee of the ability to sell output from a specific power generation resource to the grid at a specified price (typically higher than the prices received in the market by other generation resources). The United States, on the other hand, has favored a system of tax incentives called the “Production Tax Credit” (PTC) to encourage renewable energy deployment. In theory, a tax incentive should not work much differently than a feed-in tariff (both are just payments based on how many kilowatt-hours are generated). But the PTC has historically needed to be re-authorized frequently by the US Congress – this “on-off” policy strategy has been a major factor in the volatility of wind energy investment in the US as shown in the figure below. It is worth noting that the PTC was recently renewed for 2013, but will lapse again at the end of 2019, so it is difficult to say what impact it will have on wind investment going forward.

US wind energy annual installations, showing the relationship between lapses in the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and declines in new installations.

Source: David Bice, data from American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) [26]

Click here for an audio and a written description of the US wind energy annual installations graph.

This bar graph shows the history of the annual US wind power installation. The heights of the bars represent the amount of new wind energy installed each year. So this goes from 1998 until 2019. And there are a couple of interesting things: One is there is very unsteady growth pattern over time, and the second is that there are four periods here, four years where there are very little in the way of new wind energy installation. And that’s because there was a lapse in this policy device we us in the US that encourages using wind energy called the Production Tax Credit ( PPC). This has to be renewed by Congress on a regular basis and they can’t get their act together all the time to renew this. So if that lapses then there are no incentives for wind power companies to install new turbines to generate more electricity. So what we see here is this kind of erratic history of production because the incentives are not reliable.

The above makes it clear that government policies are important to the growth of renewable energy production (both wind and solar). In a very real way, you can think about these policies (feed-in tariffs or tax credits) as a form of investment. Governments can also provide investments in the form of funding for basic research related to these technologies. In general, these investments do not add up to a huge amount when seen in the context of a country's gross domestic product (GDP), which is a measure of the size of the economy, as seen in the figure below.

A comparison of some of the leading countries in terms of the percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) is committed to the development of renewable energy technologies.

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance; World Bank, from Our World in Data [24] (CC BY 4.0 [25])

Click here for an audio and a written description of the graph of renewable energy investment (% of GDP) for 2015.

This is kind of an interesting bar graph that compares the renewable energy investment as a percentage of the GDP ( Gross Domestic Product) of a range of different countries in 2015. It is kinda remarkable to see that even the leading countries Chili and South Africa are only using 1.4% od their GDP as renewable energy investment. So they are putting very little money into it. China is not to far behind 0.9%. The US is at the bottom of the heap here at 0.2 % of our GDP goes towards renewable energy investment. Now obviously our GDP is bigger than most of these other countries so we are putting a lot of dollars in, but in terms of a percentage it’s a tiny amount that we are investing in this renewable energy.

The Potential Wind Energy Resource

A quick look at an annually-averaged wind map of the world (below) shows the regions of the world that are best suited for the production of wind energy in colors ranging from yellows to red (where the average winds are at least 9.75 m/s or 20 mph). The offshore regions are clearly the best in terms of the energy potential, but not all of these offshore regions are close to where people live. Even for onshore portions of the world, the wind energy potential does not always coincide with where the people are concentrated. This points to the necessity of new transmission lines to deliver this wind energy to major population centers.

The global distribution of onshore and offshore wind resources, showing the annually-averaged wind speed at a height of 100 m. For reference, the blue regions have speeds of 2.5-4 m/s (too low for good wind energy), green regions have velocities in the range of 5-6 m/ (also a bit too low for big turbines), yellow regions have speeds of 6.5 m/s (about 15 mph), which is enough to get most large modern turbines spinning, orange areas range in speed from 7-8.5 m/s, and the red areas range from 8.5 to more than 9.75 m/s, which is plenty of speed to generate wind energy at the full capacity of big turbines.

Source: Global Wind Atlas [27], CC BY 4.0 [28]

So, just how much energy could be produced by the wind? In 2009, a group of scientists makes some calculations to estimate the potential for the world and the US, using wind data and some assumptions about the size and spacing of the turbines. They assumed 2.5 MW turbines on land, and 3.5 MW turbines offshore, which were big for that time. They assumed that you could only place the turbines in unforested, ice-free, nonmountainous areas away from any towns and that the turbines had to be spaced by several hundred meters so they do not interfere with their neighbors. They further assumed that each turbine generated just 20% of its rated capacity to account for mechanical problems and intermittent winds. What they came up with is summarized in the table below, and it is pretty remarkable. The units here are exajoules (EJ = 1 x 10¹⁸ Joules) of energy over the course of a year. For reference, in 2018, the US total energy consumption (not just electrical energy) was 106 EJ and the global consumption was about 600 EJ. So, with just onshore wind energy, the potential is more than twice what we consume in the US, and more than 4 times the global consumption. But getting there is a matter of installing a lot of wind turbines!

Now let's consider a more practical question — how much wind energy have we managed to produce and can we somehow project the past trends into the future? The figure below shows the global history of wind energy (solar is plotted too just for comparison), and you can see that it is growing fast.

The history of wind and solar energy production for the world have both grown dramatically over the past 20 years or so. Both curves are following an exponential growth trajectory, increasing by an average of 25% per year.

Source: David Bice, data from BP Statistical Review of Energy, 2018

Both of these curves are growing exponentially, and the history so far suggests a growth of about 25% per year on average. If we assume that they continue to grow in the further following this exponential growth, we can project where we'll be at any time in the future. Below, we see where we might be in the year 2030, just eleven years from now. What you see is that we end up with vast amount of wind energy by 2030 — if it grows at the same rate it has been growing at, we end up with almost 300 EJ per year, about half of the current global energy consumption, and if it grows at a smaller rate of 20% per year, we still end up being able to supply about 20% of the total global energy demand.

The history of wind energy production for the world projected into the future increasing by an average of 25% per year and 20% per year.

Source: David Bice, data from BP Statistical Review of Energy, 2018

Click here for a written description of the global wind energy generation history and projection graph.

This figure shows the wind energy generation history from 1987 up until 2017 or 2018 in blues, and then the projection into the future at 2 different growth rates. So we know that the history up until now, wind energy generation has grown at about 25% per year, which is a remarkable growth rate. It is a continuous at that and we will follow this red curve and end up by the year 2030, so that’s just another 12 years from now or 10 years from now, we will have 300 exit joules of energy produced through wind. And if it grows at a slower rate of 20%, we will end up with something like 130 exit joules of energy per year. For reference, remember globally all of our energy consumption totals to about 600 exit joules of energy. So if it keeps going in the next 10 years as it has been going, we would be able to get half of our energy from wind alone, which is quit a remarkable thing. The power of exponential growth that we are looking at.

Barriers to Additional Wind Energy Development

It is worth noting that, as with solar, wind investments are not always happening in the windiest areas. The reality is that there are a large number of factors that influence the development of wind energy globally. As the technology for wind energy has improved, other factors have also come together to create market drivers for wind power. These drivers include:

• Declining Wind Costs
• Fuel Price Uncertainty
• Federal and State Policies
• Economic Development
• Public Support
• Green Power
• Energy Security
• Carbon Risk

We have already mentioned the US Production Tax Credit, which is responsible for a good amount of the trend in US wind energy investment – both up and down! A decline in wind investment in 2010 and 2011 was due in part to the global financial crisis. A drop in natural gas/wholesale electricity prices has made some planned projects less competitive than originally expected and halted development. There has also been a slump in the overall demand for energy. Another factor that limits the growth of wind power capacity is the constraint on the transmission infrastructure. As can be seen in the wind capacity map on the previous page, many of the locations that experience the windiest conditions are not close to coastal population centers. The cost of upgrading this infrastructure is significant — perhaps $30 to $90 billion in the US by the year 2030 according to some estimates. This seems like a huge amount, but consider that our government spends about $20 billion each year in direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which would sum up to $200 billion by the year 2030. In light of that, the upgrade cost for better transmission lines is a bargain!