So, some amazing, almost magical, new tech is created and put on the market (non-exclusively licensed). A solar panel the size of a dinner plate can easily power the average American home. Battery technology to go with it - extremely fast charging, high-density, and will still last 5+ years. These start out not more than $2000 (combined) when new, but expect the technology to get cheaper over time. Battery can also be used for phones, etc.
Now, obviously, the need for oil, natural gas, coal, etc. does not go away overnight. But the long-term outlook is for lower demand. But how does that effect the world (besides a lot higher energy use)? Which countries are hit hardest by the dropping prices? How many jobs are lost? How does it effect the economy (globally)? I’d expect non-licensed versions to be manufactured in some places, and sold more cheaply, so that factors in, too.
The wealthier countries would have to radically configure their electric grids to handle the switch–a LOT of people would get those for their houses, and the current grid is not built for that.
Once the movement really got going, it would knock out one of the few remaining posts propping up Saudi Arabia. We would probably see a surge (hopefully short-lived) in Islamic extremism from the Middle East in general. (Partly because the governments wouldn’t be able to combat it as much.)
There would be umpity-ump short-term disruptions in the economy, both globally and in most localities. But once all that smoothed out, it would be an economic boost. Every time that a cheaper and/or more energy-dense source of energy has been discovered, it has always boosted the economy.
I think economically it’ll benefit Asia and Africa far more than the west. We have reliable electricity in the west, its just dirty. But in lots of poor parts of the world, this will mean reliable electricity for the first time. I’m sure it’ll do a lot for economic growth but also access to the internet seems to result in cultural changes too as people gain access to info from all over the world.
Domestically I have no idea. Those will power houses w/o grid attachments, but I assume you’d need huge arrays to power industry and those may still need to be tied into the grid.
I definitely agree with how beneficial it is to the developing world. Especially as it gets cheaper. I’m not sure about cultural access. I really don’t have a good grasp of how widespread cellphones and internet-coverage via them is in some places, even poor ones where people don’t have home electricity. It does to some degree depend on literacy, I’d guess. Though, of course, there are literate and poor areas.
I thought so, too, though I wondered if they meant the power feeding back into the grid, as some allow with solar panels now.
In the US and other large countries with scattered rural populations, I kinda wonder if rural electrification by the way of companies will just die. Too expensive to maintain the lines for how few are buying electricity. That’s a long-term issue, of course, not immediate.
Countries/states could legislate the non-emissions vehicles, but I’m not sure there is any need, since I’d expect market forces to remove most new ICE vehicle production.
As for the governments, there’s indisputably going to be some short-term hurt and instability. I really don’t know if the areas most hurt are going to see improvement within 20 years. Then there are places we don’t necessarily think of like Norway that have a significant amount of GDP from oil/natural gas. Or just states/provinces within countries.
Decreasing air pollution in cities and the health effects. Obviously, some places people still burn coal/wood/etc. for heat, but the vehicle and industrial emissions may start going down. Since the price of oil should keep going down, I wonder if that will cause some to be slower to change.
A social media campaign is immediately started that talks about how dangerous this technology is. It will give you cancer, chronic wasting disease, bad breath and impotence. Rallies are organized by politicians who have been given tons of money from energy companies. Protests erupt at stores where these are sold. Fox news puts on many special reports that show “proof” that the solar panels kill children and pets. Demands are made to shut down this dangerous technology. Senate committees are set up.
The technology is banned, and the corporations and their politicians go to sleep easier.
But there are big corporations producing these solar panels, too. Can’t ignore that. There’s a lot of money to be lost, but also a lot of money to be made.
Unless there is some kind of lease system for regular payments, or some sort of consumable that you can charge up the wazoo for (can you say “printer ink”?), then corporations will not be thrilled with a new technology. Especially one that lasts 5 years with minimal inputs, where the user controls it. Exisiting energy companies with VERY deep pockets will ensure this never sees the light of day.
For an example, many car dealerships are quite reluctant to stock, sell or promote electric vehicles at the moment. Dealers (unlike car manufacturers) make a lot of profit from service centers. EV’s don’t come in for oil changes, filters, etc, and are not profit centers for the dealers. Thus they steer prospective buyers away from them.
I strongly disagree. There are quite a few manufacturers of such goods now that make a lot of money with them. And the advantages to cellphones and tablets is huge. Car dealerships might not like it, but Tesla and manufacturers will. The green energy movement will mostly be all over it (some environmentalists will have problems with the mining, but those presumably wouldn’t be current solar advocates, either). And there’s while there’s certainly those that will dislike precisely for being green, there is also a contingent that will just love the idea of saying “screw you” to the Middle Eastern oil exporters.
And don’t forget this is something licensed internationally. Not to mention the incredible cost savings for developing countries who want electrification for their people - they don’t give a damn if some western countries outlawed it (nor will many care if theirs are by manufacturers who paid licensing fees). That keeps it out there, and people will know others are using it safely in other countries.
Anyway, the point of this exercise/idea is that it is on the market.
The amount of sunlight striking any given area on the Earth’s surface is fixed-- There’s nothing you can do about that. You can increase the efficiency of panels (the only truly fundamental limit isn’t until around 95%), but you can’t get more than all of the energy. And a panel the size of a dinner plate isn’t anywhere near enough.
…Unless, along with the 95% solar panels, you also have a bunch of major increases in home efficiencies, such that the amount of energy to power a home is radically decreased. In that case… maybe.
More realistically, though, would be to say that an array the size of the roof of a house can power that house, and they’re as durable as asphalt shingles. That’s still well beyond present technology, but plausible, and would be nearly as beneficial as these magical dinner plates.
Not at all. A Tesla solar roof can easily power a house and it’s more durable than asphalt shingles. The only significant problem is the price, which is high. Well, and you need a battery, but that’s stipulated by the OP. A fully efficient solar panel would only need about 1/5 as much space.
There are problems with people in extremely high latitudes, that just don’t get enough sunlight–they’ll have to buy electricity from the people that are a bit farther south (or north).