兩位分析師認(rèn)為，如果要擁有成本競爭力，太陽能的單位發(fā)電成本必須減少三分之二，而只有大規(guī)模擴(kuò)張才可能實(shí)現(xiàn)這樣的目標(biāo)：

 

我們預(yù)計(jì)，一塊安裝后的太陽能板將必須從今天的每瓦特4.4美元減少到每瓦特1.4美元，在成本方面才有能力與新建成的天然氣發(fā)電廠發(fā)電競爭，前提是天然氣發(fā)電廠必須為碳排放支付每公噸50美元的費(fèi)用。而為了適應(yīng)能源儲(chǔ)存的需要，這種太陽能發(fā)電的成本還必須減少到每瓦特1.1美元。但要達(dá)到這個(gè)價(jià)位就需要大規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)擴(kuò)張。

 

為完全滿足2025年的用電需求，需要發(fā)電大約1000萬兆瓦，相當(dāng)于太陽能板大概要覆蓋美國佛蒙特州和新罕布什爾州全境。

 

但實(shí)現(xiàn)電網(wǎng)平價(jià)的成本將是天文數(shù)字，必須為此“支付數(shù)萬億美元”。

 

 

兩位分析師提到了德國的經(jīng)歷：

 

大部分資金可能都會(huì)浪費(fèi)。比如德國已經(jīng)補(bǔ)貼了大約500億美元，但太陽能只貢獻(xiàn)了發(fā)電量的6%。邊際稅收在大學(xué)的研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室會(huì)找到更好的歸宿。在那里，基礎(chǔ)技術(shù)的突破更有可能大幅提高效率，相應(yīng)地降低價(jià)格。

 

這并不等于說太陽能發(fā)電在全球沒有存在的空間：

 

在缺少基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的印度鄉(xiāng)村或者非洲部分地區(qū)，太陽能可能實(shí)際上是提供基礎(chǔ)發(fā)電的最廉價(jià)方式。即使在基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施發(fā)達(dá)的特定市場，天氣最熱的時(shí)候，事實(shí)可能證明，少量的太陽能發(fā)電是提供電力的有價(jià)值方式。

 

所以，他們的觀點(diǎn)就是，對(duì)目前缺少發(fā)電基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的地區(qū)，太陽能可能是可行的，但發(fā)達(dá)世界還是忘了它吧。

 

 

Finding Economies of Scale in Solar
 

Posted by Catherine Wood on Oct 8, 2012 in AllianceBernstein, Equities/Stocks | 0 comments

 

By Catherine Wood and Brett Winton
 

Advocates of solar energy have argued for years that the industry only needs subsidies to gain the economies of scale that would make it cost competitive. We think that day may never arrive.
 

Solar power is expensive to produce because the equipment is expensive and only works a fraction of the time—30% of the time in the optimal spots for solar energy, such as the Las Vegas desert. Nuclear or coal power plants, by contrast, can run almost round the clock, day in and day out.
 

We estimate that the cost of an installed solar power panel would have to fall from about $4.40 per watt today to $1.40 per watt to become cost competitive with a newly built natural gas–fired plant, assuming the gas plant had to pay $50 per metric ton for carbon emissions. It would have to fall to about $1.10 per watt to accommodate the cost of energy storage. But to get to that price, massive economies of scale would be required.
 

In the power business, there’s a rule of thumb: each time you double the cumulative installed base of power-generating infrastructure, the cost of a new installation should fall by 20%. Since 1976, the cost of solar power has declined somewhat less, by 18% on average, for every doubling of installed capacity. Over the past ten years, costs have fallen 13% for every doubling.
 

But let’s say the cost declines return to the 18% rate. How much solar power would have to be installed before incremental solar panels would be truly cost competitive? 9.6 million megawatts, or more than 100 times the capacity in place today, as the display below shows. With an area of 20,000 square miles, these panels together would be large enough to cover Vermont and New Hampshire, and produce annual quantities of electricity sufficient to exceed demand for the entire world through 2025.

 

So when is solar going to become cost competitive without subsidies? In three to five years? Try never. But if it did, society would have to pay out trillions of dollars to get there.
 

That doesn’t mean solar energy is a complete dead end. Solar power may indeed be the cheapest way to provide base electric power in rural India, or in parts of Africa devoid of infrastructure. Even in select markets with developed infrastructure, a small amount of solar power may prove valuable to provide electricity during the hottest parts of the day.
 

But should governments provide massive subsidies to support solar energy in places where electric power can be generated at a much lower cost?
 

I think not. Much of the money is likely to be wasted. Germany, for example, has subsidized the solar industry to the tune of $50 billion, yet it only gets 6% of its electricity from solar power. The marginal tax dollar would find a better home in the research labs of universities, where fundamental technological breakthroughs are more likely to yield a big increase in efficiency and corresponding decline in price.
 

The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AllianceBernstein portfolio-management teams.
 

Catherine Wood is Chief Investment Officer—Thematic Portfolios, and Brett Winton is a research analyst, both at AllianceBernstein.