Solar Has Overtaken Gas, Wind As Biggest Source of New US Power (bloomberg.com) 370
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Despite tariffs that President Trump imposed on imported panels, the U.S. installed more solar energy than any other source of electricity in the first quarter. Developers installed 2.5 gigawatts of solar in the first quarter, up 13 percent from a year earlier, according to a report Tuesday from the Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research. That accounted for 55 percent of all new generation, with solar panels beating new wind and natural gas turbines for a second straight quarter.
The growth came even as tariffs on imported panels threatened to increase costs for developers. Giant fields of solar panels led the growth as community solar projects owned by homeowners and businesses took off. Total installations this year are expected to be 10.8 gigawatts, or about the same as last year, according to GTM. By 2023, annual installations should reach more than 14 gigawatts.
The growth came even as tariffs on imported panels threatened to increase costs for developers. Giant fields of solar panels led the growth as community solar projects owned by homeowners and businesses took off. Total installations this year are expected to be 10.8 gigawatts, or about the same as last year, according to GTM. By 2023, annual installations should reach more than 14 gigawatts.
No it hasn't (Score:5, Informative)
Put another way, 1 GW of PV solar capacity is worth about 600 MW of wind capacity, which is worth about 350 MW of hydro capacity, which is worth about 300 MW of natural gas capacity, which is worth about 230 MW of coal capacity, which is worth about 160 MW of nuclear capacity. Comparing power generation on the basis of installed capacity is like trying to eat enough to live based solely on the weight of food you're consuming completely ignoring the different caloric and nutritional content of the different foods.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he means omnivore humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Pandas are going extinct because they only eat bamboo. It's believed that in the distant past pandas ate a more varied diet, but something changed. As a result, they have been making a slow march towards extinction ever since.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All it takes is one bad experience with sea food. Pandas have been sticking to the "safe" choice ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas will be around for a while, because to install intermittent power like solar and not just live with a few hours of power a day and without power the rest of time, as many third world countries work, you have to install spinning reserve. Which is gas, due to CO2 issues. Burning methane literally produces about half of CO2 per unit of produced electric energy compared to coal.
So we go with gas.
And if the CO2 extraction from air ever gets off ground, coal will come back with vengeance. It's cheap, reliable
Re: No it hasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar with energy storage has a capacity factor that's near that of nuclear.
Now that's damn funny. Yeah, a power station which can only operate at anything near the rated output for maybe 7 hours per day is is going to be "near" nuclear which can operate at peak all day long. Hilarious.
Good storage tech would improve the capacity factor somewhat because we wouldn't have to "dump" energy at peak, but you're dreaming if you think it could possibly come anywhere close to nuclear. You can't have solar output when the sun ain't shining, and batteries don't change that. Physics doesn't work that way.
Re:No it hasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar with energy storage has a capacity factor that's near that of nuclear.
That's only true if you redefine what capacity factor means.
Now imagine energy storage with nuclear power. That's cheap energy that does not rely on the sun shining to work. With a big honkin' battery on site for managing shifting demand through the day and night the nuclear power plant won't ever have to even slow down until it runs out of fuel. With next generation reactors capable of refueling while operating they'd not have to even shut down for that. Military reactors already run for 30 years without ever having to be shutdown. Much of this has to do with the rich fuel military reactors run but the same thing can happen with a civil reactor capable of refuel on the fly.
One complaint of nuclear power is its inability to load follow. This goes away with electric storage on site.
Another complaint of nuclear power is cost. We can add up the cost of a nuclear power plant and the storage it would need to manage the shifting demand through the day. We can also add up the cost of solar power and the storage to meet the same demand. Nuclear power has a capacity factor of 90%. Solar power, at best, has 30% capacity factor. How much generation capacity of each will we need? How much storage has to go with each?
If the goal is to replace natural gas peak power generation for load following with battery storage then that means solar will be at a huge disadvantage over nuclear. It is common for electrical demand to peak in the mornings and evenings when solar output is already diminished. That means more storage for this demand.
Coal is dead.
Is it? What happens if we add cheap battery storage to that 80 year old coal plant you mentioned? Right now capacity factor of a typical coal fired power plant is about 60%. If batteries allow for that to run at peak operating conditions regardless of the shifting demands then what does that mean for it's total costs at the end of the day? My guess is that it looks much better.
There is no doubt in my mind that grid scale storage is good for wind and solar power. I'm also quite sure that this kind of storage is even better for nuclear and coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheering about money spent, not results achieved.. (Score:2, Interesting)
The vast bulk of energy is still coming from fossil fuels, and an ever growing dependence on natural gas is not at all something to celebrate. Enormous spending aside, solar power still barely registers in production statistics; was this really money well spent? Slashdot (or other) propaganda is never interested in exploring this question, but you will find the answer in your increasing energy bills.
Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Between the hours of maybe 9 AM and 5:30 - 6:00 PM, solar electricity will be so plentiful that it will sell for a very few cents per KwH, causing it to be difficult to pay for the infrastruction.
At other times, the traditional sources of electricity will prevail. Electricity prices will be what the always were.
At least until someone invents the magic battery that can spread the peak sun-gathering times out across the 24 hours the rest of us have to deal with.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Between the hours of maybe 9 AM and 5:30 - 6:00 PM, solar electricity will be so plentiful that it will sell for a very few cents per KwH, causing it to be difficult to pay for the infrastruction.
The infrastructure has to be there either way so it makes no difference.
At other times, the traditional sources of electricity will prevail. Electricity prices will be what the always were.
At least until someone invents the magic battery that can spread the peak sun-gathering times out across the 24 hours the rest of us have to deal with.
The point is to make energy more efficient. Any solution doesn't have to entirely replace existing methods, merely supplement it enough to be cost effective and offer savings. Solar does this quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
"The infrastructure" is the solar farm itself. That will be difficult to pay for when supply-and-demand forces the wholesale price of electricity for those hours that the sun shines to a penny or two per KwH.
Re: (Score:2)
"The infrastructure" is the solar farm itself. That will be difficult to pay for when supply-and-demand forces the wholesale price of electricity for those hours that the sun shines to a penny or two per KwH.
It only gets to 'a penny or two' once you have the solar infrastructure in place. Once it's there it's paid for and the per kwH price will include maintenance and upgrades just like any other power source..
Re: (Score:2)
My local power co-op is investing heavily in solar. They are planting hundreds of acres that once grew cotton, with solar panels that harvest sunlight. The beauty of it is that in the South it gets hot as hell for most of the year when the sun is shining brightly. And they used to have to buy peak power to compensate against the heavy load of AC as compressors pump freon to cool houses, business and virtually every building everywhere. In the poorest ghetto they have window units running non-stop. At night
Re: (Score:3)
The good news is that overlaps a lot with peak energy use, so supply and demand should roughly even each other out and solar wont price itself out of the market.
Also plenty of people are working on "magic batteries", see the recent slashdot stories specifically about that.
Re: (Score:2)
There's armies of people working on "magic batteries" such that there's a "breakthru" announcement every 2 - 4 weeks. First one I remember was in December 2007 IEEE Spectrum involving the nanowire battery that was supposed to increase lithium battery capacity 10X. Well, the nanowires were only figured out for the cathode, I believe it was, which made the battery actually 3X Lithium and even that disappeared after a while and the nanowire battery still cannot be bought at Walmart, Batteries Plus, or anyw
magic batteries (Score:2)
This one has a shot: https://www.cell.com/joule/abstract/S2542-4351(17)30032-6
Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultralow-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage
Wind and solar generation can displace carbon-intensive electricity if their intermittent output is cost-effectively re-shaped using electrical storage to meet user demand. Reductions in the cost of storage have lagged those for generation, with pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS) remaining today the low
Re: (Score:2)
I'll start getting excited when I can buy one for a price I can afford and it doesn't take up the remainder of my 1 acre that the house and garage are not occupying, and endures the extremes of temperature in Virginia and, of course, stores enough solar electric that I can reliably disconnect from the power grid.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't even need to be trans-oceanic. Even continental would likely work, as you could install wind all over the continent. It's going to be windy somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking solar, not wind. Solar is being installed everywhere, almost. But it all goes away when the sun sets in California.
Re: (Score:2)
We do [slashdot.org] have [extremetech.com] superconducting power lines, trials have been operating for years, they work well and pay for themselves. Just need to extend them further.
Re: (Score:2)
Saw article in IEEE Spectrum urging the building of the global high voltage DC grid. Fine, but do you want to rely on power generated in Libya if we have to bomb them again? Foreign electricity is too-easily interrupted to hang the well-being of the whole country's power source onto.
Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives may have been pro-business at one time. For many years now, conservatives have been pro-incumbent-business.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-business? Since when?
Conservatives are pro-the way things have always been up until now.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-business? Since when?
Conservatives are pro-the way things have always been up until now.
Yup, they are the if it ain't broke don't fix it crowd and if they were in charge the internet would literally consist of a series of vacuum message tubes for passing type written notes form person to person and mobile connectivity would consist of a 9kg vacuum tube voice radio set in a back pack mount with a telephone receiver hung off the side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pro business. For businesses that pay their way. Solar is starting to do that and it's starting to take off for that very reason.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pro business. For businesses that pay their way. Solar is starting to do that and it's starting to take off for that very reason.
Except it's not. Solar to be competitive in most of North America requires massive FIT(feed-in-tariff) programs that pay above market rate to even cover the 30yr in cost. This is what Ontario did. It's what Illinois did. It's why businesses fled from both places to Michigan where they wouldn't get hammered with higher electricity prices. People in various states are just starting to get the taste of creeping electricity prices from FIT.
The people preaching that slapping giant solar panels on good farmla
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that solar panels don't deplete soil...
Bullshit!
I grew up on a farm and when younger I wondered how Dad got all that sand in the machine shed to cover the ground. When I got older Dad built another shed and I got my answer. Dad picked a spot in our large back yard to build the shed where we kept the grass mowed. The shed went up but the grass in the shed remained. I waited for a dump truck to spread the sand on the ground in the shed but it never came. What happened was the ground "died" and what was once black dirt with beautiful green gra
Re: (Score:3)
The question is, "Why rent farmland?" Put them over parking lots, and let me park below them. Have you seen the amount of sun baked asphalt at the typical big box strip mall?
Re: (Score:3)
pay above market rate to even cover the 30yr in cost.
What are those actual costs? In my country (Not USA) it's a 5 year payback time.
costing them $20k/year or more in equipment maintenance
What are those costs exactly? Solar panels are solid state, the maintenance is almost zero.
Re: (Score:3)
The people preaching that slapping giant solar panels on good farmland are just idiots.
Please provide evidence that such people even exist. This is a straw-man.
There are no solar plants located on good farmland in the U.S., and no proposals to build any. Only 25% of the area of the United States is farmland, so no need to use it for solar farms.
There is a lot of interest in putting wind turbines on farm land, since it requires negligible space, and the farm belt of the plains is also the U.S. wind belt, and the farmers are happy to get a monthly check from a share of the power produced in exc
Re: (Score:3)
> Solar to be competitive in most of North America requires massive FIT(feed-in-tariff) programs that pay above market rate to even cover the 30yr in cost.
Nope. The VAST majority of PV in the US is based on production tax credits, not FIT.
FIT is used for start-up and small systems, and then generally goes away.
> This is what Ontario did.
Exactly. Once the system was up and running the FIT went away. Now it's standard PPAs and net-metering.
I know, because I had a microFIT and now have net metering.
>
Re: (Score:3)
> Canada(Ontario) our 'old' nuclear power plant is guaranteed at $0.05/kWh
I assume by old you mean Pickering, which is outside my window. It currently gets about 8.5 cents, if you factor in other payments that are not done on a generation (per kWh) basis. In fact, it's latest I
> That's more then hydroelectric $0.02/kWh, more then coal $0.03/kWh, but less then natural gas $0.0650/Mwh. And far less then wind $0.30-0.55/kWh and far less then solar at $0.20-1.20kWh.
The 20th century called, they want their
The Big Almost (Score:5, Interesting)
About 15 years ago I spotted an extrapolated trend chart that predicted solar's energy-per-dollar-spent ratio would surpass petroleum in roughly a decade.
So, I decided to invest in solar. Sure enough, solar boomed, BUT the stocks I picked soured because the solar industry largely shifted to China. (China was later sanctioned for cheating.)
Sigh. Right church, wrong pew.
Re:The Big Almost (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. The Chinese government funded their solar businesses to drive out competition. Also, while they have environmental laws, they are generally ignored. Making solar cells is a very dirty business and keeping it from ruining the environment costs lots of money. So a double whammy to American solar businesses.
Re: (Score:3)
When the world wanted solar, China was ready with low wage cost products. The advanced engineering was ready in China to make a product that would last for decades.
China could out
Re: The Big Almost (Score:2)
When the sun is out. (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar is great in summer with the sun and time zones later into the day. Winter is not so great when demand is up and the sun is not up.
Re: (Score:3)
In winter when its dark and everyone returns from their job and wants to internet, TV, to warm up, cook, read? Then its back to the grid and the sun is not out.
Solar is great in summer with the sun and time zones later into the day. Winter is not so great when demand is up and the sun is not up.
So why idle here when you can save so many from the impending doom? You could make a sign and stand by the interstate to warn all the people!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, energy use may increase at night.
Electricity usage is lower at night and during winter.
Stop trying to push a strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I forget who (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's similar to the argument that technology is going to take all of our jobs while we are at 'full employment' and been made for 100s of years
That's what the word "disruptive technology" means (Score:4, Insightful)
but somebody made a good point about this switch to solar & renewables: it's going to crash the economy. Let me explain. We've got massive amounts of investment wealth tied up in fossil fuels. People's retirements are heavily vested in them.
This is true of every change in technology, of course. People who invested in radio stations moved their investments elsewhere. Radio stations still exist, of course, but because demand is down they aren't the huge moneymakers they were when everybody listened to the radio. Fossil fuels will still exist and still be used, of course, but if demand goes down they won't be the big moneymakers they once were.
People move investments around. This is what happens. The economy does not crash, in fact, it is actually GOOD for the economy to build new infrastructure to replace old, run down infrastructure.
... And that's before we start talking about what's going to happen to the middle east.
I can't help but think that what will happen in the middle east will be good (and good for ALL the parties involved) once all the powerful interests that have no motivation but oil, oil, and oil stop messing around.
I think that's similar to the argument that technology is going to take all of our jobs while we are at 'full employment' and been made for 100s of years
I'm much more scared of that, actually. In this case what the "disruptive technology" is making obsolete is people. As long as it makes new jobs for people, that's fine. But I'm not sure what happens when AI can do things better than any person in any job.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you high, or off your meds?
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Insightful)
. People's retirements are heavily vested in them.
Why would anyone with sense bet on one industry for their retirement? People should diversify for retirement. This is not a great argument against solar as a good argument against terrible investment advice.
Because there's Trillions in assets (Score:3, Interesting)
When it's brought up folks say you shouldn't pick winners and losers. They might have a point about picking winners but when it's clear somebody's going to lose that hard we should probably do something about it. For one thing sore losers on a global stage are dangerous. As the saying
Re:Because there's Trillions in assets (Score:5, Insightful)
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest
Oh really? I can pick any fund I want with my investment. I can also look at the makeup of each fund. I can pick fossil free funds. I can even pick funds that are full of fossil fuels. More like it's lazy investment used as a reason not to use solar. There were lots of money invested in housing at one time but you don't see any argument made against companies trying to make houses from cheaper/green materials/whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
As with choosing to juggle chainsaws, when you finally go bankrupt from needless medical bills, taxpayers are left to pay for your sorry ass.
What the hell are you talking about? The OP said that it wasn't easy to divest retirement funds. I can easily change my retirement options as can every one else. Sure not everyone will have as many options as they like but to say divesting from fossil fuels isn't easy is either plain ignorance or a bold faced lie. It has nothing to do with medical bills or whatever you are discussing.
Re:Because there's Trillions in assets (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, yes! Please do enlighten us on the desperate plight of all those wealthy oil barons and what we as the common man should be doing to save them and their poor fragile egos from financial discomfort.
Re:Because there's Trillions in assets (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem: A lot of them are in charge of running the country!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest.
Maybe they should have connected their brain cells together and started to diversify decades ago. It isn't like the steady progress of solar efficiency was kept secret.
I, for one, am feeling a distinct lack of pity for people who invested in coal mines.
Solar electric was chosen as the winner (Score:3)
> When it's brought up folks say you shouldn't pick winners and losers. They might have a point about picking winners
If politicians weren't picking winners and losers, we wouldn't be focused NEARLY so much on solar-electric, which is about the fourth-best renewable energy source overall. We don't even use solar heating - a simple black tank sitting in the sun is pretty darn effective water heater nine months out of the year. Instead of cheap and effective solar energy, we're 100% focused on the complex
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> which is about the fourth-best renewable energy source overall
Here we go, another "those people are dumb" post by someone that never worked in the industry...
> We don't even use solar heating - a simple black tank sitting in the sun is pretty darn effective water heater nine months out of the year
We tend to use hot water in very peaky patterns, you can't ship it to your neighbour if you're not using it, and heating it with gas costs very little.
Electricity has a much less peaky patterns (look it up)
Re: Solar electric was chosen as the winner (Score:3)
Won't repeat what Maury said but add. People also forget that solar fits very well into our current logistics and supply chain systems. Which is a HUGE resource and cost savings.
You can centrally make panel parts and easily ship them anywhere. They can be assembled on site and incrementally built up. The system scales quickly and linearly from almost nothing to giga level with basically similar logistics & suppliers.
A new factory making panel parts adds to the already producing factories. This gives
Re: (Score:3)
it's not just retirement. There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest. Ideally we should be doing something to help people move on, but there's a lot of laissez faire economics going around.
It's hard to see this since most retirement and personal fortunes are tied to index and mutual funds. The richest people in the world diversify the shit out of their funds, across industries and countries (and even time with bonds with laddered maturities.)
More info (Score:5, Insightful)
but somebody made a good point about this switch to solar & renewables: it's going to crash the economy.
Let me explain. We've got massive amounts of investment wealth tied up in fossil fuels. People's retirements are heavily vested in them. At the rate we're going their value, while not worthless, is going to be massively diminished. And it's happening fast. Plus there's no massive natural resource to replace it.
We're going to wipe out trillions in value and replace it with, well, nothing really. Now, from a practical standpoint we've still got power. But human beings aren't very practical. When that wealth shift happens it's going to make a mess of things. The people who lose their shirts in oil futures are likely to be abandoned. And that's before we start talking about what's going to happen to the middle east.
While I agree with your assessment, I think there's more context to this.
Tesla is about to come online at 5,000 cars a week (250,000 cars/year) and ramping up from there. Tesla is a highly desired car, and will probably be a big seller.
It's likely that Tesla charging will take up some of the slack. America (and much of China and a few other places like Canada) will transition away from gasoline and rely on electricity instead. The extra burden will be taken up by solar and other renewables, while gasoline use diminishes.
The big losers in the future will probably be gasoline producers and ICE car manufacturers. Gas stations and repair shops will either switch or go out of business (Teslas don't have many moving parts, and so don't need many repairs).
Once the country is largely running on electricity, we can look into replacing fossil fuel generation plants with something more eco-friendly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The big losers in the future will probably be gasoline producers and ICE car manufacturers.
A large portion of the people that make ICE cars also make electric cars. They won't be hurt by this, they'll just shift their production as the market shifts.
The people that produce gasoline also produce diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, lubricants, and so much more. They'll just shift their production to less octane to more cetane, butane, and propane. They won't even flinch.
Gas stations and repair shops will either switch or go out of business (Teslas don't have many moving parts, and so don't need many repairs).
Cars need maintenance, even electric ones. They'll still replace tires, take out dents, fix window cracks, and so on. There's
Re:More info (Score:5, Informative)
A large portion of the people that make ICE cars also make electric cars.
You assume that an electric car is similar enough to an ICE car that current car manufacturers can jump right in. However, the major manufacturing issue is the battery pack, and current ICE car manufacturers have no experience with that. Also, the vehicle control is much different with electric motors, and Tesla is gaining a lot of experience with that.
As far as natural gas, I don't think that would fly. Large parts of Europe depend on Russia for natural gas, and they wouldn't feel comfortable increasing that dependency. And if they can't sell them in Europe, it's not very interesting for car manufacturers. They don't want to make totally different cars for different markets.
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
You assume that an electric car is similar enough to an ICE car that current car manufacturers can jump right in.
Can you name any current manufacturer of ICE vehicles that has not ever produced an electric car in the last 10 or 20 years? Dusting off the EV1 and selling it now might be a stretch but that would be a possibility for GM to get in the market assuming they've never produced the Chevy Bolt. Also, given all the parts in a modern car the engine that makes it go is a pretty small part in reality.
However, the major manufacturing issue is the battery pack, and current ICE car manufacturers have no experience with that.
Tesla has been buying their batteries from the open market for a very long time, nothing prevents a new entrant in the electric car market from doing the same. Might not be an ideal vehicle design but it will at least buy them some time and gain them experience for the future. Given that a battery maker could gain a lot of future sales by helping out a car maker I'd imagine a battery maker might offer some engineering expertise to such a car maker.
Also, the vehicle control is much different with electric motors, and Tesla is gaining a lot of experience with that.
Again, can you name any current car manufacturer that has not come out with an electric vehicle in the last 20 years? I know 20 years is a long time but automotive technology moves slow enough, IMHO, that this is sufficient to compete. Even if we narrow that down to even 5 years the number of such manufacturers is still very small if not zero.
As far as natural gas, I don't think that would fly. Large parts of Europe depend on Russia for natural gas, and they wouldn't feel comfortable increasing that dependency. And if they can't sell them in Europe, it's not very interesting for car manufacturers. They don't want to make totally different cars for different markets.
You do realize that major car makers already make different cars for different markets, don't you? Left hand drive vs. right hand drive already separate the markets so international companies already produce completely different cars for these markets.
Next is that there are many buyers of natural gas cars right now. These are mostly corporate owned vehicles but they are produced right now in limited quantities. The current offerings are pretty much just gasoline conversions so they have many nagging problems that don't make them popular with those that buy cars one at a time as oppose to those that order them by the hundreds. If the market grows to be large enough then it makes economic sense to expend the resources for a vehicle designed specifically for natural gas. If the goal is to simply take advantage of what they perceive as a larger potential market then all they need to enter this market space to offer something has in the past been only available to corporate buyers to the wider public. I expect that this demand already exists among many future buyers.
While I'll admit that what you point out is not completely invalid those are pretty weak points.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla has been buying their batteries from the open market for a very long time, nothing prevents a new entrant in the electric car market from doing the same. Might not be an ideal vehicle design but it will at least buy them some time and gain them experience for the future. Given that a battery maker could gain a lot of future sales by helping out a car maker I'd imagine a battery maker might offer some engineering expertise to such a car maker.
Tesla doesn't buy batteries and haven't done so in some time. In fact, they have produced 1 Gwh of batteries themselves (with Panasonic's machines and their own chemistry). The gigafactory produces about half the world's EV batteries right now and will be increasing its production 400% over the next 12 months. Of the existing auto makers, only VW has even discussed a realistic EV strategy but its on paper today. They haven't even picked where the battery factories will go. They haven't signed contracts
Re: (Score:3)
Re:More info (Score:5, Interesting)
You assume Musk didn't release the battery patent for the Teslas to public domain a decade ago (he did)
You also assume that Musk isn't producing the battery packs for several other car manufacturers (he is)
Re:More info (Score:5, Interesting)
I think these are two things that people miss when complaining about Musk. For all the legitimate complaints one might have about him, releasing the battery patent so the world could use it was a real commitment to supporting renewable energy and cleaner transportation.
Second, by investing in multiple gigafactories, he's positioning himself to be the sole supplier of batteries for much of automation, despite releasing those patents. Has his cake and eats it too.
I have some serious admiration for the ability to do that. Not a lot of CEOs have the balls to do that and the brains to make it work.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? All the major ICE manufacturers currently also make EVs (maybe not Ford). How do they not have experience?
Cause most of them have only made about 2000 EVs each. Those are compliance cars which are produced so they can sell cars in CA without huge fines. They are only doing this BTW because Tesla won't sell them the extra credits to try to force other auto makers to start making EVs. Even this doesn't really get them to make EVs in any serious number. Not that it matters as the dealership networks hate EVs with an intensity that's hard to describe and will do pretty much anything to prevent EVs from taking o
Re: (Score:3)
Does my prediction of natural gas replacing electric cars sound implausible? I'm guessing that it's more plausible than claiming Ford or GM having financial troubles because they can't figure out how to make an electric car to compete with Tesla. Think about that for a second. If Ford can't figure out how to compete with Tesla in the electric car market then why would they not simply take on the task of trying to compete with natural gas? What else have they got to lose at that point? If they make it work then they can take Teslas lunch with a car that fills up at home from the same natural gas people use to cook with. I've seen a lot of garages with natural gas heaters in them, it won't take much to hook up a spigot to fill up a car. The selling point for electric cars is never having to visit a filling station again, well natural gas offers that too.
First, Ford and GM can make EVs just fine. The problem for them is that they can't make batteries and can't acquire them at a price point that allows them to make EVs profitably. This is unlikely to change much in the next few years unless they start making EV batteries themselves which probably won't happen.
NG cars combine all the problems with gas with all of the problems of EVs without any of the benefits. You have to build a new energy distribution system (EV's problem) but its still a highly explo
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that ICE car manufacturers have billions of dollars invested in ICE engine technology and manufacturing. That is just about their only asset and it is about to become worthless.
They don't know how to make EVs. Tesla has a 10 year head start on them. They have been reluctant to make the investments in EVs to avoid wasting their ICE assets but the market will make that decision for them. They can make the investments in EVs or go out of business. EVs are cheaper to operate. No maintenance and e
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
It's likely that Tesla charging will take up some of the slack.
On average, Americans use about 30 kwh per day of electrical energy.
On average, Americans drive 20 miles per day, and an electric car uses about 0.3 kwh per mile, for about 6 kwh / day.
So a 100% switch to electric cars should increase electrical energy consumption by about 20%.
Re: (Score:3)
On average, Americans drive 20 miles per day, and an electric car uses about 0.3 kwh per mile, for about 6 kwh / day.
On average each household has two cars/commuters. So that's 12 kwh/day. for an increase closer to 40%
Re:More info (Score:5, Informative)
How much electricity does an American home use?
In 2016, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,766 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of 897 kWh per month
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]
897kWh/mo / 30 days is 30kWh/day
So the 40% stands.
Re: (Score:3)
Fossil car manufacturers are already panicking, especially part manufacturers. For example, most Japanese manufacturers bet on hybrid tech and are now realizing that they don't have the experience and patents for EV drivetrains. Companies that have been making gearboxes for 80 years are suddenly finding that the Chinese have already cornered the market that is their future.
Same in Europe. European manufacturers are having to go to China for EV tech. Really only Nissan and Renault have anything significant o
Re: (Score:2)
Gas stations and repair shops will either switch or go out of business
Gas stations could probably still do well off of all the people who stupidly spend $20+ on overpriced convenience store items every single day. Having worked in a bank and able to see account histories.... I'm shocked at how often (as in multiple times a day) people will go into the gas station convenience stores and spend $5-20 then complain that they have no money.
Re: More info (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Mechanic shops have switched long time ago. Almost all cars today, as well as their problems, are filled with electronics and cables.
Not to mention that the "EVs are maintenance free" pundits continually forget that EVs still have hydraulic brakes, suspensions, air conditioners, etc which all will still need repairs and maintenance. Even in my ICE car the only actual engine work that's been needed is the oil changes (up to 10,000 mile intervals these days), spark plugs (around 100,000 miles), and the alternator and coolant pump (both wear items typically replaced around 130,000 miles.) At 160,000 miles I'm in need of new struts and some suspension bushings. Brakes and tires have probably been my biggest recurring cost but those are wear items and I do drive "aggressively."
I've owned 2 EVs over the last 6 years as my daily drivers. The only time I had any maintenance done on either car was when the infotainment system failed on the second car about about a month of owning it. It was replaced for free. These were both Chevy Volts and GM isn't exactly the top of the heap for quality. The Tesla owners I know have even less issues with their cars than I have. Don't kid yourself, EVs and ICEs require drastically different amounts of maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
You Telsa nuts are...nuts. The top selling EV has been the Nissan Leaf (by far). Tesla is not likely to be the EV leader.
Damn 110010001000 is at it again. He posted 27 times [slashdot.org] on a Tesla article a couple of days ago, all critical of Elon or Tesla and mostly containing inaccurate claims and just plain falsehoods. Quit trolling, and haven't you lost enough money on Tesla to learn your lesson. I'm surprised your fund is even still solvent at this point. The Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US and not even in the top 5 worldwide. Quit posting things that are patently false.
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the plus side, there will be a lot of very cheap power available. That's a very big opportunity right there.
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...overproduce power that needs to be dumped.
...or just put to good use. Merely replacing global world hydrogen consumption for agricultural and chemical purposes with electrolytic hydrogen would necessitate something like 800 GW of nameplate solar capacity dedicated to the task.
They have approximately doubled their end consumer energy cost for grid tied electricity thanks to their "cheap" expansion of green retardable energy.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Re: (Score:3)
> The fossil backup that is necessary to keep society working will be expensive though.
As repeated studies have shown, it is cheaper to supply power through a combination of renewables and fossil than either alone.
That is correct: adding renewables *lowers the cost of fossil fuel electricity*. Mostly through less wear and tear. This is not purely theoretically, many of the studies are in-market, notably California.
Re: (Score:3)
> In the near term, people charging their electric vehicles overnight is a very, very good thing for utilities.
Here in Ontario when you buy a EV and a charger, you get a deal so night-time power is free.
Right-wing all up in arms over this of course.
Yet, when you examine the numbers, it turns out giving EV owners free power is actually cheaper, because Ontario Power Generation currently *pays* New York to haul away our excess.
0 > -ve
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's a valid concern although I don't see results as dire as what you're describing.
My impression is funds that invest in energy products/services are beginning to diversify into renewables. These people spend their days watching the markets in an attempt to anticipate changes. And I think the drop in demand for oil will be gradual; not sudden.
But I do agree re fossil fuels; esp. oil. Oil has been a world-wide exchange medium for several decades, but that is about to change. Coal, IMO, is on its w
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of the more sensible investment schemes have already heavily divested from fossil fuels, so they won't be directly affected by such a crash.
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's a good thing that all the big energy companies are investing heavily in renewables then, right?
Most of the buying in actual fossil fuel stocks in the past decade has been institutional. Yes, a lot of day traders play the energy derivatives, but they'll make money either way.
Switching to more renewables isn't going to happen fast enough to crash the economy. Anyway, the bubble's got to pop. Corrections are good for everyone, and when it's done, we'll have cleaner energy (and in the case of renewables, cheaper too).
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know how investments work do you?
BTW there are plenty of retirement funds divesting from fossil fuels for this very reason, it will be impossible to time the drop in value of the existing fossil fuel companies. CalPEL and NY and several other major retirement funds have already began to divest because of this future risk.
Anyone smart realizes the risk and has either divested or keeps fossil fuel stocks at less than 5% of the portfolio so a collapse won't significantly harm investments. But these stocks won't collapse to zero overnight, it's going to be a long slide as people realize the value the stock holds for fuel in the ground is not there and consumption declines.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we now know how his investments work, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The crashing the economy warning is in the context of a command from on high telling the nation (or world) that they will stop using fossil fuels on some timetable. That's how the loonies wanted things to go. That's how Mao Tse Tung ruined the economy of China and caused the deaths of 55.6 million people in the Great Leap Forward. What is actually happening is companies are selling solar generation equipment such that consumers are buying and using them instead of fossil-fueled generation. It's gradual,
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot who but, somebody made a good point about this switch to solar & renewables: it's going to crash the economy.
You make good points. I however think otherwise. For example, I think Trump's rollback of Obama's financial regulations that were designed to abate another 2007 - 2008 crash will put us in even more danger. As I watch the stock market soar, I can't get the word 'bubble' out of my mind.
...We've got massive amounts of investment wealth tied up in fossil fuels. People's retirements are heavily vested in them...
Admittedly, some do think it's a good idea to invest mostly in a single stock or industry, but I don't think that's a good idea for fossil fuels; the writing is on the wall. Diversifying your stock portfolio
Re: (Score:2)
It may be true, but I expect it will take some 20 years before they come online
What are we going to do between now and then? Hint : it has long blades or a shiny surface.
After all, cheaper is better.
ROFL ! remember 'too cheap to meter' ? fusion will not in a thousand years be cheaper than solar (or wind).
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I think growing solar and wind options are great.. I'm just realistic. When I read summaries like this (having a background in math), I can immediately spot where they are using statistics to distort the facts. Energy consumption is additive as new technologies come online, and this growth is not at the expense of fossil fuel growth, which continues to grow as well. Remember, more energy used == higher quality of life. People aren't going to stop using any source of energy they find.
Second, what you think of as "oil & gas" companies largely don't exist, they have all long since diversified to "energy" companies. In most cases, the big "oil" players are the world's heaviest investors into renewable energy installations and infrastructure. Kind of funny to think the same companies you blast as "big oil" are probably doing far more for renewables than you or any activist I've ever heard of...
Interesting side note: some of these companies I have invested in have started in the last two years or so to sell their solar and wind assets. In not so many words, their reasoning is: current hype has these assets so overvalued it makes sense to sell them and reinvest that money elsewhere into something that makes better money.. usually back into Oil & Gas (natural gas is a popular one lately). In particular I hear reference to falling subsidies, which make the shaky economics even worse.
Lastly, rather than just hype about maybe making money in the future, most of these companies earn lots of steady cash, which you should count on for dividends far more than share price growth. If you understood any hydrocarbon market dynamics or fundamental uses of fuel, you'd realize it's not going anywhere. In the best scenario, say solar power replaces all transportation fuel; absolutely great! There will still be people lined up around the block to buy it for other uses. It will always be valuable.
Nope. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also have investments in typewriters and telegraphs?
Point is, investment portfolios can be changed, but it doesn't mean we should hold back innovation and doing the right thing because a few people may not move their money in time. Either move your money into something forward thinking, or don't come crying when you lose it.
Re:I forget who (Score:5, Insightful)
My shares in buggy whips never recovered. I was ruined!
There should be firm laws against this sort of 'progress'.
Re: (Score:3)
Loosers hang on...
I think we have a paradox here.
Re: (Score:2)
Look behind you.
Re:So you say the rate of installation has slowed. (Score:5, Funny)
Not even close. I think it's going to double in about 7 Billion years or so.