It's Official: Solar Is the Cheapest Electricity In History (popularmechanics.com) 325
An anonymous reader writes: In a new report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says solar is now the cheapest form of electricity for utility companies to build. That's thanks to risk-reducing financial policies around the world, the agency says, and it applies to locations with both the most favorable policies and the easiest access to financing. The report underlines how important these policies are to encouraging development of renewables and other environmentally forward technologies.
Carbon Brief (CB) summarizes the annual report with a lot of key details. The World Energy Outlook 2020 "offers four 'pathways' to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables," CB says. "The IEA's main scenario has 43 [percent] more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20 [to] 50 [percent] cheaper than thought." The calculation depends on financing figures compared with the amount of output for solar projects. That means that at the same time panel technology gets more efficient and prices for basic panels continue to fall, investors are getting better and better financing deals. "Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7 [to] 8 [percent] for all technologies, varying according to each country's stage of development," explains CB. "Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6 [to] 5.0 [percent] in Europe and the US, 4.4 [to] 5.5 [percent] in China and 8.8 [to] 10.0 [percent] in India."
Carbon Brief (CB) summarizes the annual report with a lot of key details. The World Energy Outlook 2020 "offers four 'pathways' to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables," CB says. "The IEA's main scenario has 43 [percent] more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20 [to] 50 [percent] cheaper than thought." The calculation depends on financing figures compared with the amount of output for solar projects. That means that at the same time panel technology gets more efficient and prices for basic panels continue to fall, investors are getting better and better financing deals. "Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7 [to] 8 [percent] for all technologies, varying according to each country's stage of development," explains CB. "Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6 [to] 5.0 [percent] in Europe and the US, 4.4 [to] 5.5 [percent] in China and 8.8 [to] 10.0 [percent] in India."
You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4, Interesting)
They had the US invest in solar R&D. Republicans like to bring up the Solyndra issue, but that was only a small portion of the total investments. It's a red herring.
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar's success is because of cheap Chinese manufacturing, not American government R&D.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't the worst idea we just should have affected a regime change first.
We attempted a regime change about 4.5 years after WW2.
It was one of China's neighbors. You may know it as Korea.
We beat the North Koreans all the way to the border of China.
Do you know what happened next? I'll give you a hint- it has something to do with why Korea isn't unified.
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
You're one scary shitstain. Educate yourself, lest you ever find yourself in a position of enough power to get someone killed.
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't divide Korea or start the Korean War and we certainly weren't beat by the Chinese who added their weight to the Russians and North Koreans we were already fighting and won a few battles before heartbreak ridge, which we won but the overall effort petered out to a draw because there wasn't much support at home and Truman wasn't willing to step it up to bombing instead of throwing bodies at it.
Re: (Score:3)
We didn't divide Korea or start the Korean War and we certainly weren't beat by the Chinese who added their weight to the Russians and North Koreans we were already fighting and won a few battles before heartbreak ridge, which we won but the overall effort petered out to a draw because there wasn't much support at home and Truman wasn't willing to step it up to bombing instead of throwing bodies at it.
First 2 points aren't remotely relavant. You advocated a regime change. Korea happened approximately a year after the end of the Chinese Civil War (the point at which there was a regime to be changed)
Your third point, that the Chinese didn't beat us, is confusing.
Did they win the war? Of course they didn't.
They they *very* effectively expel us from North Korean territory? Yes, yes they did.
As for Nuclear Weapons... are you fucking stupid?
You wanted to escalate a limited war on both sides to a full scal
Re: (Score:2)
"They they *very* effectively expel us from North Korean territory? Yes, yes they did."
You mean they completely failed to do so, which is why Korea is divided into two territories today but we weren't fighting China, we were fighting China, N. Korea, and the USSR combined. As I said, China's contribution added to the others tippled the scale slightly and won a few battles but then hit a stalemate for two years after which we won a major engagement and likely could have continued to press the advantage from
Re: (Score:2)
I stated they expelled us from *North Korean* territory, not Korean territory.
we were fighting China, N. Korea, and the USSR combined.
Not really. At the point of Chinese intervention, NK was defeated, and UN forces were at the border.
Soviets provided air cover, so I'll give you that, but if you think that wouldn't have been the case in the instance of an attempt at changing the regime of China... then you can't be helped.
On that point, of course, the US was fighting along side 29 other countries, with the bulk of manpow
Re: (Score:2)
"I stated they expelled us from *North Korean* territory, not Korean territory."
Arguably making us take even one step backward was expelling us from North Korean territory. A step forward shrunk the same. The line now is a consequence of the truce.
"Soviets provided air cover, so I'll give you that, but if you think that wouldn't have been the case in the instance of an attempt at changing the regime of China... then you can't be helped."
Granted but you seem to assume regime change means war. That isn't even
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a mistake to think that China doesn't do its own cutting edge R&D on stuff like this. That mistake is how you lost the 5G race with them, you didn't expect Huawei to put in the work and get all the patents.
All the rhetoric about China only steals technology and only makes knock-offs has not worked out well for us.
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4)
Cheap Chinese manufacturing ...
I read a few years ago that China funded solar panel manufacturing, to the extent that the market was over-supplied, resulting in a drop in prices. This obviously meant that non-subsidised companies could not compete on price. The interesting point is that this state subsidy was not an unlimited resource, and a solar panel manufacturer in China was allowed to go bust, when it could not sell its products at a profit. At the time, companies in China generally did not go bust, but I guess there are limits to top-down management of the economy.
Please accept my apologies for lack of references.
Re: (Score:2)
You are implying that solar is doing something bad when in reality it's the norm to get investors onto a project. ALL projects get to pay off their investors with money from their customers, it's kind of the idea - invest in a project, get your money back plus some extra on top - all paid for by the customers.
But for some reason, in your smugness, you imply this is only bad when it's for green energy. Perhaps wake up and smell the coffee - the world is passing you by.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps wake up and smell the coffee - the world is passing you by.
Be quick about it. Coffee is also at risk by Climate change. [forbes.com] Probably won't go extinct, but may get a bit expensive to smell.
Re: You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They had the US invest in solar R&D. Republicans like to bring up the Solyndra issue, but that was only a small portion of the total investments. It's a red herring.
Yes, a red herring indeed considering a) the original loan application was done under the Bush administration, b) when the Obama administration found out Solyndra lied on their documentation it immediately stopped all funding, c) the Obama administration instituted a criminal investigation of the company and d) the program under which Solyndra received the loans makes money for the government.
Thank Carter [Re:You can partly thank the....] (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Informative)
NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the feds can hand out money
The Constitution does say the feds can provide for the "general welfare". (Article 1, Section 8).
Also, at least in theory, they were loans, not handouts.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people think McCulloch v. Maryland was wrongly decided.
If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion, which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality.
George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were right to create the Bank of the United States, and this case was correct in preserving it. People who disagree with McCulloch and think they are more of an originalist than the Founding Fathers should limit themeselves to flag-themed erotic fan fiction, and leave the hard business of governing to serious people.
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Funny)
"General welfare" doesn't mean anything you define it to mean,
I looked it up and in 2020 it means "not visible from the President's golf course".
Re: (Score:3)
But what if he hates Hondas?
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Insightful)
what it means is that the government must act for the welfare of all of us
The theory was that investing in solar energy would benefit all of us.
I agree that these payouts were stupid, but it isn't clear that they were unconstitutional.
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4, Insightful)
what it means is that the government must act for the welfare of all of us
The theory was that investing in solar energy would benefit all of us.
And it is doing so, by reducing emissions for energy produced. What's the problem? The government more than made its money back on Obama's loans, AND it helped spur solar development.
Re: (Score:3)
Why were they stupid, Bill from Shanghai?
Was building the US Interstate system stupid, too?
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4, Interesting)
He's saying the Federal power to give loans to specific entities based on policy is derived from their power to provide for the general welfare (the good of all of us)
I think you owe him an apology, since this has been practice since the dawn of time, and no matter *what* your pet issue is, there is a federal grant or loan program somewhere giving them money.
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Informative)
Tax credits are handouts, not loans.
Solyndra received a $535M loan from the feds.
Solyndra received a $25M tax credit from California.
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't all the tax credits they received. They take deductions for the equipment costs and on materials, then sell the products to people who can only afford them because they get tax credits. If the tax loophole letting Californians dodge taxes by funneling them to their state instead that California tax credit would essentially also essentially be federally subsidized.
The credit may not all go to China as you claimed elsewhere but the profits certainly do. We'd have little need for Chinese rare eart
Re: (Score:2)
We'd have little need for Chinese rare earth materials or manufacturing of panels if we weren't spending billions pretending solar is drastically cheaper than it is in order to screw the US for the sake of California and China.
Screw you and your piggish ignorance. Solar panels don't use rare earths. Neither do common circuit components like invertors or bypass diodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, none at all, I'm totally ignorant.
"Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide thin film solar cells based in Fremont, California."
Indium, gallium, selenium
Here is an assessment from 2018.
https://www.iaee.org/en/Publications/newsletterdl.aspx?id=455
Per that paper everything below risks supply chain risk issues.
Copper (wiring, thin film solar cells) Critical material
Indium (solar cells) Critical material
Lead (batteries)
Phosphate rock (phosphorus)
Silica (solar
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Informative)
Indium is not a rare earth.
Lead is not a rare earth.
Phosphate rock is not a rare earth.
Silica is not a rare earth.
Selenium is not a rare earth.
Iron ore is not a rare earth.
Molybdenum is not a rare earth.
Cadmium is not a rare earth.
Tellurium is not a rare earth.
Titanium dioxide is not a rare earth.
Gallium is not a rare earth.
Metallurgical coal is not a rare earth.
Silver is not a rare earth.
Germanium is not a rare earth.
Tin Arsenic is not a rare earth.
Bauxite is not a rare earth.
Boron minerals is not a rare earth.
You get the idea?
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean that technically they aren't on the list of the classic 17 elements from the periodic chart with low(er) concentrations in the Earth's crust then sure. That doesn't actually impact my argument, only the term 'rare earth'.
The elements which are primarily used have supply chain and production issues with China having the production stranglehold. Making panels artificially cheap through tax subsidies funnels money to the Chinese raw materials industry resulting in a net positive gain for them while
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Informative)
And China doesn't have a stronghold on most of the elements from the list above. Moreover, elements like gallium or indium are needed in laughably small amounts. So there is no feasible way for China to lock the markets.
Re: (Score:3)
I think rarity of elements has to be put into perspective. One measure is abundance in the earth's crust, defined in parts-per-million or whatever. However, the practical measure is difficulty of extraction from raw materials. For example, gold is normally treated as a rare metal, but there is plenty of it in the oceans, I understand. It is just that the gold is so diluted that processing seawater is not a practical source of gold. Indium is an interesting case. I understand that it occurs in very small qua
Not Rare Earth Elements (Score:4, Insightful)
If you mean that technically they aren't on the list of the classic 17 elements from the periodic chart with low(er) concentrations in the Earth's crust then sure.
This is a site for nerds. It say so right in the subtitle. We know the periodic table.
When you say copper, indium, or gallium is a rare earth element [wikipedia.org], the best thing we can say about you is you are ignorant about chemistry.
If you meant something else, you should have stated it correctly.
Cyberax is correct: solar panels don't use rare earths. Neither do common circuit components like invertors or bypass diodes.
(and also, as a side note, the low cost solar panels discussed aren't CIGS in any case. They are silicon cells, which do not use indium or gallium, and use copper only for wiring, just like every single other electrical generation system from hundred year old coal power plants through next-generation nukes)
Re: (Score:2)
They take deductions for the equipment costs and on materials
Oh the humanity! A tax deduction on assets. That must be corrupt and evil! ...
Never go full retard.
Re: (Score:3)
https://subsidytracker.goodjob... [goodjobsfirst.org]
So, huge compared to the literal billions to Exxon-Mobil, eh?
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:5, Funny)
Except that it isn't the U.S. government's role to selectively hand out free money to businesses
Unless they're golf courses, apparently.
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it isn't the U.S. government's role to selectively hand out free money to businesses
Unless they're golf courses, apparently.
Or fossil fuel companies, or donors to political parties, or... well, the list goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
I posted it above but it seems lots of people are confused or willfully confused so here it goes again:
The rate of 2.6-5.0% in the US is way above Federal Discount Rate (which is 0.25% right now and has been very low for a while). This means lending to solar may enjoy some preferences over some fossil fuel projects but these preferences are far less than some other industries (most notably big banks) are getting. In other words, it is well within the normal policy arsenal of the government, is within typica
Re:You can partly thank the Obama/Biden admin (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it isn't the U.S. government's role to selectively hand out free money to businesses. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the feds can hand out money to select interests to "invest in" X or Y.
And yet, how many trillions has the government handed out this year alone to prop multi-billion dollar companies who wasted their tax cuts on stock buybacks and executive bonuses rather than increasing the salaries of their employees?
How many trillions are spent each year subsidizing sugar, coal, oil, corn, soybean, auto manufacturing, aircraft manufacturing and so on?
If you're going to whine about one industry you have to whine about them all.
Re: (Score:3)
Hear that Republicans, your "investments" in oil and coal are not allowed by the Constitution. Start demanding they pay those subsidies back, we can use it to pay down the national debt. Or we could use it to help those devastated by SARS-CoV-2.
orly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even that. (Score:3, Insightful)
What they are saying here is basically BECAUSE of huge positive subsidies for solar, and the massive regulatory costs and delays being put on anything nuclear, then a big enough thumb has been put on the safest power option (nuclear, the numbers are simple and clear..) strongly enough to make solar look better.
So, a win for the rare earth opencast miners, I guess... go china!
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for nuclear, but one problem is that it is really expensive.
Fuel is cheap but building a new plant is expensive, and as it reaches its end of life you can keep it running, but you have to spend a lot maintaining technology that may be obsolete or decommission it, also expensive.
And the reason it is the safest power option is not because it is inherently safe, it is really nasty stuff, we are just really careful with it. These "massive regulatory costs", for a good part, are here to make sure that n
Re:Not even that. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe a nuclear power plants takes no more materials than a coal plant but they are definitely not the same materials! In particular the reaction vessel is a massive chunk of a special irradiation hardened stainless steel alloy, forged in one piece. These things are crazy expensive. Radiation damages materials and it has to be taken into account in every part of the plant that is exposed to them.
As for safety, do you realize that "corium" (the remains of a molten reactor core) is a thing from hell. It is radioactive, toxic, hot enough to melt concrete, and tend to cause explosions in contact with water, which is bad because cooling it with water is the kind of thing you want to do. The death count for the Chernobyl disaster is up to debate but it still caused a large patch of land to be inhabitable and I lost count of the billions it has cost. Fukushima was not as bad but it still made a huge mess, and it happened in a rich country, where the plants were deemed very safe and inspected with the hindsight of Chernobyl.
I personally love nuclear, I even worked a bit in the field, and I have friends for who work for nuclear safety, research and exploitation. But as much as I love nuclear, for many reasons, I think downplaying the (manageable) risks and costs is making nuclear energy a disservice. There are certainly a lot of inefficiency due to regulation, misunderstanding of radiation and NIMBY, but there are also real considerations behind the cost of nuclear power.
And BTW, I am French. France is the champion of nuclear power by proportion. But this is a result of government politics, with national sovereignty implications, not just market considerations.
Re: (Score:3)
Ethanol is really nasty stuff, as is bio-diesel,
That makes no sense. Do you even live on this planet?
I drink ethanol. Pretty much every day.
As for diesel (bio or otherwise), that is in no way in the same category as ethanol. You don't drink it.
On the other hand, if you're talking about the hazards of diesel fuel, you really should be commenting in a forum about cars, trucks, and other transportation. Not one about electricity production.
Re: (Score:3)
A nuclear power plant takes no more materials or labor than a coal or natural gas plant of the same power output.
No.
I do not know where to start...coal ash can be stored on site which then has a tendency to wash into streams because of lack of regulation [apnews.com]
Now nukes have to worry about capitalization costs. Now, blaming "regulations" for the costs is just a red herring when those are necessary.
Now, I see all these new nuke power technologies and they are not being built. Or even tested. Why is that?
Here is an interestng read from that Liberal rag Forbes. [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Inverter cost included. This is grid scale solar, not domestic.
Batteries are cheaper than fossil fuel peaker plants.
That’s thanks to risk-reducing financial pol (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The article did make mention of policies that favor solar power in what is making solar power cheaper than fossil fuels. I didn't see what those policies were but I have a few guesses.
One policy that makes solar power cheaper is that utilities are required to buy solar power when it's offered. What this does is force utilities to throttle back thermal plants, and that drives up operating expenses for these thermal plants and makes it cost more than it would otherwise. A thermal power plant isn't like a p
Re: (Score:3)
This issue isn't unique to solar because even in areas that use fossil fuels, demand for electricity isn't constant throughout the day. In fact, variable electrical demand is one inefficiency a "smart grid" helps to solve.
If fossil fuels are so chea
Re: (Score:3)
TFA did mention one main factor making solar power cheaper: That financing is cheaper than conventional fuel power plants. TFA stated that one reason for lower financing costs is less risk to investors.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It says so right in the summary. Did you not make it to the second sentence?
Rather disingenuous analysis (Score:5, Informative)
The article just summarizes another article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea) which actually reports the IEA findings. It turns out that solar is only cheaper if you factor in the special government programs which give super-favorable below-market financing to utilities to build solar, and shift default risk to the taxpayers:
"This shift is the result of new analysis carried out by the WEO team, looking at the average 'cost of capital' for developers looking to build new generating capacity. Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7-8% for all technologies, varying according to each country’s stage of development. Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6-5.0% in Europe and the US, 4.4-5.5% in China and 8.8-10.0% in India, largely as a result of policies designed to reduce the risk of renewable investments."
Solar remains substantially more expensive than other technologies. Some governments subsidize it enough to make it competitive, and this analysis relies on that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It turns out that solar is only cheaper if you factor in the special government programs which give super-favorable below-market financing to utilities to build solar, and shift default risk to the taxpayers:
But solar is far less risky then electricity generated by burning carbon. One has no control over the price of said carbon but solar energy will always be available and free. So it makes sense that financing rates are lower - there is lower risk.
But the big reason for subsidizing solar energy is that we already subsidize other forms of energy by ignoring the costs / impacts related to CO2 production. Solar energy, or some other zero carbon energy, is required to reduce future expenses. So investments
Re: (Score:3)
Solar energy may "always be available and free", but electricity produced from solar energy won't be unless you invest into equipment that can do the conversion. The article only claims that now, with governments footing a large part of the construction bill it is "cheap" to build such equipment. If this is all there is to it, it is a fairly limited "success" after over two decades of huge government subsidies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
solar energy will always be available and free.
Solar power is free? By that logic so is coal.
Solar power is not free because we have to build the collectors. To build the collectors we have to mine the earth for material. The material is "free" in that there is plenty of it, no one person or nation can monopolize the materials and deny the rest of the world of it, and the knowledge of how it works is widely known.
As far as being "always available" the logic also applies to coal. There's enough known reserves of coal to last centuries, which means it
Re:Rather disingenuous analysis (Score:4, Insightful)
Your arguments range between cherry picked biased to downright fraudulent as you fail to provide any details on the issues with hydro, wind, geothermal, and nuclear.
First is hydro, which while a wonderful source of power, can significantly damage ecosystems. I bring this up because you keep arguing about plantlife beneath ground-mounted solar panels but mention nothing about flooding of valleys and the impact on aquatic life by hydro. All of which pales to we've already dammed up most of what is economical and feasable in the United States. Hydro will not scale much further.
Next lets do geothermal, which is highly localized. This isn't a bad thing, but considering your arguments against solar as being only viable where the sun shines a lot, you need to be fair as geothermal is only available in very limited areas. Iceland is going gangbusters with it, so is Oregon, but what about Florida? They have 5x the population of Iceland and Oregon combined.
Wind is great, and moving forward hand-in-hand with solar as clean energy. Except where it impinges on elitist views and their perceived property values. Or when one of those elitists claims they cause cancer and has the ability to impact regulation, financing, and policy.
Nuclear has great potential, but you need to be realistic. Historically all of the funding has focused on the energy stuff that can be used for weapons in a pinch. Combine that with the fear it generates for risk/reward -- if things go wrong they can go horribly wrong. See Chernobyl and Fukoshima.
Cherry picking deaths per industrial accidents is the worst dishonesty. How many solar accidents have resulted in evacuating and placing 1,000 sq mi (2,600 sq km) as "off limits" for practially forever? That's the Chernobyl exclusionary zone size, and just a tad smaller than the entire state of Rhode island. How about taking into account the increased cancer rates over an entire CONTINENT and then some from nuclear accidents?
CAN nuclear be done safely? Yes. But pretending this is going to happen short of fusion being made practical is pure hallucinating.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever counted all the deaths related to the fossil fuel industry from the first year it came into being? Count all the miners with black lung disease?
Solar is just another arrow in the quiver.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar remains substantially more expensive than other technologies.
Well, this statement is entirely unsupportable.
Some governments subsidize it enough to make it competitive, and this analysis relies on that.
This is true. But so what? Does the money know where it comes from? In regards to government subsidies making it affordable, means solar is just like nuclear power, except that the R&D invested in solar is dwarfed by the R&D invested in nuclear power, and the subsidies for solar are minuscule compared to nuclear power subsidies, which are not just massive in comparison, nuclear subsidies are massive by any measure and really quite mind-boggling.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar remains substantially more expensive than other technologies.
Well, this statement is entirely unsupportable.
That statement is directly supported by the IEA report. It's not cheaper in dollars-per-watt unless you account for a big reduction in interest rates.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the subsidies for solar are minuscule compared to nuclear power subsidies
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
I can recall a number of nuclear power plant operators threatening to shut down their reactors because they can't compete with the subsidies that solar power gets. I can recall one nuclear power plant getting some of the same low CO2 subsidies from the state government after such a complaint. It turns out that the state government realized that losing somewhere around one gigawatt of low CO2 energy production capability would look bad so they added nuclear power to t
Re:Rather disingenuous analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
The rate of 2.6-5.0% in the US is way above Federal Discount Rate. This means lending to solar may enjoy some preferences over some fossil fuel projects but these preferences are far less than some other industries (most notably big banks) are getting. In other words, it is well within the normal policy arsenal of the government, is within typical imbalances the fed is introducing elsewhere and is not in any way a handout.
Re: (Score:2)
The same can be said for coal and other fossil fuels. Their costs don't include the damage to the environment and atmosphere, as well as people's health. Who do you reckon pays those costs?
Re: (Score:3)
The article just summarizes another article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea) which actually reports the IEA findings. It turns out that solar is only cheaper if you factor in the special government programs which give super-favorable below-market financing to utilities to build solar, and shift default risk to the taxpayers
Yeah, this subsidization of solar is stupid and wrong. We should stop doing it.
We should also stop subsidizing fossil fuels. In particular, we should stop allowing those who burn fossil fuels to freely dump all of the pre-historic carbon they contain into the atmosphere, which is creating enormous costs that must be borne by everyone. We should make our best estimate of the cost of addressing climate change caused by each kilo of carbon dioxide emitted and impose a tax or other fee of that amount on any b
"Solar power"? (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF is that?
Signed,
Canadians.
What use is solar at $20 per megawatt hour cost? (Score:2)
Build enough solar and when it's actually generating the market price will be negative dollars per MWh ... any money invested in it will be a loss, all costs and no income. Meanwhile the fossil fuel plants can still make money, because they will be generating when there are positive market prices.
For the moment for a country to actually save money with solar, the extra grid infrastructure cost will have to generate decent ROI (not that much in current economic circumstances, lets say 5-10%) purely by saved
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the fossil fuel plants can still make money, because they will be generating when there are positive market prices.
That must be while coal plants are shutting down and coal companies are going bankrupt and asking for bailouts. It's because companies hate money. I keep forgetting about that.
If it really is the cheapest it won't need subsidy (Score:5, Funny)
That's great news. if it really is the cheapest (it isn't) then it won't need to be subsidised any more, and can even be taxed to pay for the rest of the infrastructure it uses.
Good news all round.
Re: If it really is the cheapest it won't need sub (Score:3, Interesting)
Kinda like how fossil fuels are mature and no longer receive subsidies.
Right?
Re: (Score:3)
It already is. Solar gets far less subsidies than oil and gas, or ironically the finance sector itself. I wonder why people only freak out about subsidies when they are applied to green energy projects. Somehow they stop being subsidies when applied to coal?
Oil/Gas and Coal is subsides to the tune of $100bn by the USA both directly (approximately $35bn) and indirectly every year. Not bad considering only $5bn was given to Solar, and $15bn to renewables in general (both directly and indirectly)
Re: (Score:3)
Solar power provides less than 2% of our electricity in the USA, and when compared to all energy consumed it's a rounding error.
Yes it does. It's also been in active development for about only a 10% of the USA's history with electricity and lacks first mover advantage.
Got any other irrelevant points to bring up? Oh yeah, I see your post is full of strawmen and excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
taxes on other sources pay for subsidies on solar (Score:2)
Nuclear is cheapest if it is done correctly. It even works at night.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the rest of the headline should read (Score:2)
"During daytime, and when they're not covered in snow."
Re: (Score:2)
Problem solved!! (Score:2)
Can we get more people to recognize just how far we've gone to solve the problem of global warming?
I listen to the Coffee with Scott Adams podcast (that would be the same Scott Adams that draws the Dilbert cartoons) and recently he spoke of a company that makes biodegradable plastics from CO2 extracted from the air. For years I've been following the progress on a US Navy project that can produce jet fuel out of seawater using electricity to power the process. Since this is the US Navy they plan to use a n
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i always thought piling wood up and using friction was the cheapest.
now i have to rethink my lifes experiences with respect to cost
Re: (Score:2)
cheapest in history. i always thought piling wood up and using friction was the cheapest.
Try producing enough electricity for your current lifestyle using that method.
Let us know how it goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems doable, for around $7k USD you can get a 7kw steam turbine.
https://claverton-energy.com/mini-steam-power-plant-of-10-kw-with-18-hp-steam-engine-3kw-steam-power-plant-with-8-hp-steam-engine-to-run-on-renewable-energy.html
This guy is building his own... https://www.instructables.com/Power-your-home-and-workshop-with-steam/
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
And keeping that system fed with dry wood is free, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And keeping that system fed with dry wood is free, right?
If you live in a forest and your time is worthless, then yes.
Re:Yo BeauHD (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds perfect for my brother in law then.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it have to be free? First you claimed you couldn't produce enough electricity that way. Now you move the goal posts and claim the fuel must be free. The GP didn't say it was free, he said it was the cheapest which is not the same as free.
That said, this whole story is ridiculous. You have to include the cost of subsidies and lost revenue as a consequence of these incentives in the cost of the solar.
Re:Yo BeauHD (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but it gets a bit complicated when you include the cost of subsidies for other energy sources, and the cost of externalities.
But lost revenue? To whom?
Re: (Score:2)
"But lost revenue? To whom?"
The IRS.
Steam (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this story is misleading because it pretends the cost after subsidies is the cost. You have to include the cost of the incentives to determine the true cost, this just hides the cost.
Re:Yo BeauHD (Score:5, Informative)
So wait. You mean to tell me that driving out to the woods every day, collecting wood, drying it, setting the fire, watching it to make sure it is sustained and does not burn out, then capturing the hot air and performing carbon sequestration, then collecting ash and disposing of it in an environmentally safe manner is cheap? This is before the cost of the heat engine you will need to run appliances in the house and the maintenance and repair costs on that. I am not sure you thought you cunning plan all the way through.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
cheapest in history.
i always thought piling wood up and using friction was the cheapest.
now i have to rethink my lifes experiences with respect to cost
You dumb ass, have you ever even built a heat engine?
Compare that to a wiring an old washing machine motor to a bicycle and getting some exercise for once in your life. You're right, you need to rethink your lifestyle decisions and fight for a better experience. Now pedal!
Re:Yo BeauHD (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So what is the environmental impact of mining all those raw materials which are needed to build solar panels?
Far worse than hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear.
There's also the environmental impact of depriving the land below it from sunlight, meaning no plants can grow there. I'm sure someone will want to point out that there's already plenty of places where we don't see plants grow that we could put solar panels, such as on a rooftop. Once someone takes the extra effort of putting a solar panel on top of a roof then it's not so cheap any more. And people can, and do, grow plants on rooftops. Efforts
Re: (Score:3)
There's also the environmental impact of depriving the land below it from sunlight, meaning no plants can grow there.
Not really. There's a field of research called agrivoltaics [wikipedia.org] which recognizes that *too much* sun is bad for some plants (in terms of heat and evaporation) so putting solar panels above plants can actually help the plants' growth.
Also, some of the best places for solar panels are deserts (like in Spain, the Middle East, or the American southwest) where no plants were growing to begin with.
Re:Meanwhile, in the real world... (Score:4, Informative)
It is not the cheapest source, it is the cheapest source to build. Totally different things.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that after you build it there are no more costs of materials if it's the cheapest to build it will most likely be the cheapest to produce too. Even if it weren't the cheapest to build it's likely the cheapest to produce.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also cheaper to maintain and operate than any other form of power, requiring less maintenance and with the simplest maintenance. Doesn't that make it cheapest overall? I mean, the ultimate metric is per Wh, right? Solar power systems are awesomely easy to implement. You can literally look every detail you need to know up in the supplied documentation, or a table.