Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power The Almighty Buck

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

It's Official: Solar Is the Cheapest Electricity In History

Comments Filter:
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @10:37PM (#60638408) Journal

    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.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @10:48PM (#60638440)

      Solar's success is because of cheap Chinese manufacturing, not American government R&D.

    • You should thank Germany for funding the expensive initial phase of solar mass production since 2001. And China for making the production as cheap as it is now.
    • 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.

    • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Friday October 23, 2020 @09:17AM (#60639738) Homepage
      Actually, in this case you should thank Jimmy Carter: he was the one who ramped up the ERDA program on solar cell research, which pretty much directly led to the technologies used today in flat plate solar arrays. (Responding to the oil crisis of the 1970s.)
  • orly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @11:00PM (#60638480)
    *until you add the battery and inverter cost
    • Not even that. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thesupraman ( 179040 )

      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!

      • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

        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

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Inverter cost included. This is grid scale solar, not domestic.

      Batteries are cheaper than fossil fuel peaker plants.

  • by Vanyle ( 5553318 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @11:13PM (#60638500)
    Are the costs really cheaper or are tax-payers footing more of the bill?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by blindseer ( 891256 )

      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

      • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        A thermal power plant needs to stay hot so that it can provide power when needed, and that means it's burning fuel even if it's not producing electricity.

        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 solar power is so cheap then it should not be getting favorable treatment by government policy any more.

        If fossil fuels are so chea

      • by jbengt ( 874751 )

        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.

        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.

      • FWIW, grid-scale solar actually uses high efficiency panels on trackers, and makes much better use of resources than fixed rooftop solar. Once you add the tracker, every point of efficiency you gain makes such a significant impact that it would be stupid to use anything but the best.
    • It says so right in the summary. Did you not make it to the second sentence?

  • by mpoulton ( 689851 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @11:13PM (#60638502)

    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)

      by willy_me ( 212994 )

      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

      • 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)

        by blindseer ( 891256 )

        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

        • by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday October 23, 2020 @08:28AM (#60639534) Journal

          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.

        • "Solar power is free? By that logic so is coal." nonsense, you have to keep digging up coal and burning - how many times can you burn a piece of coal?

          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)

      by catmistake ( 814204 )

      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.

      • 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.

        • what if you took away all the subsidies from the fossil industry to give a level playing field in costs? Not good to compare unless they both either get some sort of subsidy or neither get any.
      • 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

    • by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @11:49PM (#60638564)

      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.

    • 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?

    • 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)

    by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @11:52PM (#60638576)

    WTF is that?

    Signed,
    Canadians.

  • 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

    • 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.

  • by ishmaelflood ( 643277 ) on Friday October 23, 2020 @12:07AM (#60638608)

    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.

    • Kinda like how fossil fuels are mature and no longer receive subsidies.

      Right?

    • 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)

  • Nuclear is cheapest if it is done correctly. It even works at night.

  • "During daytime, and when they're not covered in snow."

    • With solar panels on my carport and a couple of deep cycle batteries, I power my whole house day and night and I don't have to worry about electricity bills anymore. Is it really economical to do so? Considering that interest rates are zero then it will pay for itself in about 5 years. So after that, it is very economical, but that isn't really the reason for doing so and every time lecce prices go up, I just shrug and by the time the system needs to be replaced, I'll be pushing up daisies.
  • 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

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...