Solar Is Cheapest Electricity In History, US DOE Aims To Cut Costs 60% By 2030 (cleantechnica.com) 243
Solar is becoming the cheapest option for new electricity in the world, but there's still room to improve. According to a new cost-reduction target announced today, the U.S. Department of Energy aims to cut utility-scale solar power plant costs by 60% by 2030. CleanTechnica reports: So, how does the DOE intend to help cut solar power costs so much by 2030? First of all, the U.S. DOE's Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) sees two materials used in solar cells as critical to this brighter solar future perovskites and cadmium telluride (CdTe). The department is [spending] $63 million to try to help with these solar cell innovation goals. In the DOE's own words:
- $40 million for perovskite R&D: Perovskites are a family of emerging solar materials that have potential to make highly efficient thin-film solar cells with very low production costs. DOE is awarding $40 million to 22 projects that will advance perovskite PV device and manufacturing research and developmentâ"as well as performance through the formation of a new $14 million testing center to provide neutral, independent validation of the performance of new perovskite devices.
- $3 million Perovskite Startup Prize: This new prize competition will speed entrepreneurs' path to commercializing perovskite technologies by providing seed capital for their newly formed companies.
- $20 million for CdTe thin films: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory will set up a consortium to advance cheaper CdTe thin-film solar technologies, which were developed in the United States and make up 20% of the modules installed in this country. This consortium will advance low-cost manufacturing techniques and domestic research capabilities, increasing opportunities for U.S. workers and entrepreneurs to capture a larger portion of the $60 billion global solar manufacturing sector.
"Today's announcement also supports several concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) projects," the department notes. Here are details from the DOE:
- $33 million for CSP advances: The new funding opportunity also includes funding for improvements to the reliability and performance of CSP plants, which can dispatch solar energy whenever it is needed; identifies new solar applications for industrial processes, which contribute 20% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions; and advances long-duration thermal-energy storage devices. Long-duration energy storage is critical to decarbonizing the electricity sector and couples well with CSP plants, but the cost must fall by a factor of two to unlock deployment.
- $25 million to demonstrate a next-generation CSP power plant: Sandia National Laboratories will receive funding to build a facility where researchers, developers, and manufacturers can test next-generation CSP components and systems and advance toward DOE's 2030 cost target of 5 cents/kWh for CSP plants.
- $40 million for perovskite R&D: Perovskites are a family of emerging solar materials that have potential to make highly efficient thin-film solar cells with very low production costs. DOE is awarding $40 million to 22 projects that will advance perovskite PV device and manufacturing research and developmentâ"as well as performance through the formation of a new $14 million testing center to provide neutral, independent validation of the performance of new perovskite devices.
- $3 million Perovskite Startup Prize: This new prize competition will speed entrepreneurs' path to commercializing perovskite technologies by providing seed capital for their newly formed companies.
- $20 million for CdTe thin films: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory will set up a consortium to advance cheaper CdTe thin-film solar technologies, which were developed in the United States and make up 20% of the modules installed in this country. This consortium will advance low-cost manufacturing techniques and domestic research capabilities, increasing opportunities for U.S. workers and entrepreneurs to capture a larger portion of the $60 billion global solar manufacturing sector.
"Today's announcement also supports several concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) projects," the department notes. Here are details from the DOE:
- $33 million for CSP advances: The new funding opportunity also includes funding for improvements to the reliability and performance of CSP plants, which can dispatch solar energy whenever it is needed; identifies new solar applications for industrial processes, which contribute 20% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions; and advances long-duration thermal-energy storage devices. Long-duration energy storage is critical to decarbonizing the electricity sector and couples well with CSP plants, but the cost must fall by a factor of two to unlock deployment.
- $25 million to demonstrate a next-generation CSP power plant: Sandia National Laboratories will receive funding to build a facility where researchers, developers, and manufacturers can test next-generation CSP components and systems and advance toward DOE's 2030 cost target of 5 cents/kWh for CSP plants.
Burning dinosaur farts has worked out great so far (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's some bad shit in the atmosphere now. For those of us who would prefer to keep breathing that's kind of a big deal.
I think he forgot the sarcasm tag.
Great, now make em in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Do what the Japanese have done successfully, don't export your most advanced technology or let Chinese "students" steal it. Keep it and associated jobs and know-how at home.
I'll just be happy when the day comes (Score:5, Informative)
that I disconnect from the grid, with cheap, efficient solar cells, and a big battery bank for when the sun isn't shining, and pay less a month for the setup than I was to the electrical company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Been there, done that. I've been off-grid for 18 months now. My home battery is from a crashed Leaf so 24kWh. That's more than enough for a week without sun or wind. 12kW of Solar plus 2 kW of Wind keep things topped up. When the battery is full (like right now) the excess goes into my car. The sun is shining and the wind has been blowing hard for the last 36 hours.
I bought a 25acre wood 5 years ago. I burn the wood from that in winter to heat my home. There are more trees growing in the wood today than th
Re:I'll just be happy when the day comes (Score:5, Insightful)
I bought a 25acre wood 5 years ago. I burn the wood from that in winter to heat my home. There are more trees growing in the wood today than there were when I bought it. .... With careful planning, many more people can give the power companies the big finger.
Yes, everyone should buy a 25 acre wood. Where do you live BTW, Siberia? I am in the UK and very unusually have a 2 acre garden with enough trees, sustainably, to burn a fire for about 2 hours per night through winter. But the average garden size (if there is a garden) in the UK is about 1/8 acre and rarely has any tree larger than an ornamental cherry.
Re: (Score:2)
Many more, but a tiny percentage.
Wood burning is cheap, but the acreage needed for the entire population is extreme ... in say the UK it would take the entire UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that I disconnect from the grid, with cheap, efficient solar cells, and a big battery bank for when the sun isn't shining, and pay less a month for the setup than I was to the electrical company.
This is unlikely to happen. Grid electricity prices are going to drop dramatically in the next decade. Every improvement that makes your home solar installation cheaper will also benefit the grid electricity.
(Unless politics get in the way of the utility-scale buildout of solar and batteries.)
Re: (Score:2)
Grid electricity prices are going to drop dramatically in the next decade.
You certainly have some nice dreams.
Re:I'll just be happy when the day comes (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it's that far fetched.
The problem is exactly what this article is talking about. Solar is so cheap that there's almost no reason not to install it. I've been holding back because solar has been dropping in price by almost as much as it would save me in a given year. With current solar technology, I can generate on average what I use in a year. That doesn't work out perfectly, however, because I'd have an excess in the summer and a deficit in the winter. But it's already close.
Another decade of technology, and I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to go 100% solar and disconnect from the grid.
Thee utilities won't be able to refuse to pass along savings from cheaper electricity in that case. If they want any money from me at all, they're going to have to provide reasonable prices. Otherwise it makes my disconnection more fiscally sound. And it's not like I'm going to be the only one in this position.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar cost reductions are moving at a steady pace ... battery cost reductions are moving at a pace where it will take another century or so.
Huh? Battery price drop has been incredible over the last few years.
From 2015 to 2018, lithium battery storage cost dropped from 373 to 153 dollars/kWhr. If "battery cost reductions are moving at the same pace" (as you put it), the price would be zero next year.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp... [arstechnica.net]
Of course, prices don't move at the same pace, prices tend to be a exponential decrease, not a linear decrease. Nevertheless, I'm not sure what you mean about the slow pace of price reductions.
Re: (Score:3)
Nevertheless, I'm not sure what you mean about the slow pace of price reductions.
Like most people he is simply out of the loop regarding changes in energy technology and prices.
Probably he still thinks nuclear is the cheapest form of making electricity.
Re:I'll just be happy when the day comes (Score:5, Informative)
that I disconnect from the grid, with cheap, efficient solar cells, and a big battery bank for when the sun isn't shining, and pay less a month for the setup than I was to the electrical company.
This is unlikely to happen. Grid electricity prices are going to drop dramatically in the next decade. Every improvement that makes your home solar installation cheaper will also benefit the grid electricity.
(Unless politics get in the way of the utility-scale buildout of solar and batteries.)
One of the biggest expenses that is causing a lot of people to go off grid is that if they build outside a development, they have to pay for running the lines to their house. If you live a mile back of a power line, you foot the bill for getting the power to the house. And it is often a lot more expensive than placing a solar panel setup and a powerwall. You can save even more if you are clever and design your own off-grid system.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you happen to be American and build somewhere far from the grid, and you don't live in a place with winter, you can get quite far with solar panels and a powerwall. However, anywhere that has winter will need a non-solar option for heating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll just be happy when the day comes (Score:4, Insightful)
Delivery is actually a significant part of the cost of grid electricity.
Lower the cost of solar, and grid electricity prices go down, but the cost of rooftop solar goes down faster.
Eventually, the cost of local solar is lower than the cost of delivery by itself.
We are already very close to this point, and all indications are that production costs are going to continue to decline.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, the cost of local solar is lower than the cost of delivery by itself.
Sure, but any place that has winter will not be able to cover its winter demand with local solar plus batteries. That would require battery prices to fall by at least 2 orders of magnitude (or require each house to have unrealistically large solar cell arrays like 100kW).
At the same time, grid cost is mostly fixed, most of the expense is in handling peak demand. As average grid demands go up (electric cars, heating, A/C) but peak (cooking) stays the same, the grid cost per kWh delivered will go down. The ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
EVs are trivial to charge off-peak. Storing heat with heat pumps is pretty easy. Battery costs are already low, and they will only get even better.
In 5 years there will not be a significant daily peak at all, it will be smoothed out by EVs, heat pumps, and batteries. That will enable consumption to triple without any significant expansion of the grid.
Don't invest now, wait for the 60% (Score:4, Insightful)
the U.S. Department of Energy aims to cut utility-scale solar power plant costs by 60% by 2030.
Promising people (or utilities) that products will be significantly cheaper in the future is a great way to discourage them from buying what is available now.
One of the reasons why a little inflation is a good thing is that it encourages early buyers. They expect products to be more expensive if they wait. Likewise, telling consumers or industry that if they can wait 9 more years, they can save 60% starts people making cost-benefit calculations.
And that doesn't even account for whether the solar power plants of the future will be more efficient or last longer, than those being built now. Factors that would make waiting even more attractive.
Re: (Score:3)
We went through this with computers, but it didn't stop adoption of computers. Sure, it made you hold off for a bit on discretionary purchases, but ultimately when you *needed* a computer you had to buy it.
If demand goes up, or old plants get shut down, a utility is going to build a new plant, even if the technology would be cheaper in ten years time.
Re: (Score:2)
The payback period for LEDs is very fast if you count the cost (including manpower) of replacing incandescents. LED lamp lifetimes are orders of magnitude higher than incandescents.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension fail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only existing subsidy right now in the US is the investment tax credit (ITC) of 26% of the cost of install (sometimes this is matched at the state level at a lower percent). Nuclear has a larger subsidy in many places now. https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]
The ITC was scheduled for phaseout until last fall, and it will hold at 26% for two more years and then go to 22%, then 18%, etc., reflecting the maturity of the industry.
As for the power... yes, the fuel costs are enormous! Especially when you factor
Re: (Score:3)
It needs to beat gas the fuel, not the "levelized" cost of gas power in current year.
You need the gas plants any way, near 100% fossil/nuclear backup will remain an absolute requirement for any country which wants reliable power.
'Cheapest' is a dumb metric (Score:5, Interesting)
In a capacity market, however, energy is sold as a guaranteed N% availability within ~3 years. E.g. 75% up-time of a coal plant, with maintenance known in advance, or the ~90% capacity factor of a nuclear plant.
Of course, investors hate the capacity market, because it means having to provision over-capacity and such. Meaning assets which just sit there, doing nothing. This makes the capacity market a long-term investment, much like bonds.
In the energy market, on the other hand, one sells power when one has it, at the price that gets offered. Since for e.g. VRE (solar, wind) the up-front costs are relatively low, this makes them a solid investment, with quick ROI. No assets standing around, and rapid money flow into one's pocket.
The energy market is more akin to shorting stocks, however. After the mishap in Texas, many who gambled in the energy market are now bankrupt, while others struck paydirt by getting $9,000/kWh, assuming they had any generating capacity.
In the end, only the capacity market can provide any guarantee of power being available. Yet the transition to VRE means a shift from a capacity market to an energy market. This is the natural consequence of picking power sources which have a capacity factor of exactly 0 in the capacity market. VRE doesn't work in the capacity market. Not even with grid-level storage. Not at anything remotely affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
Massachusetts and ISO-NE give capacity factors for solar + BESS plants(the "forward capacity market" in ISO-NE). We're getting between 27 and 32% after study. The PV+ BESS plants can also do system regulation. In fact, in Texas, BESS plants are being installed at a huge pace because the alternatives (huge cap banks, synch condensers) are the only the only thing that will allow all of that wind to get to market in their terrible transmission system... (ERCOT summer voltage is 85kV L-G in a 115kV system = "th
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, investors hate the capacity market, because it means having to provision over-capacity and such. Meaning assets which just sit there, doing nothing. This makes the capacity market a long-term investment, much like bonds.
In this case, 'investors' also include the homeowner who sinks $10K or more into a roof top solar installation based on its payback. And then screams when the grid operator says we don't need your power today [slashdot.org]. Revenue minus capital costs go negative and all of a sudden solar doesn't look so good. Not just solar, but anything that lies outside of the long term system planning domain.
Re: 'Cheapest' is a dumb metric (Score:3)
That is not how a retail net metering agreement works. You are describing curtailment for generators bidding into the ISO markets.
Re: (Score:3)
Once a sufficient number of people enter into net metering contracts, the grid can become unstable. Curtailment at the retail level might become a necessary part of retail contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see this as the next rural conservative vs urban liberal divide. People with a house out in the country can put up solar panels and get off the grid (no longer contributing to it's upkeep). Urban dwellers in high rise commie blocks with no rooftops to call their own are left with thermal power generation, long transmission lines and big bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Long as one ignores that the owner of said roof can put up panels. Bigger question is there enough benefit to go around? Also there's the larger issue of doing something for one's own benefit, vs doing something for societies benefit. People contribute all the time to society even if they don't directly benefit.e.g. socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Long as one ignores that the owner of said roof can put up panels.
It won't matter. The primary factor at work is square feet of roof space compared to the square feet of living space covered. With a 20 or 40 story residential building, there just isn't as much roof space per square foot of occupancy as there is with a one story ranch house. And if the rental value of that high rise roof space to competing uses is considered, much of it might be taken up by 5G antennas.
Re:At what point does the grid become unsustainabl (Score:4, Interesting)
Cheap battery technology will also help stabilize the grid and reduce costs. We've already seen that with Australia's Hornsdale Power Reserve, which basically paid for itself in two years.
Most people won't be able to completely meet their energy needs from solar panels and batteries on their property so they'll still need a grid connection. And underused capacity means cheaper electricity, which in turn means greater electricity use -- more industrial uses, more e-vehicles etc.. Sure if overnight half the population decided to disconnect from the grid the grid would collapse, but if that happens gradually, over ten or fifteen years, that's a different story.
No moving parts (Score:2)
Solyndra Part 2: Electric Boogaloo? (Score:2)
Like Solyndra, this is a good idea. Like Solyndra, it could also be easily torpedoed by Chinese product dumping. Biden will have to watch China like a hawk for this to avoid letting them tar and feather him at will, which they're probably all too eager to do in retaliation for him calling out the Uighur genocide.
Solyndra: wasn't the problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The loan program Solyndra was in had a lower failure rate than a bank despite funding far more risky ventures banks wouldn't fund. Government programs are supposed to fill the gaps so the impossible is possible. Some losses are acceptable; besides it's not like it didn't stimulate the economy more than a tax cut. We have a massive amount of pork that serves no greater good or is just bad that dwarf the Solyndras.
2) You can't control what China does; especially now when they are arguably the biggest super power. Hey, when Americans admit they are #2 they'll probably have to be #8. You COULD subsidize an industry more than China does, if you have deep enough pockets.
3) Cheap solar was decided to be MORE important than slapping tariffs on China's take over of the solar industry. They put priority on it while the USA could hardly do anything with the GOP ("corrupt" being redundant) opposing any tariff (until Trump) and fighting anything with the word "green" or "climate" in it. The obvious choice was to let China win for the greater good; besides, it's not like anybody couldn't enter the market later on... perhaps stealing China's ideas for a change...
4) Funding R & D is not a waste even if China eats our lunch (again) because at least one hopes the knowledge and science advances humanity in some way... We don't really need cheaper solar in a decade - that is largely an attempt to jump start US industry (and more patent fights with China.) What we need is to ramp up existing tech like China has been doing with solar. Short term we need to move NOW not wait for the next-gen and the political will to make it locally. I'd swear big oil is behind this BS about constantly delaying for the next-gen which solves all humanity's problems (yeah, like coal and oil does...)
Externalize (Score:2)
So, the idea is to externalize development costs for favored technologies. Then, not having to pay those back, it's cheaper! Eureka!
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe the on-going costs of fossil fuels aren't externalized? Aw, ain't that cute!
cheapest meme relies on LCOE (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Article proves itself wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Citizens actually have quite a bit of power when it comes to large scale energy production. Look at how much nuclear was held back because it was political suicide to build and expand nuclear production facilities. If you can get the general public to be in favor of solar production, then politicians will implement programs to help get things rolling. No large scale project happens without some kind of government involvement, especially in electricity generation where much of the outcome is regulated to some extent.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens actually have quite a bit of power when it comes to large scale energy production. Look at how much nuclear was held back because it was political suicide to build and expand nuclear production facilities.
That is irrational feat of the unknown - very similar to the current irrational fear of the dreaded virus. Both feature unseen threats to the very tissues of our bodies, which the average citizen cannot quantify or understand.
It seems that such irrational fears can easily and quickly be whipped up into towering waves of terror.
In contrast, the discussion about renewable power can be conducted calmly and without undue emotion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Citizens actually have quite a bit of power when it comes to large scale energy production. Look at how much nuclear was held back because it was political suicide to build and expand nuclear production facilities.
That is irrational feat of the unknown - very similar to the current irrational fear of the dreaded virus.
It also requires the ultimate Government subsidy. Since nuc power is not insurable, the Government must say - whatever the results of an accident, don't worry, we shall foot the bill. Price-Anderson to the rescue.
The problem with nuclear is that yes, it can be made safe. But it won't, because there are humans involved, with all the human problems like greed corruption, accountants having the ultimate say over safety.
And that nuclear genie is a hella lot of power in a tiny space, and it wants out. But
Re: (Score:3)
No other power generation and delivery for cities and high density is as green nor causes the least total environmental impact than nuclear. The public is stupid and short sited. Large infrequent accidents make people irrational, when they actually cause less overall negative impact to nature over longer periods of time.
Having each high density house generate some power, but still need overall grid is creating a lot more waste that ends up in the landfill. Recycling of solar panels, and support equipment is insignificant. Recovery of precious metals is not cost effective.
Some solar is good, even great, but 100% is an extremists fantasy. So sad that knowledgeable experts are over ruled by fearful people with a little bit of info.
Funny how you parrot the very points that make people loathe the idea of Nuc power. That anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and short sited .
How's that " I am a genius and if you disagree you are stupid, irrational, and Nuclear is the safest ever method of power generation ever despite your lying eyes." mantra working out for ya?
You are nuclear's worst enemy, and a big part of why people distrust it. Congratulations, you are your enemy's best argument.
Nuc can be made safe - but not with people
Re:Article proves itself wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how much nuclear was held back because it was political suicide to build and expand nuclear production facilities. .
While there may have been one or two projects that were stopped by local opposition, public opposition doesn't count for much when there's a lot of money to be made. Nuclear fell out of favor because of economics, not politics. Nuclear plants cost more to build per kwH of capacity than any other plant type, and the electricity they generate is more costly than any other electricity source except for natural gas turbines used for peak load generation in the summer. While newer reactor designs can be used as load following plants, they still get run as base load plants because it's uneconomical to run them at anything less than full capacity. It's just not much cheaper to operate a nuclear plant at half capacity than full capacity.
Arguably the situation would look drastically different if you counted the *externalized environmental costs* of each source of electricity. If you factored in the external costs of carbon emissions, nuclear would certainly be more economical than coal, and might even be competitive with combined cycle natural gas. But the only way to make actually work is to have something that internalizes those external costs, like cap and trade.
It's also possible that these new small, modular nuclear designs might have more favorable economics. They could also be deployed in places where there is significant co-generation opportunities, for example switching from supplying the grid during the day to desalination at night.
Re: (Score:3)
Cap and trade still permits externalization
Cap and tax, not cap and trade
Re: (Score:3)
they can't be upcycled or recycled
I'm pretty sure that there's things to be done with them. For example I've found out about a company making carpentry boards out of old wind turbine blades.
Plus, wind turbines take more electricity and energy to set up than they ever will generate in their service life.
This makes absolutely no sense. How did you come up with that?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels move, albeit not much, but they track the sun.... at least all the ones near me do.
Some do, some don't.
The solar arrays are getting so cheap these days that in a lot of installations, it's cheaper to just put in fixed tilt arrays, and accept that you need more of them than you would need of a sun-tracking array.. But: the advantage of tracking is a nice flat power profile (as well as lower land area for the same average power).
Like everything else: it's a trade-off.
Re: (Score:3)
The very existence of this article logically implies it is not true. If it was, there is no need to publish such an article for the general public, it would be investors who need to be convinced of this.
"I've seen articles about X being cheap, therefore X is not cheap" is a curious line of thinking. I hope you're being consistent and applying it to all of your expenses.
Again, if it is true, those investors will be easily convinced, and we’ll see a massive switch to solar this decade
Have you tried opening your eyes?
but then why on earth would you publish an article like this?
Ever heard of popular science?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even have to scroll down below the first section of TFA to see a figure providing evidence that solar implementation is rising while cost is falling. Got any sources to prove that this assertion is false?
As a consumer, this is exactly the type of article I want to see. Anecdotally, I'll say this: I know a LOT of people who are looking into small-scal
Re: (Score:2)
"And green electricity is still heavly subsidized by the government. "
Coal and oil get 100 billion subsidies per year and it really is not a young industry needing help.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but natural gas is not clean. Cleaner than coal, yes. Cleaner than oil, yes. But it's not clean.
Of course, entropy rules. No source of power can even possibly be really clean. But it can be relatively clean, and solar power, once installed, is pretty close to clean. You've got to worry about battery backup and occasionally replacing dying solar cells, but compared to natural gas it's clean.
Nuclear is difficult to rate. It has the potential to be quite clean, but it sure hasn't lived up to that potential. Perhaps the latest generation of plant designs will work out, and the "spent fuel" will be re-burned for an increment of power. That would make nuclear power as clean as solar, with the problem of "what to do when there's and excursion" solved by the newer designs. But currently it has long term waste disposal problems, it's extremely expensive to build and operate (so you need gigantic plants), and it threatens large scale catastrophe when there's a problem (so far no real catastrophe has yet materialized, not even Chernobyl, but the threat is there). Nuclear power would be great even now if one could rely on management not cutting corners on safety, and crews being always alert and flawless. Neither of those, however, is likely, so you need a plant design that doesn't depend on them.
Re:The bill (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know anything about your bill. In Germany, a large part of the cost consumers have to bear is for paying the feed-in tariff for old investments which is guaranteed for 20 years (and paid via electricity prices not taxes). Once these expire, also the cost the consumers have to pay will drop.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anything about your bill. In Germany, a large part of the cost consumers have to bear is for paying the feed-in tariff for old investments which is guaranteed for 20 years (and paid via electricity prices not taxes). Once these expire, also the cost the consumers have to pay will drop.
Won't that be about when all the windmills and solar panels need to be replaced, at enormous cost?
Re: (Score:3)
No, they got much cheaper due to economy of scale. So new installations are much cheaper now. This is was the whole point and worked out nicely.
Re:The bill (Score:4, Informative)
New solar is at about 5 EUR ct / kWh today while it was 50 EUR ct / kWh 20 years ago. For comparison, the price negotiated for the nuclear plant Hinkley Point C in England corresponds to a feed-in tariff of 12 EUR ct /kWh and it will not be operational for a couple of years.
Re: (Score:3)
But unlike solar, Hinckley Point will work at night and in the winter.
Re: The bill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
i guess you havnt heard of hydrogen storage
Did you mean hydraulic storage? Anyhow, there are plenty of energy storage mechanisms that conventional Power plants use today. They'll work for solar and wind as well. I also expect that with onsite battery storage - my favorite is iron-nickel at the moment, solar and wind will do just fine.
The best part is that unlike nuclear, wind and solar are insurable.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, the renewables are still riding on the back of conventional plant, relying on them to fill in when it's dark or windless. The capital costs of conventional plant will always need to be added to that of the renewables, unless everything is going to grind to a halt on calm dark winter nights.
The way electricity companies in the UK are nagging their customers to adopt "smart" m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. At the moment it isn't working at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar cells don't work in the winter?
Re: (Score:3)
Solar cells don't work in the winter?
The solar cells themselves work fine in winter (in fact, voltage increases at low temperature), unless the panels are covered in snow.
Outside of the tropics, the winter light intensity is decreased due to the low sun angle, and the days of course are shorter. So you get less total energy per day in the winter than in the summer. If winters are cloudy, you have to incorporate that fact as well.
So, solar gets less useful in places far from the equator that have high loads in winter. It is more useful in plac
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The bill (Score:4, Informative)
And a chunk of any energy generation cost is infrastructure cost. Roads, bridges, transmission lines, foundations, etc. Once you're just replacing equipment, you don't incur a lot of those initial site preparation costs.
Re:The bill (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know anything about your bill. In Germany, a large part of the cost consumers have to bear is for paying the feed-in tariff for old investments which is guaranteed for 20 years (and paid via electricity prices not taxes). Once these expire, also the cost the consumers have to pay will drop.
Won't that be about when all the windmills and solar panels need to be replaced, at enormous cost?
Ever replace a turbine?
The Solar and Wind will never ever be a cost effective way to produce electricity memes are getting kind of 1950'ish.
Re: The bill (Score:2)
Solar panels have a planned degradation rate. At 20 years they can be replaced but dont necessarily need to be. Similarly, a large scale ground mount system could just be repanneled but if probably wont be because the new trackers are better (more robust and less O&M) and new panels are much larger. You can expect that after replacements until about 2035 the replacements will be about 50% of the original build cost (no need for new grading or ground grid balance of plant is good to 40 years, but posts n
Re: The bill (Score:2)
Btw, your merchant gas combined cycle plants are also a 20 year design... much like a car, everything will start falling apart about 20 years in. They are designed around a 20 year replacement horizon.
Re: (Score:3)
What most americans do not grasp: yes, in Germany we pay $0.25 up to $0.32 per kWh. But at the end of the month our power bill is $100 - $150 or much much less, in my case $80, and that includes gas for heating (50% is the gas bill).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are external costs included? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure they aren't including those costs. However it's a false equivalency to compare both sources of power as playing the same game. It's a disingenuous argument.
A solar panel is equivalent to building a really small power plant; not running it. Building a coal plant will be far more efficient than building an equivalent capacity solar farm. However, for every unit of power, a unit of coal needs to be mined, transported, burned, and waste stored.
Unless a solar panel was operational for a very short time, say 5 yrs, coal or lpg or even wood are going to have a very hard time coming on top of the operational waste equation.
Same goes for many of the other renewable options like wind or tidal or geothermal. Energy production is dirty and wasteful; but that doesn't mean they are all equivalent.
Re: (Score:3)
Building a coal plant will be far more efficient than building an equivalent capacity solar farm
Maybe if you build it without all the filters considered necessary today.
Re: (Score:2)
> Building a coal plant will be far more efficient than building an equivalent capacity solar farm.
That's actually no longer true. Steam turbines are expensive. That's correct, it's no longer worth it to build a coal power plant even if the coal was free and there weren't any carbon tariffs.
Of course it's cheaper to build a coal plant than it is to build a solar farm + batteries. But for that use case natgas works a lot better than coal, since a natgas power plant can spin up and down a lot faster
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering the story is about investing in something that currently isn't being used (perovskites and cadmium telluride) why would they include recycling? They may include lifespan which could be longer than 25 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Well considering the story is about investing in something that currently isn't being used (perovskites and cadmium telluride) why would they include recycling? They may include lifespan which could be longer than 25 years.
The concept that solar cells quit working after 25 years is specious anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
The thickness of CdTe in a CdTe solar cell is about a micron. This is far thinner than a coat of, say, cadmium yellow paint.
Maybe you should go after the paint manufacturers first?
Re: (Score:2)
Like recycling the solar cells every 20-25 years, or the pollution caused in their manufacture? Or are they playing the same game they accuse the fossil-fuel industry of doing?
Fortunately disposing of spent nucyalar fuel rods is clean and environmentally friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is very clean - the people working there are incredibly finicky about cleanliness and are constantly cleaning up. Just look at how much cleanup work is being done in Chernobyl and Fukushima - never ending - one can eat off the ground surface and not get a single germ...
I'm glad I read the whole post before reacting.
I've always said that nuclear power could be clean and safe, if it wasn't for humans being in charge of it. Chernobyl could be operating today, all fine and dandy except for human activity in running the place. Fukushima could be happily operating today is not for brain dead human decisions like siting on the edge of the ocean in an area that simply was going to experience a Tsunami that was 100 percent going to top the seawalls, and designed a backup power
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Solar panels from abroad started being sold for cheaper than the cost of the rare earths to make them
Cheaper than zero, you mean? Seeing as you don't need any REEs to make solar panels, this would mean actually getting paid for taking solar panels off the manufacturer's hands.
Only 1 metric is too simple (Score:2)
Cost isn't the only metric. China can sell them below our costs and make them for a profit but that cost doesn't have to be literal $. They can pollute and exploit workers in ways not remotely possible in a 1st world nation; those costs do add up to $ in the end but they can cut corners on all of that... especially if they plan ahead for the messes they know they are creating.
If China is harmed in any way for any reason, then it's their choice to have that problem and your short term gain.
China can get ra
Re: (Score:2)
...
4: Solar panels from abroad started being sold for cheaper than the cost of the rare earths to make them,
Solar panels do not use rare earth metals. Period. End of story.
Re:Cheap kWh is around $0.02 - $0.03 / kWh (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you externalise half the costs it is, like the fossil fuel industry has done for years creating what is defacto the largest subsidy for anything in history.
Nuclear - strict rules on cleanup and waste, significant penalties for problems resulting in health issues.
Renewables - minimal health issues, minimal waste.
Fossil fuels - no rules on cleanup and waste, shit into atmosphere and let joe average pay for their own healthcare costs stemming from it.
It's not rocket science to see why fossil fuels appear cheap at first, but the reality is they're anything but, if fossil fuels were accounted for in terms of full lifecycle like other forms of power generation then they're far and away the most expensive out there with renewables and nuclear being significantly cheaper. The externalities of fossil fuels are in the trillions in the US alone; if you put that onto the kWh cost then they'd be dropped tomorrow, but because people don't realise that when they pay for things like healthcare costs, or house insurance that a significant proportion of that is paying for the effects of fossil fuel emissions they're oblivious to how absurdly expensive fossil fuels actually are.
Re: (Score:3)
It took a single search on Google to find a whole bunch of direct and indirect subsdies:
https://www.eesi.org/papers/vi... [eesi.org]
And I notice that on that list, there was no mention of oil wars, which have really been quite expensive for the US, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Stop being disingenous. Fossil fuels have benefited hugely from subsidies down the years. You know it. I know it. The dogs in the street know it. Pretending this isn't the case is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas power plants cycle quickly and solar will become essentially free when the sun shines, so the question is if it can pay for the extra grid infrastructure to connect it based on the gas it saves.
Re: (Score:2)
Lightning is much cheaper electricity. Of course, lightning isn't a steady and controllable supply, providing the amount of power you need when and where you need it.
I assume that this is a failed attempt at sarcasm, because it is cluelessly stupid.
A lightning strike is about a billion joules, or 300 kW-hrs. A VERY high lightning density spot on the Earth might 100 strikes per square kilometer per year. Work it out.
For comparison, sunlight averages 342 W/m^2.
Re: (Score:2)