Slashdot Mirror
2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com)
AmiMoJo writes: In the US, electricity demand is growing very slowly, which means that capacity additions don't have to exceed retirements by much in order to keep the grid functioning. Tracking the comings and goings from the electric grid can help provide a picture of the country's changing energy mix. The Energy Information Administration, which provides data on the US' electric grid, says 18GW of capacity were retired this past year, more than 80 percent of it coal-fired. More than 27GW of utility-scale projects will replace that this year. Note that much of the new generating hardware is wind and solar, but the plants being replaced often had low capacity factors due to their age and high pollutant output.
Natural gas does make a good backup for wind and solar, though, because gas plants can come online quickly when the wind drops.
Welcome to the concept of INFLATION. Compare your bill today to that from 1988 to one from today. It should have doubled. If it costs more than twice as much today (2016) than it did in 1988, then prices have gone up, relative to inflation. If it costs less than twice as much today as it did in 1988, then the cost has gone down. See this page infatlation calculator as my source.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Get solar! If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it (pay cash, lease, solar installer becomes your power company). We get a ton of sun in CO so you're almost certainly a prime candidate for solar. My total energy bill (gas + elec) hasn't gone above $70 in the 2 years I've had solar. Summer months I have negative bills. If you own your house you will absolutely save money on energy and your rates will never increase!
Thats it! The dope smokers are running the state now! Everyone should stop moving here. The sun is too bright with the clear air and they make us walk through all the forests. It sucks. Stay in KS, TX and MO, your midwest havens of freedom.
It looks like the price has gone down in real terms, accounting for inflation: http://www.statista.com/statis...
Colorado is cheaper than average, especially for gas and considering how little renewable energy it has: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hydro isn't really interesting from a price comparison point of view. Most of the easy places to make hydro power are already tapped, so marginal cost for making a new hydro plant is very high -- if not directly in construction costs, then in damage to the local environment. The cost of power produced in an existing hydro plant is practically zero, but that is true for wind as well, and almost true for nuclear.
For new builds, wind and natural gas tend to fight it out for cheapest power, depending on where you build. Solar and coal win certain areas, as long as we ignore pollution for coal. Unless you happen to be in Northern Norway, where they can still expand hydro -- but no one wants the power there and conservation is hindering power line construction.
Note that dirt cheap natural gas is mostly a North American thing. The rest of the world does not have that.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
What if:
You don't own your own roof.
The roof is inadequate.
Your location on the globe is inadequate.
The tax-breaks and subsidies are taken away from you because there is no cheap alternative and everyone jumps onto solar?
"Rates will never increase" is a dubious assertion too, maybe if you have a direct system but not if you're counting anything like pushing back to the grid (negative bill would suggest that).
And not everyone has the ability to do one massive outlay now to save energy for the next 10 years (if the gear lasts that long and you get totally free servicing and replacements in the cost of your system throughout that time - what if the company goes bankrupt, maybe because they relied on subsidies or didn't account for product returns, or they just get priced out of the market?).
It's honestly not as simple as "get solar".
Hell, in my country, solar is just laughed at. An installation capable of running an ordinary house costs more than a house extension or a brand new car, and only "saves" while it's being subsidised.
And just the extra legal cost of who technically owns it if you move house has caused people an awful lot of people to have a lot of unexpected bills (you're leasing? Then you sell the house? And the next guy doesn't agree with the transfer of that lease? Now you have an unsaleable house, or have to buy out the lease, or legal costs to argue the toss, and you can't really remove the system in the meantime, and mortgage companies don't want to touch it as you've effectively rented out your roof to the solar company).
Nothing is that clear-cut when it comes to that amount of money in a system.
Fair enough. Total install cost for a 7800W array in 2014 was $19k and I got back around $6k total in tax credits. Xcel lets you bank electricity with no expiration so what extra I produce in the summer carries over to Jan and Feb. The first year I lived in the house my total electricity bill was around $1100 so my break even point is around 11 years assuming rates don't go up (which they have already). I'm planning on an electric car in the next few years which cuts down the payback period even more. The panels are guaranteed to retain 80% capacity at 20 years and will likely output substantial power for at least 40. Throw in a few replacement panels and an inverter or two over that time and I'm still looking at 30-40 years of electricity for the cost of about 10 from the grid.
That said, I just saw that Xcel has proposed a grid use charge for new solar installs that will change the math somewhat. But when it goes into effect in 2 years, prices for solar will likely have fallen enough to still make sense in most cases. Cheap, effective whole house batteries that will get you through a week of rain aren't far behind.
I should stop there but....the nice thing about the tax benefits I received is that many more people can now benefit from them since they helped drive down the cost of solar by a huge amount in just a few years. One of the reasons so many solar companies went out of business is because if they held any inventory, it was pretty much unsaleable because next month's panels were better and cheaper. I know talking about such things is a can of worms but in my opinion, this is exactly what the gov is supposed to do: solve the chicken and egg problem by incentivize promising new tech resulting in new markets for average consumers. And now I'll hand it over to ./ for all the free market backlash.
States with higher percentage of renewables (wind and solar) have lower electric costs. Nevada electric prices have been dropping so much that Warren Buffet's owned Nevada Energy had been sabotaging solar by bribing the governor and the state's PUC. Seven of the largest casinos in Las Vegas are threatening to leave NV Energy and rely on much cheaper solar and wind energy. The PUC wants to charge them $127 million to leave.
Texas now offers free electricity at nights because they have excess wind power.
Colorado is good to get rid of coal but stupid to not install wind and solar.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
My experience with solar in the mountains of California is this:
- 4kw system
- generated $1256 worth of electricity last year (76% of my use)
- ROI of 7.3 % (I borrowed money at 2.2% to pay for the system so this is a good return)
- I'll be installing another 2kw this year
- this year it should give me a better ROI since the power company is raising rates by 7%
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I think it's more the fact that the current Republicans would rather see things go down in flames than cooperate with Obama
http://www.popsci.com/science/...
2013 Solar Panels Now Make More Electricity Than They Use
And by 2020, the solar industry will have completely "paid back" the energy it took to produce the world's panels.
Also--- "rare" earth metals are "rare" at the current low prices. but there are vast quantities available at only slightly higher cost levels. One mine in california has more rare earth than all of china but it's shut down right now because the cost to extract means it isn't profitable right now (partially because of higher labor costs in the U.S. than china which will correct itself by 2045).
Some are stripmined- valid point. Some are conflict materials- a valid point you didn't make.
But that's a case of business externalizing their costs on society.
The future really is solar. Enough solar power to satisfy the globes needs would like like a a half dozen to a dozen little dots scattered around the globe. But even more exciting is decentralized solar power which is
a) Less likely to be stolen/destroyed by bandits.
b) Extends lighted hours (for education and business) far into the night.
c) Can drive laptops, wi-fi, fans, and small food cooler/heaters (for insulin and similar items more than for sodas).
And solar just keeps getting cheaper. Like the space program, solar power investment has a huge payoff for the startup cost the government funded.
And it has an interesting feedback loop with fossil fuels. It reduces their use by just a tiny amount- but that's enough to significantly drop the prices of fossil fuels because the price of all fossil fuel is set by the cost of the most expensive fossil fuel.
If it costs $90 to get out the last barrel, the $10 a barrel is sold for $90. If you destroy demand for oil over $60 a barrel, then all oil will be sold at $60.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
People don't count 2 to 3 trillion and 4000 lives lost fighting over oil as a "subsidy" but it is.
People don't count toxic site clean up of fossil fuel sites as a subsidy but it is.
People don't count free right of way land as a subsidy but it is.
I'd still like to see the source for your $5 trillion figure. That's pretty high.
Solar power is reaching a point where a subsidy isn't needed.
However- the network effect of power companies is being lost and they will be forced to charge higher rates as their fixed costs will be spread over fewer customers. One way they are adapting is recognizing the fixed costs and charging them as a base to all customers including solar customers who don't use much electricity.
Likewise, explicit subsidies for solar and net metering are both being aggressively lobbied out of existence.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.