Slashdot Mirror
Solar Is Now Cheaper Than Coal, Says India Energy Minister (climatechangenews.com)
An anonymous reader cites a report on Climate Change News: India is on track to soar past a goal to deploy more than 100 gigawatts of solar power by 2022, the country's energy minister Piyush Goyal said on Monday. Speaking at the release of a 15-point action plan for the country's renewable sector, Goyal said he was now considering looking at "something more" for the fast-growing solar sector. "I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant," he said. "Of course there are challenges of 24/7 power. We accept all of that -- but we have been able to come up with a solar-based long term vision that is not subsidy based." In the past financial year, nearly 20GW of solar capacity has been approved by the government, with a further 14GW planned through 2016 according to the Union Budget.More details here. "I met this man in Meghalaya, who has a solar set-up for his homestay. He mentioned that only the initial setting up costs you much," Deepika Gumaste, a travel writer told Slashdot. "But once you have set it up, the operating costs are not much and more importantly, the environmental costs also go down. Good on your pockets too in the long run." It is worth pointing out that India is currently among the handful of nations that is increasing its coal consumption, according to a Guardian report from late last year. Also see: India aims to become 100% electric vehicle nation by 2030.
Considering CO2 emissions, I'd say it's hard to find a dirtier energy source than coal. So no, it is not equivalent.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Solar may be in some contexts cheaper, but that may not continue for the long-term. Solar power experiences value deflation, where the more solar power there is, the less it is worth (because unlike conventional power sources, it all peaks at the same time). This can lead to serious limits on how much solar a given area is likely to have http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-innovation. Either the cost per a panel needs to go down by a lot, or the storage and transmission costs need to improve by a lot. The last link includes an estimate that in order to really get solar to succeed one needs an approximate cost of around $0.25 per watt. If one improves batteries and transmission that may not be necessary, especially if we have enough other sources of power, such as wind, nuclear, hydroelectric (which unfortunately has probably gotten close to its peak in much of Europe and North America), tidal, and geothermal. Nuclear is going to definitely be a part of any long-term solution, but one has silly things now like Sweden trying to give up all fossil fuels at the same time they phase out nuclear power http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sweden-first-fossil-fuel-free-country-in-the-world-a6684641.html and they call that "green."
At least in most places, we're very far from where solar can be even without improved transmission and storage. In much of the US, you can get home solar and have it pay back in a few years. The solar panel cost guide is a good place to start http://www.solarpanelscostguide.com/. Or, if you want to help other people out while helping the environment you can donate to Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/ which helps get solar panels for non-profits like schools, homeless shelters and science museums. Every little bit helps.
When you consider that each has about the same environmental impact, one is not really cheaper than the other. You're just playing a game of whack-a-mole with the pollution.
With coal, you're polluting at the generation site.
And how! like the whole landscape is removed. and also when you burn it. Even if you manage to scub some of it you still got a lot of heavy metals to deal with. And then of course there's the CO2 released. Don't forget shipping it takes fuel as well.
With solar, you're polluting at the manufacturing site. But, make no mistake, growing silicon consumes a ton of energy, a ton of water,
What's a ton of energy? Could we perhaps get this energy from say, the sun? And the water, it's still water when you got done right? didn't do the old E=MC^2 vanishing act. You just borrowed it like rented beer. So yeah maybe this month you could not water your crops. That is an impact.
I don't doubt there's a toxic load from solar cells. I'd believe much of it is hidden unaccountable in China. But I'm not persuaded by your grab-ass cost benefit analysis. I'm also inclined to believe solar cell manufacture can over time become cleaner but how do we make coal much cleaner.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
With solar, you're polluting at the manufacturing site.
You don't have to.
But, make no mistake, growing silicon consumes a ton of energy
Cost of silicon is now 40 cents per Watt peak. The cost of the energy to grow the silicon is included in that.
and then by the time you mine enough lithium to keep the country going at night,
You wouldn't use lithium for large scale static batteries, but cheap molten salt.
Not cheapness, but storage.
Have a cheap, easy way to store energy for days without leakage? You just became the next Rockefeller / Carnegie/ Vanderbilt / Gates.
Laptops, phones, electric cars, solar panels companies, and nuclear power companies (they can't transmit the power very far so the plants are uncomfortably close to cities) will beat your door down trying to shove money.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I know India. Was born there. Almost everyday the minister of this or minister of that will make big announcement about something. Usually not much happens after the announcement. India does improve, things do happen in India. But usually at a vastly different time scale than what is announced by the ministers.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Much of the population is shitting in the bushes due to cultural heritage. You can't simply build toilets and call the problem solved. There's years of teaching people how to act hygienically.