Slashdot Mirror


Solar Could Beat Coal to Become the Cheapest Power on Earth In Less Than a Decade (bloomberg.com)

Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it's likely to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere, reports Bloomberg. From the article: In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further. Taking advantage: Companies such as Italy's Enel SpA and Dublin's Mainstream Renewable Power, who gained experienced in Europe and now seek new markets abroad as subsidies dry up at home. Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. That's help cut risk premiums on bank loans, and pushed manufacturing capacity to record levels. By 2025, solar may be cheaper than using coal on average globally, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The solar supply chain is experiencing "a Wal-Mart effect" from higher volumes and lower margins, according to Sami Khoreibi, founder and chief executive officer of Enviromena Power Systems. The speed at which the price of solar will drop below coal varies in each country. Places that import coal or tax polluters with a carbon price, such as Europe and Brazil, will see a crossover in the 2020s, if not before. Countries with large domestic coal reserves such as India and China will probably take longer.

4 of 504 comments (clear)

  1. Re:yes, and that's why... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, and once that happens, people will switch in large numbers. Until that happens, neither government incentives nor carbon taxes make much sense. That's precisely why government should just stay out of it.

    If the government were to "stay out of it", the oil, gas and nuclear industries would close up shop tomorrow.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit. by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Nat Gas is the cheapest.

    Natural gas is highly subsidized, and even still no company has pulled a profit on natural gas since 2008.

    Plus the costs, which can be huge, are externalized onto taxpayers and landowners.

    Take Pennsylvania, which made $204 million on taxing shale, but road damage from nat. gas was over $3.5 bn. That's just one state.

    Plus, many natural gas companies have stopped paying landowners en masse. What happens when their class action lawsuits start to come through?

    Natural gas being cheap is a short term aberration.

    For reference: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

    I've been waiting for this to happen for a few years. The numbers are just getting more and more red. Even the Financial Times is comparing the shale industry to the dotcom bubble. The bit about crappy shale stock being sold by the cargo pallet to insurance companies and pensions funds sounds worryingly like the mortgage bubble. People are openly talking about similarities between the housing market crash and this shale bubble except, the shale bubble is 'only' 1/4 the size of the mortgage bubble. Well tell that to the people who will lose a large portion of their pension. Oops, the free market did a boo boo, nothing personal just business! Cold comfort if you ask me.

  3. Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit. by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gee, if we were allowed to build pipelines, then road costs would approach 0.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  4. Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> people who hate coal are punishing ....

    Yes, and rightly so, because burning coal is literally destroying our ecology and ultimately, planet.