Slashdot Mirror
World's Cheapest Energy Source Will Be Renewables Within Three Years (qz.com)
Morgan Stanley researchers predict renewable energy will become the world's cheapest form of power within three years. An anonymous reader quotes Qz:
Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast... "We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe," with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday... Globally, the price of solar panels has fallen 50% between 2016 and 2017, they write. And in countries with favorable wind conditions, the costs associated with wind power "can be as low as one-half to one-third that of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants." Innovations in wind-turbine design are allowing for ever-longer wind blades; that boost in efficiency will also increase power output from the wind sector, according to Morgan Stanley.
The researchers also predict America will reach its Paris Climate Accord targets in 2020 -- five years early -- simply because renewables are already becoming the cheapest option for power.
The researchers also predict America will reach its Paris Climate Accord targets in 2020 -- five years early -- simply because renewables are already becoming the cheapest option for power.
If this pans out, the Middle East problems will become largely irrelevant, outside the Middle East. And Saudi Arabia will revert to what it always was.
Try living in a town or city filled with coal stoves. No reason to go back to that.
No, technology, science, and engineering FTW. "free market" parasites show up after the fact and guilt us into giving THEM credit.
Rick Perry says if we put the coal out there, the demand for it will follow.
(What do you want from a guy who got his degree in Animal Science?)
Never mind that Natural Gas is cheaper. I have a choice when I buy my electricity. Up to now I've been buying from a utility that produces more from renewables – just because it's more expensive, not because it comes from renewables. Now that coal is the more expensive option I'll switch to that. It costs more, it's got to be better, right?
What about the cost of energy storage? Producing it is not enough if you can't use it at-will.
First off, it won't take 300 million years. We can compost the waste and have your 'coal' ready in less than a year.
Second, it's we humans...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Um, you do know what finances technology, science, and engineering, right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If this pans out, the Middle East problems will become largely irrelevant, outside the Middle East. And Saudi Arabia will revert to what it always was.
I’m not so sure about that. There is more at stake in the region than just oil revenue, like competing regional influence (with military benefits), mass migrations, exportable terrorism and, of course, the Israel-Arab conflict in which the U.S. has always been knee deep. Turning the region into a resourceless dump of poverty is unlikely to improve things for anyone. If coal country here in the U.S. can effortlessly swing to radical extremes because their outdated jobs have gone away, think of what’s likely to happen in the Middle-East when it’s their turn. It would probably be smart to help them to a soft landing and rebound to better opportunities.
Net metering at the residential scale. Forcing energy companies to pay retail instead of wholesale is a direct subsidy to residential solar. Requiring some fraction of renewable generation forces the power companies to pay wind even when Nuclear is cheaper. That's a direct subsidy. California, in particular, requires power companies to,buy all available renewable power, whether or not they need it. That subsidizes renewables by ensuring that they never have idle capacity. The EPA Andrew other federal and state agencies giving coal construction, particularly major repairs and upgrades, a pocket veto by just not responding to permit actions is an indirect subsidy, as they are deliberately driving up the construction cost to competition. Ignore direct congressional pressure on major landholders in the desert southwest to force them into leasing their land to politically connected renewable companies at well below market rates. And let's not get started with the average of a decade and a half of regulatory and judicial delays to nuclear construction which increase the cost ten-fold. No subsidies here.
degree in Animal Science
Might be quite useful in the Republican Party.
The improvement to the environment in terms of less particulate and chemical contamination made it cost effective a while ago.
the fact that this fact was always ignored as a cost means we're still debating whether renewables are "cost effective".
meanwhile, if only China would manufacture solar cells properly and stop dumping the by-products into the environment.
pollution is, and has been for quite some time, a global problem.
Absolute statements are never true
Proton emitters like Cobalt-53 are rather rare, and we'd need a lot to generate enough hydrogen to restart the Sun.
Panels price per watt, yes they have come down more then I expected. Inverters not so much. Inverters are the expensive part now.
I can buy a 20 watt solar panel at walmart for a hundred bucks. Standard solar output is way less than the max though, because of clouds, night, sunlight that isn't at the right angle, etc. Usually you figure 20% of max production. So that's 4 watts 24 hours per day. Say it lasts 20 years, which is conservative IMO. 4 watts * 365 * 20 = 29.2 megawatt-hours over the course of its lifetime.
If your ideas are correct, that's a subsidy of $230 per megawatt hour, or $6,716 total subsidy for that solar panel.
Let's think about that for a second. Do you really think the government is shelling out $6,716 every time someone buys $100 worth of solar panel from Walmart? And that there's a giant conspiracy to hide that fact from consumers? Does that seem like a sane explanation to you? Or maybe that website should not be trusted without double checking elsewhere on the web.
Here's my link.
All those money you claim unfair taxation has boost the renewable industry with by paying more than what is was worth?
Not free market. Rather discriminating.
The oil industry becomes less profitable as the tax breaks they have had in the past began to close. All things being equal, expect renewables to get cheaper and fossil fuels to get more expensive just on the tax benefits.
(tax deductions are not a subsidy in the strictest sense of the word)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
LOL. That's just priceless.
If you're talking about cutting edge stuff. It's mostly the Government. There's a good reason lots of STEM professors carry/carried some level of clearance.
Also see transistors (gov contract to Bell Labs to develop components for radar improvement, general purpose computers for ballistics calculations, ARPAnet, GPS, EPIPEN, etc....). Free market can't be bothered to see things veyond a fiscal quarter.
Coal has a shit ton of externalities that are not subsidies of the kind that would be captured in that article. Also FWIW, the Daily Caller (blech) says the subsidies are only 326 times Coal's subsidies. That number should continue to drop as technology advances. But, if renewable turns out to be unsustainable, then the coal will still be there, and 5000 guys with the right equipment will be able to mine enough to satisfy the energy needs of the country, including the underwater gardens of Maralago.
It was government funding, not free market investment, that fueled (pun intended) solar power cost reduction. To be perfectly fair, the economies of scale resulted from capitalism, but without government's long term economic commitment capitalists would have no reason to bet money on unproven technology. The solar power market is the result of government policy including technology investment and tax incentives.
Why is Snark Required?
Coal Mining can be mostly automated. We don't need to send old time miners down into the hole anymore. Modern robotics and all that.
Somewhat uniquely in the US, Pennsylvania has an abundance of cleaner burning anthracite coal, though it's more expensive than bituminous. Google coal anthracite vs bituminous.
Lets verify that for a moment.
You linked to a blog, that quoted a chart from the Washington Times, so lets Google that article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/9/hillary-clintons-solar-energy-baloney/
Which cites a chart made from EIA numbers, specifically naming this article.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
Which cites LOAN guarantees, and R&D costs among the biggest costs, i.e. the CAPITAL costs.
"That idea that renewables will be cheaper than coal is simply politically motivated bullshit."
No, you're the victim of someone deliberately trying to mislead you by mixing in capital costs subsidies in and comparing them to ongoing costs.
You expect a huge capital investment when switching to renewables and thus a large capital cost.
For example Musk has rolled out the latest car from his factory, car 1, if I calculated the capital cost per electric car it would be about $2 billion for that one car!
You are still thinking of the 1980s there AC.
Many of the current solar panel designs do not use arsenic in the panel doping process. Much of the research has been in the development and use of inexpensive organic molecules, and even plastics instead.
This is one of the reasons why the price has declined so precipitously; It is not just China flooding the market with cheap (artificially price lowered) panels-- It is also ACTUALLY LESS EXPENSIVE manufacturing processes that do not incorporate toxic metaloids, like arsenic, which have costly refinement processes with expensive waste materials-- instead favoring organic molecules deposited with a simple chemical reaction onto pure crystalline silicon, or onto a suitable plastic substrate. In some cases, the photon collecting capabilities come from nanostructures generated inside the silicon using laser assisted vapor deposition, and other novel techniques.
If you had actually been following the research and science in emerging panel designs and technologies, you would know that-- but you were clearly too busy poopooing it instead.
That's good, because most of the poor assholes who would otherwise mine coal are dying from either cancer, lung disease or opiate addiction.
And you can thank the coal industry for all three. Coal destroys communities.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Let's think about that for a second. Do you really think the government is shelling out $6,716 every time someone buys $100 worth of solar panel from Walmart? And that there's a giant conspiracy to hide that fact from consumers? Does that seem like a sane explanation to you? Or maybe that website should not be trusted without double checking elsewhere on the web.
Not quite that much but according to Fit and Microfit prices here in Ontario, but it's pretty damn close, or roughly 2/3's the price. And people wonder why Ontario has gone from people loving "green energy" to "fuck this, we're grabbing pitch forks."
Om, nomnomnom...
If you think that the US or international economy is a free market based on real costs then you are a fool. The game is rigged, and it has always been rigged. Pointing to a study funded by entrenched special interests is, to use your phrase, "bullshit."
If you are so in love with coal power then move to Beijing. You will be coughing most of the time and you life expectancy will decrease by a few years, but it will get you away from that evil subsidized renewable energy.
Choke on that, Mr. Free Marketeer.
Why is Snark Required?
I live outside of the US and I can get a 100W panel for less than $100 so I guess the US is subsidizing solar in other countries too.
That's good, because most of the poor assholes who would otherwise mine coal are dying from either cancer, lung disease or opiate addiction. And you can thank the coal industry for all three.
Coal destroys communities.
All of what you said and literally. I give you the Centralia, Pennsylvania mine fire:
The Centralia mine fire is a coal seam fire that has been burning underneath the borough of Centralia, Pennsylvania, United States, since at least May 27, 1962.
The fire is burning in underground coal mines at depths of up to 300 feet over an eight-mile stretch of 3,700 acres.[1] At its current rate, it could burn for over 250 more years.[2]
The blaze has resulted in most of the town being abandoned. The population dwindled from 2,761 in 1890 to only 7 in 2013, and most of the buildings have been leveled.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
That's why Germany and Denmark, which have the highest wind+solar energy investments, have such affordable electricity. Oh, wait...
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png
In Germany, where they now get 20% of their electricity from wind & solar, the extraordinarily high cost has driven the price of electricity there up to three times what I pay here in North Carolina. (Well, it also doesn't help that Merkel is shutting down their perfectly good nuclear plants.)
The truth is that the intermittency problem with wind and solar is so severe that when you get more than a few percent tied into the grid it actually has negative value. It is only "crony capitalism" (government mandates, tax incentives, etc.) which make wind & solar competitive with coal and gas except in very special circumstances.
Diverting resources to wind and solar boondoggles impoverishes people, not just in West Virginia, where huge numbers of them are now out of work, but also everywhere that it inflates the cost of energy. It causes people living "on the edge" to sometimes have to choose between eating and staying warm.
Either choice can be deadly. In Europe, where there have been enormous price hikes for energy because of "renewables" scams, "energy poverty" is killing tens of thousands of mostly-elderly people:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-killed-15000-people-last-winter-10217215.html
What's more, most of the energy used to PRODUCE solar panels, and much of the energy used to produce wind turbines, comes from soot-belching, coal-fired power plants in China, and most of the energy REPLACED BY these devices would have been produced in clean power plants with state-of-the-art "scrubbers" in North America, Europe & Australia.
So, Chinese workers get emphysema, American workers get to collect unemployment (until it runs out), and American & European environmentalists get to feel self-righteous.
Such a deal.
Yeah. Here in NC, the legislature has been mandating wind+solar, so our electricity prices have been going up. We're around $.11 / kw-hr, retail, now. So in 20 years that 20W panel would produce about $77 worth of electricity, valued at current retail price.
But, of course, the true value of intermittently supplied electricity is actually much LESS than the WHOLESALE value of reliable electricity.
Also, the panels diminish in output over their lifetime, AND they probably won't last 20 years, AND they don't include installation costs, AND they don't include the expensive inverter (which also won't last 20 years), NOR the extra expense when it comes time to replace your roof (if you mount the darn things on your roof), etc., etc.
The bottom line is that solar is nowhere near as cost effective as wind, which is nowhere near as cost effective as gas and coal fuels.
They're not adding storage for because it's cheaper than peaker plants. They're adding storage because peaker plants cant correct the stupid fast supply transients (100 msec-5 sec) caused by large PV farms. Those are all about grrid stability inside 10 seconds, and have nothing to do with the pipe dream of overnight storage for renewables. All of the current large scale storage projects are straight up graft.
competent and forward thinking governments
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-oilspill-pipeline-20150521-story.html
It can also be the other way around. Solar production tends to correspond with peak demand, and peaking power costs an arm and a leg. A solar user importing power at night and exporting power during the day is doing operators a favour.
That said, I think it would be fair to do what we do in Iceland with power bills, that is separate the infrastructure cost on your bill (aka, what it costs them to provide you with a power connection, amortized) from the generation cost. So if you want a grid connection, you always pay the infrastructure bill - but your generation bill could be net metered, even negative, ideally wholesale** both ways with time-of-use taken into account.
** Wholesale because you're already paying the overhead cost separately.
Citation needed for specifics showing that this is some sort of widespread practice, or even that it occurs at all. The feds generally have no say in "coal construction" excepting where it touches upon the EPA, which is obligated by law to respond to all permit actions. Coal-producing states are generally extremely coal friendly.
Again, "Citation needed showing that this is some sort of widespread practice, or even that it occurs at all." What you're describing is eminent domain - quite common with roads, oil pipelines, power lines, etc, but can you name a single example of it being used for building "renewable" power plants in "the desert southwest"?
Pure nonsense. Name a single nuclear power plant that has had its cost "increased ten-fold" due to "regulatory and judicial delays". One can easily take a look at power plants that have gone way over budget - for example, here's one of the most extreme cases in modern times. Planned for 2010, but now probably not operational until as late as 2020, and coming in at three times its initial budget. Why? NIMBYs? Red tape? Hardly:
"The delays have been due to various problems with planning, supervision, and workmanship"
"The first problems that surfaced were irregularities in the foundation concrete, "
"Later, it was found that subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up to project standards and which had to be re-cast"
"An apparent problem constructing the reactor's unique double-containment structure also caused delays, as the welders had not been given proper instructions"
"... told the BBC that it was difficult to deliver nuclear power plant projects on schedule because builders were not used to working to the exacting standards required on nuclear construction"
"...are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default."
Tell me, when was the last time that you welded a large-diameter zirconium-alloy pipe and X-rayed it for defects, with any possible sign of imperfection meaning having to cut it off and start from scratch? How many people in the world do you think have that skillset? Because that's what's involved in nuclear power plant construction - it is extremely exacting. And if you think it'd be just jolly to cut corners, by all means hold that view, but understand that I most definitely will not be joining you in that.
Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
All these renewables have always been just one decade away from the market. Now a days they are just three years out. Great improvement. In just 50 years they will be 1 year away.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Intel has a fab in Israel, and an assembly factory, plus various R&D facilities.
The researchers also predict America will reach its Paris Climate Accord targets in 2020 -- five years early -- simply because renewables are already becoming the cheapest option for power.
And the coal miners will be blaming EPA, regulation and government conspiracy for their loss of jobs. Their "drill baby drill" chants crashed the natural gas prices and made coal unviable economically. People who tell this stark truth unvarnished are pilloried by them.
In fact EPA is what has kept most coal jobs alive till now. All the old coal powered power stations were grand-fathered from most EPA regulations. So even when natural gas becomes cheaper than coal, the new plants have to comply with the latest standards. So the cost of gas plants were high and gas has to become significantly cheaper to make retiring old coal plants viable economically. This was the reason why the old coal plants continued to survive, at least maintaining some level of demand for coal.
Cost of new generation of renewables is within striking distance now, but gas prices can keep falling and stretch the transition period.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Also a bit older event in a different part of the country: http://www.mlive.com/news/inde...
Because it doesn't have to pay for externalities. People die from the generation of that coal power you buy so cheap, that is why it's so cheap.
People always complain about the subsidies that renewables get. They forget that oil companies don't pay for the oil they are pumping out of the ground. The oil isn't theirs. And not only that they get a tax break for the amount of oil they pump out called a "oil depletion allowance".
Chinese solar panels face anti-dumping tarriffs upon import to the US to combat this, in some cases as high as 239%, due to the low-interest loans the Chinese government gives solar manufacturers. And they've faced these tarriffs since 2012. China, for its part, denies that its dumping, and says that the loans are simply an investment in clean power and an attempt to improve the environment. Of the top 10 manufacturers, 4 are from China, 2 from the USA, 2 from Taiwan, one from Canada and one from South Korea.
China not only produces extensively to export, but also has a huge domestic solar consumption as well. For example, China just completed the world's largest floating solar farm. China is the world's largest market for photovoltaics and is the world's largest producer of solar power. They're on track to have over 100 GW installed solar power by 2018 (up from 77GW in 2016). They also use 70% of the world's total installed solar water heating.
Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
They probably have well developed civic infastructure as well as the means to afford more expensive heating options. Coal seems primitive like something the Clampetts would use in their back woods cabin but it's rough equivalent is what people in "Scandanavian Utopias" are forced to deal with.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
>> "upgrading to coal from electric"
>
> Making America Great Again
Electric heating systems have always been terribly inefficient. This has historically driven up consumer cost. Even if "renewables are cheaper", it may be a wash in the end because of stuff like this.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Electric heating systems have always been terribly inefficient.
Huh? They're close to 100% effective. Except for what little may escape as photons (lights, radio noise), all the electricity you use becomes heat. Can't get more effective than that.
Electric light systems have been terribly inefficient, as what they predominantly produce is heat. LED lights improve on that, but it's still not efficient.
But electric heating is so close to 100% effective as it can get, unlike coal/oil/gas, where a 100% redox rate is not achieved, even in the best systems.
I didn't realize anybody in the USA still used coal to heat their house (seems backwards, expensive and dirty). I live in one of the most rural and one of the coldest (in the wintertime) states, South Dakota. Coal heat hasn't been used here since the early 1900's. It is mostly natural gas, propane (in more rural communities) and electric. Some people use wood on occasion, but not as their primary heat source. My house is a combo. I use an electric heat pump until the temp gets below 30 F, it then switches to natural gas....which is cheap and abundant out here.
Heating a house with coal seems strange to me. It hasn't been done here for almost 100 years. Natural gas is much cheaper where I live. Electric isn't far behind. There is no easy way (that I'm aware of) to get coal sent to my house, so it would be super expensive to obtain the coal and expensive to change out the natural gas furnace and electric heat pump. Why would I want to go with something that is far more expensive and dirty? Plus, it seems like going backwards in heating technology. If someone in my town/city stated that they were heating their house with coal, most people would laugh and ask which century they are from...
To be fair, that is rather awesome. Ecologically and economically devastating, but awesome none the less.
I believe you're mistaken. At ~$20/barrel, oil was below market. At $45-$50/barrel, it is fairly valued. US energy companies spent the last 2 years innovating during the supply glut and drove the cost of production significantly down. Profit can still be made in the US with $50 oil. I'm not sure you'll see the days of $60+ oil ever again in our lifetimes. The cartel is broken. If they try to artificially shrink supply to drive up price, the companies in the US will gladly step into the void to fill the gap. This is why the US oil rig count has been growing for nearly half a year despite declining oil prices.