Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar Power and Batteries Are Encroaching On Natural Gas In Energy Production (electrek.co)

Posted by BeauHD on from the changing-times dept.

Socguy writes: The relentless downward march in cost of both solar and battery storage is poised to displace 10GW worth of natural gas peaker plant electricity production in the U.S. by 2027. Already we are seeing the net cost of combined solar and batteries cheaper than the equivalent natural gas peaker plant. Some particularly aggressive estimates from major energy companies predict that we may not see another natural gas peaker plant built in the U.S. after 2020. GE has already responded to the weakness in the gas turbine market by laying off 12,000 workers. Further reading available via Greentech Media.

9 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Not aggressive enough. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, if we're serious about addressing climate change then we'll need to ramp solar and wind to the point where they are widespread enough that politicians will stop turning a blind eye to the serious damage being done. This of course means either campaign finance reform or clean energy companies bribing politicians better. I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

    The good news is that solar+battery installations are recursive self-improvement as each installation reduces the amount of emissions while decreasing the market price of solar installations. Elon really needs to get his battery factory building in gear!

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Not aggressive enough. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

      This is one of the dumbest things we could do. In order to make a real change, alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE. Requiring companies to buy their products regardless of the efficiency will take away incentives to improve and impede progress.

      "Feel good" subsidies and mandates only work in the 1st World, and nearly all growth in energy use is coming in the 3rd World, where they can't afford such foolishness. India isn't going to switch from coal to solar until solar is cheaper.

    2. Re:Not aggressive enough. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seed money from the government is often very useful. They are not just "feel good" because existing methods have huge built in subsidies. For example..we spent 4,000 lives and 2 trillion dollars protecting oil.

      There are large subsidies for coal, gasoline, etc.

      Oil and Gasoline would be much more expensive without those subsidies and coal wouldn't even be remotely competitive.

      That said, I agree that excessive subsidies and mandates can be counter productive.

      As far as India goes.. uh. They have massive subsidy programs.

      a) they don't want to be stuck in dead end technologies.
      b) they don't want to sped a billion building coal plants that won't be needed before paying for themselves.
      c) they really need to reduce pollution (which raises health care costs).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Not aggressive enough. by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, if we're serious about addressing climate change then we'll need to ramp solar and wind to the point where they are widespread enough that politicians will stop turning a blind eye to the serious damage being done. This of course means either campaign finance reform or clean energy companies bribing politicians better. I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

      The good news is that solar+battery installations are recursive self-improvement as each installation reduces the amount of emissions while decreasing the market price of solar installations. Elon really needs to get his battery factory building in gear!

      There is one way and one way only to phase out fossil fuels. You have to roll up your sleeves and make solar and wind so totally ridiculously cheaper than coal or natural gas that the bottom will fall out of the natural gas market because you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a delegation from the natural-gas /fracking industries in the White House now pounding a table yelling: "Something must be done Mr. President!!!". Next thing you know a delegation is on it's way to WTO headquarters to lobby for import tariffs on wind/solar tech to protect fossil fuels (if they haven't done all these things already) and the only way to beat that is make the alternatives so much cheaper they cannot be ignored even with protective tariffs in place. When the fossil fuel barons run to the politicians for protection, like the coal lobby has already done, you know you are winning.

    4. Re:Not aggressive enough. by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

      This is one of the dumbest things we could do. In order to make a real change, alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE. Requiring companies to buy their products regardless of the efficiency will take away incentives to improve and impede progress.

      "Feel good" subsidies and mandates only work in the 1st World, and nearly all growth in energy use is coming in the 3rd World, where they can't afford such foolishness. India isn't going to switch from coal to solar until solar is cheaper.

      Define ECONOMIC SENSE. Is economic sense calculating the total cost of using renewable energy sources AND their minimal carbon footprint? ... Or is economic sense to use coal/oil/gas count only the price of extraction/transport/energy-generation? Because that is how things usually work with people arguing that fossil fuels make more economic sense than renewables. The fossil fuel pundits never count the cost of the enormous carbon footprint of coal/oil/gas and the cost of the damage that carbon footprint does. Once you factor that in, the picture of the argument that coal/oil/gas make superior economic sense looks a lot weaker. The basic truth is that coal/oil/gas are wreaking havoc in the life support system of this planet (hint: the part of your environment that produces oxygen for you to breathe) that makes them a liability, economically, environmentally and even in the USA they will eventually become a liability politically. Coal/oil/gas is already a political liability in much of the rest of the world. But do continue to argue in favour of coal/oil/gas and ignore the fact that wind/solar/battery are already cheaper than coal and according to the summary they are now getting cheaper than gas. You seem like to type who'll enjoy being like one of those guys 20 years ago who kept arguing long after the writing was on the wall that digital cameras will never replace film cameras because of the superior quality of film.

    5. Re:Not aggressive enough. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Define ECONOMIC SENSE.

      Economic sense: An Indian farmer in Uttar Pradesh installing a solar panel to reduce his electric bill so he can afford to feed his family.

      Is economic sense calculating the total cost of using renewable energy sources AND their minimal carbon footprint?

      Do you think a 3rd World parent with hungry kids gives a crap about "minimal carbon footprint"?

      Look, America emits 14% of global CO2, and that percentage is declining. The growth in CO2 emissions is coming almost entirely from the 3rd World, and we need to find solutions that work there. Policies that make us feel good about reducing America's emissions, while leaving the rest of the world to pollute even more, are not constructive.

    6. Re:Not aggressive enough. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'Green' houses were tried in Michigan a while back, didn't last a single winter.

      Apparently, Michigan engineers suck compared to the German ones.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Not aggressive enough. by Subm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By your definition it doesn't make economic sense to

      - require seat belts

      - require air bags or other safety features

      - require catalytic converters

      - prevent factories from dumping toxic waste into rivers and the air

      - etc.

      Not everyone considers human and environmental safety just "feel good" mandates.

  2. Gas turbine peakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are expensive to run. They are inefficient and the hotter the outside temperature is the more inefficient they are. And they are basically jet engines so they need a lot of maintenance. Battery prices are declining so as soon as it dips below the price difference between baseload generated power and peak generated power then the peakers GT are gone.