Slashdot Mirror


Renewable Energy Set To Be Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Says Report (independent.co.uk)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: Continuous technological improvements have led to a rapid fall in the cost of renewable energy in recent years, meaning some forms can already comfortably compete with fossil fuels. The report suggests this trend will continue, and that by 2020 "all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range." Of those technologies, most will either be at the lower end of the cost range or actually undercutting fossil fuels. "This new dynamic signals a significant shift in the energy paradigm," said Adnan Amin, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IREA), which published the report. "Turning to renewables for new power generation is not simply an environmentally conscious decision, it is now -- overwhelmingly -- a smart economic one." The report looked specifically at the relative cost of new energy projects being commissioned. As renewable energy becomes cheaper, consumers will benefit from investment in green infrastructure. The current cost for fossil fuel power generation ranges from around 4p to 12p per kilowatt hour across G20 countries. By 2020, IREA predicted renewables will cost between 2p and 7p, with the best onshore wind and solar photovoltaic projects expected to deliver electricity by 2p or less next year.

1 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wars and Pollution come to mind by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems you may have come to one of the answer as to why Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other oil rich nations are investing in nuclear power. They are investing in solar power too, it seems. Why would they invest in nuclear power if solar power holds so much promise on providing cheap energy?

    Here's something the US Marines figured out. Solar panels are difficult to protect in a time of war. They can't be put in a concrete bunker and still provide power. They spent a lot of money on developing flexible and durable solar panels that can be part of their protective structures in the field. They also know that as durable as they are they are still vulnerable to things like rain, snow, and sand.

    The US Navy has long been researching means to synthesize fuel from seawater using nuclear reactors to drive the process. They've been very successful and it seems that the only thing stopping them from moving faster is interference from the Department of Energy. We can't have the Department of Defense outshining the Department of Energy on developing energy solutions, can we? We'll probably get this process in the Navy fleets, fueling up Marine tankers that drive out to field hospitals and such, once the DOE can put enough fingerprints on it to call it a "joint effort".

    What might this process do for oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia? This process of synthetic fuel doesn't much care where the carbon and hydrogen comes from. It can take crude oil and process it into refined fuels. Fuels without lead, sulfur, and other nasty stuff that gets people sick.

    Oh, byproducts of this synthetic fuel process is drinkable water, oxygen, heat, and perhaps some excess hydrogen. Heat, hydrogen, and nitrogen means ammonia fertilizer. Saudi Arabia knows that they will run out of oil some day. A few young princes see nuclear power as a way to keep exporting valuable commodities and not revert to tribes warring over hills of sand and sources of clear water. Water and fertilizer means food to eat and export. They'll probably be exporting oil for a long time yet, but it will most likely come from olives in the future.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.