4 ms·

>The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competiti

>The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". $83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision without adversely affecting overall energy production that much. Indeed, that's pretty much what Germany has done. >Also note that these are not costs of production, these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax discounts and incentives. I won't speculate as to why you didn't note that fossil fuel subsidies are also included.

downandout 11y ago
>$83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive. Taxes and incentives being included are the only reason that the numbers quoted in this extremely misleading report are even remotely close to each other (although an 11% difference in a multi-trillion dollar industry is hardly insignificant).
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive They already did in the UK and Germany as the article points out. The political weight of utilities and the oil/natgas industry is significantly higher in the US which is probably why the US hasn't followed in Germany/UK's footsteps. Too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >"too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc." Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight? Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further.
    - brrt 11y ago
      I admire your optimism :-) but I'm not 100% sure that is true. If there wasn't a political drive behind this, wouldn't it have been easier to burn coal for the next 100 years?
      - talmand 11y ago
        There are lots of examples of innovations changing entire industries without a political drive being behind it. The day someone discovers a clean energy method that is easily cheaper than fossil fuels will be able to cash in because the market will switch to it quite handily, regardless of politics. The only political drive I really worry over with things like this is cronyism that prevents innovations in an effort to maintain status quo.
        ZeroGravitas 11y ago
        This is already happening. Rooftop solar is disturbing monopoly utilities who are trying to stop it from disrupting them by slapping charges on customers who use it, or refusing to allow them to connect. In the UK, a government with ties to fossil fuel industry (where the money is centralised and easy to syphon into bribes and kickbacks) is sabotaging wind power in favour of fracking. Abbot in Australia etc. The technology is already there, it's all about the politics now.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      > Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further. So you think that instead of introducing counter distortions to protect the environment we should just keep the distortions that are damaging it that we already have?
      - Shivetya 11y ago
        We need to carefully balance tax breaks for renewable energy solutions so that they do not stifle innovation. The key is to make buying renewable energy enough to entice consumers; both families and business; while at the same time not slowing the progress of innovation because the handouts are too profitable to give up.
Xixi 11y ago
Germany main source of energy is still, by far, coal (lignite to be precise), and it's not going down yet. The expansion of renewable energy, which is very real, is being done at the expense of nuclear energy. I wish they would be doing it the other way around: closing coal power plants before the nuclear ones. But Germany has lignite, and doesn't have much of a nuclear industry, so economically it makes much more sense that way... EDIT: typo
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  AFAIK since 2013 they've almost totally stopped building new coal plants. They've removed subsidies on mining, too which has led to pit closures. If it's not going down already, I imagine it will be going down within the next couple of years.
  - Xixi 11y ago
    Sure, it will eventually decline. But when you see the sharp decline in electricity produced from nuclear power plants, it feels like a missed opportunity to lower CO2 emissions faster. I'm only looking at this from a greenhouse gases point of view. Maybe German nuclear power plants are particularly unsafe and it's better to wind them down quickly? I doubt it, which is why I lean towards an economical (more so than financial) decision.
    - the_why_of_y 11y ago
      Nuclear energy generally depends on the political will for the state to (in effect) take on the cost of insurance for the most serious accidents, since it is impossible for the energy producing companies to buy such insurance. It looks like in Germany that political will is no longer there.

downandout 11y ago

>$83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive. Taxes and incentives being included are the only reason that the numbers quoted in this extremely misleading report are even remotely close to each other (although an 11% difference in a multi-trillion dollar industry is hardly insignificant).

crdoconnor 11y ago
>The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive They already did in the UK and Germany as the article points out. The political weight of utilities and the oil/natgas industry is significantly higher in the US which is probably why the US hasn't followed in Germany/UK's footsteps. Too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >"too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc." Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight? Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further.
  - brrt 11y ago
    I admire your optimism :-) but I'm not 100% sure that is true. If there wasn't a political drive behind this, wouldn't it have been easier to burn coal for the next 100 years?
    - talmand 11y ago
      There are lots of examples of innovations changing entire industries without a political drive being behind it. The day someone discovers a clean energy method that is easily cheaper than fossil fuels will be able to cash in because the market will switch to it quite handily, regardless of politics. The only political drive I really worry over with things like this is cronyism that prevents innovations in an effort to maintain status quo.
      - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
        This is already happening. Rooftop solar is disturbing monopoly utilities who are trying to stop it from disrupting them by slapping charges on customers who use it, or refusing to allow them to connect. In the UK, a government with ties to fossil fuel industry (where the money is centralised and easy to syphon into bribes and kickbacks) is sabotaging wind power in favour of fracking. Abbot in Australia etc. The technology is already there, it's all about the politics now.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    > Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further. So you think that instead of introducing counter distortions to protect the environment we should just keep the distortions that are damaging it that we already have?
    - Shivetya 11y ago
      We need to carefully balance tax breaks for renewable energy solutions so that they do not stifle innovation. The key is to make buying renewable energy enough to entice consumers; both families and business; while at the same time not slowing the progress of innovation because the handouts are too profitable to give up.

Xixi 11y ago

Germany main source of energy is still, by far, coal (lignite to be precise), and it's not going down yet. The expansion of renewable energy, which is very real, is being done at the expense of nuclear energy. I wish they would be doing it the other way around: closing coal power plants before the nuclear ones. But Germany has lignite, and doesn't have much of a nuclear industry, so economically it makes much more sense that way... EDIT: typo

crdoconnor 11y ago
AFAIK since 2013 they've almost totally stopped building new coal plants. They've removed subsidies on mining, too which has led to pit closures. If it's not going down already, I imagine it will be going down within the next couple of years.
- Xixi 11y ago
  Sure, it will eventually decline. But when you see the sharp decline in electricity produced from nuclear power plants, it feels like a missed opportunity to lower CO2 emissions faster. I'm only looking at this from a greenhouse gases point of view. Maybe German nuclear power plants are particularly unsafe and it's better to wind them down quickly? I doubt it, which is why I lean towards an economical (more so than financial) decision.
  - the_why_of_y 11y ago
    Nuclear energy generally depends on the political will for the state to (in effect) take on the cost of insurance for the most serious accidents, since it is impossible for the energy producing companies to buy such insurance. It looks like in Germany that political will is no longer there.