5 ms·

I really, sincerely doubt that solar is going to be cheaper than coal in two years, barring a massive carbon tax or a huge breakthrough in solar. The energy den

by ericd 16y ago

I really, sincerely doubt that solar is going to be cheaper than coal in two years, barring a massive carbon tax or a huge breakthrough in solar. The energy density of sunlight is still extremely low, and coal is expected to be abundant long into the future. Does this article point out some breakthrough that I missed, or some other reasoning? All I saw was some fluff about grid parity, apparently derived from a quote in the almost as fluffy Bloomberg source article by the CEO of a solar cell manufacturer saying that they were nearing parity, without mentioning any numbers. Given that the only hard numbers given in the source article claim a ~3x difference in the article, and the CEO of Solar City claiming that prices of installations have been dropping 5-8% a year, this doesn't add up to the 66% cost reduction in two years necessary to reach parity. This is even without considering all the auxiliary problems with solar, including energy storage. Flagged for being inaccurate.

scythe 16y ago
If you read the Bloomberg article more carefully, you'll notice that the 5-8% figure refers to rooftop solar installations, not the sort of large-scale solar panel fields produced by a utility company. That all is not terribly relevant -- the article isn't claiming that solar power will be cheaper than coal by 2013, rather it is simply fielding speculation about the implications of solar becoming cheaper than coal. There's a much longer article linked, and it deals with the practical issues of solar power: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova.html?page=0%2C0 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova...
- ericd 16y ago
  Yeah, I realized that he was talking about rooftop installs, but the bulk of that cost is in the panels, and the unit cost decrease of manufacturing those should fall roughly in step with industrial panels. My main point was that it was a long way to fall, 5-8% at a time, or even double that, if you make some very favorable assumptions. The article did make a point of saying that they would reach cost parity by 2013, and I'm fairly sure that they were intentionally glossing over facts to make their article more linkbait-worthy. That solar/wind continue to be championed by the media is keeping the public from taking seriously the fact that we don't have that many realistic options when it comes to getting off fossil fuels besides nuclear.

by ericd 16y ago

scythe 16y ago

If you read the Bloomberg article more carefully, you'll notice that the 5-8% figure refers to rooftop solar installations, not the sort of large-scale solar panel fields produced by a utility company. That all is not terribly relevant -- the article isn't claiming that solar power will be cheaper than coal by 2013, rather it is simply fielding speculation about the implications of solar becoming cheaper than coal. There's a much longer article linked, and it deals with the practical issues of solar power: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova.html?page=0%2C0 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova...

ericd 16y ago
Yeah, I realized that he was talking about rooftop installs, but the bulk of that cost is in the panels, and the unit cost decrease of manufacturing those should fall roughly in step with industrial panels. My main point was that it was a long way to fall, 5-8% at a time, or even double that, if you make some very favorable assumptions. The article did make a point of saying that they would reach cost parity by 2013, and I'm fairly sure that they were intentionally glossing over facts to make their article more linkbait-worthy. That solar/wind continue to be championed by the media is keeping the public from taking seriously the fact that we don't have that many realistic options when it comes to getting off fossil fuels besides nuclear.