5 ms·

> The latter is not particularly efficient, but when you consider that solar and wind are dirt cheap these days, it still makes more sense to do that than use

> The latter is not particularly efficient, but when you consider that solar and wind are dirt cheap these days, it still makes more sense to do that than use natural gas as peaker. Citation needed. Solar and wind are still way more expensive per KwH compared to nuclear or natural gas. Please show us figures demonstrating wind or solar production that costs less than $0.10/KwH The solar market in the US isn't going anywhere anytime soon now that subsidies are gone. I'm not anti-solar or anti-wind, but if they were cheap enough, we'd have MUCH more on the grid, and be planning for more on the grid. At the moment, we're still seeing isolated cases of experimental large-scale farms being built, but no "industry wide" construction rush like we're seeing with natural gas.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Citation needed. Citation provided: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/22/solar-and-wind-power-now-cheaper-than-coal-power-in-the-u-s/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/22/solar-and-wind-power-n... >Solar and wind are still way more expensive per KwH compared to nuclear or natural gas. Natural gas? Hell no: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/solar-sold-less-5%C2%A2kwh-austin-texas/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/solar-sold-less-5%C2%A2k... Nuclear? Maybe, but there are still safety concerns. Plus, the nuclear liability cap subsidy is still FAR too low for me to be convinced that those safety concerns are invalid. > Please show us figures demonstrating wind or solar production that costs less than $0.10/KwH Solar power is apparently going to be sold to Austin Energy for a tiny bit less than 5¢/kWh under a new 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with SunEdison. >I'm not anti-solar or anti-wind, but if they were cheap enough, we'd have MUCH more on the grid, and be planning for more on the grid. At the moment, we're still seeing isolated cases of experimental large-scale farms being built, but no "industry wide" construction rush like we're seeing with natural gas. The difference is that natural gas has superior lobbying (it's also got some great PR teams who are 'greenwashing' it). This is why cheap solar panels get whacked by 30% tariffs despite pathetic evidence of dumping and why frackers are able to cause all manner of havoc with groundwater, earthquakes and mysterious illnesses and push the costs on to somebody else. At best they pay out token damages - http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/25/justice/texas-family-wins-fracking-lawsuit/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/25/justice/texas-family-wins-... - but more usually, nothing. Even in spite of that, the gas companies have been piling on debt to keep the fracking boom alive - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feas... - which is a story that usually doesn't end well. Solar/wind adoption has been growing very fast, but it's constantly being beset by political roadblocks like the 30% tariffs - usually erected at the behest of the carbon burning companies, who still wield vast political power in the US. We're very much at an inflexion point where current levels of technology is capable of providing a cleaner, greener future at a knock down price. it's just politics now that is preventing it from happening. Specifically, it's lobbying done by oil, natural gas & utility companies to hurt their greener competitors.
- schainks 12y ago
  Having trouble loading first article, as it just shows a headline [edit typo] but thank you for the citation, I'll take it with a grain of salt. You're being misleading with your second article, however. > If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. It's a good start, but still not nearly "grid scale cost", and you're only getting electricity at that price when the sun is out. Not suitable for base-load generation, but for peaking. Useful, but not 100% availability useful. Re: Natural gas - it depends. Prices fluctuate, so it goes both ways. There have been times where gas was much cheaper than many options, only to become a very expensive choice because prices went up. Imagine how the plant owners feel when they build a facility while prices are at one level, only to have to operate it at a higher price later! The flexibility that combustion turbine plants bring to the grid, however, make them good choices as they have short startup times, work well as spinning reserves, and these days aren't too expensive to operate. When the fuel comes from within our borders, it is good for national security, too. A bigger thing hurting greener competitors is bad information and idealistic proposals that do not have practical engineering foundations. I'm still making my way through the paper, but I'm incredibly skeptical these guys really understand the grid (grid grid grid) and how it's really put together. Remember, the goal behind the grid is to provide very reliable power to customers at a decent price, and operate the utility at a profit. Consumers don't usually care where their energy comes from, but obviously "feel better" if it's from environmentally friendly sources. The "early adopters" among us might go for higher prices for cleaner energy, but no "mass market" consumer is going to accept lower grid reliability in exchange for a greener power supply or comparatively higher prices for a "greener" one.
  - glomph 12y ago
    You have just asserted your view that Solar/ Wind are only useful sources for peaking but the linked article contains an argument that they could plausibly be used for base load (with a linked sources). It seems reasonable to consider it your turn to argue against that rather than just reassert. In light of your comment on the goals of the grid do you not think we have a moral responsibility to disregard what people appear to want to a certain extent and start doing what is sustainable? Even if it does have some cost some short term stability and price. Profit surly shouldn't be the only consideration. It may not be the people right now that pay the cost of fucking up the planet but some people will. Do you not think everyone has a responsibility to consider the externalities?
dredmorbius 12y ago
Wind is cheaper than nuclear, and competitive with or cheaper than gas, depending on technologies. Solar PV is modestly more expensive, but has seen prices falling at ~20% annually (50% every 3.5 years) since the 1970s. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/16/solars-dramatic-cost-fall-may-herald-energy-price-deflation/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/16/solars-dramatic-cost-fal... http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-solars-99-cost-plunge-to-grid-parity-48733 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-solars-99-c... http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/citigroup-how-solar-module-prices-could-fall-to-25cwatt-41384 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/citigroup-how-solar-module-p...

crdoconnor 12y ago

>Citation needed. Citation provided: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/22/solar-and-wind-power-now-cheaper-than-coal-power-in-the-u-s/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/22/solar-and-wind-power-n... >Solar and wind are still way more expensive per KwH compared to nuclear or natural gas. Natural gas? Hell no: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/solar-sold-less-5%C2%A2kwh-austin-texas/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/solar-sold-less-5%C2%A2k... Nuclear? Maybe, but there are still safety concerns. Plus, the nuclear liability cap subsidy is still FAR too low for me to be convinced that those safety concerns are invalid. > Please show us figures demonstrating wind or solar production that costs less than $0.10/KwH Solar power is apparently going to be sold to Austin Energy for a tiny bit less than 5¢/kWh under a new 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with SunEdison. >I'm not anti-solar or anti-wind, but if they were cheap enough, we'd have MUCH more on the grid, and be planning for more on the grid. At the moment, we're still seeing isolated cases of experimental large-scale farms being built, but no "industry wide" construction rush like we're seeing with natural gas. The difference is that natural gas has superior lobbying (it's also got some great PR teams who are 'greenwashing' it). This is why cheap solar panels get whacked by 30% tariffs despite pathetic evidence of dumping and why frackers are able to cause all manner of havoc with groundwater, earthquakes and mysterious illnesses and push the costs on to somebody else. At best they pay out token damages - http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/25/justice/texas-family-wins-fracking-lawsuit/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/25/justice/texas-family-wins-... - but more usually, nothing. Even in spite of that, the gas companies have been piling on debt to keep the fracking boom alive - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feas... - which is a story that usually doesn't end well. Solar/wind adoption has been growing very fast, but it's constantly being beset by political roadblocks like the 30% tariffs - usually erected at the behest of the carbon burning companies, who still wield vast political power in the US. We're very much at an inflexion point where current levels of technology is capable of providing a cleaner, greener future at a knock down price. it's just politics now that is preventing it from happening. Specifically, it's lobbying done by oil, natural gas & utility companies to hurt their greener competitors.

schainks 12y ago
Having trouble loading first article, as it just shows a headline [edit typo] but thank you for the citation, I'll take it with a grain of salt. You're being misleading with your second article, however. > If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. It's a good start, but still not nearly "grid scale cost", and you're only getting electricity at that price when the sun is out. Not suitable for base-load generation, but for peaking. Useful, but not 100% availability useful. Re: Natural gas - it depends. Prices fluctuate, so it goes both ways. There have been times where gas was much cheaper than many options, only to become a very expensive choice because prices went up. Imagine how the plant owners feel when they build a facility while prices are at one level, only to have to operate it at a higher price later! The flexibility that combustion turbine plants bring to the grid, however, make them good choices as they have short startup times, work well as spinning reserves, and these days aren't too expensive to operate. When the fuel comes from within our borders, it is good for national security, too. A bigger thing hurting greener competitors is bad information and idealistic proposals that do not have practical engineering foundations. I'm still making my way through the paper, but I'm incredibly skeptical these guys really understand the grid (grid grid grid) and how it's really put together. Remember, the goal behind the grid is to provide very reliable power to customers at a decent price, and operate the utility at a profit. Consumers don't usually care where their energy comes from, but obviously "feel better" if it's from environmentally friendly sources. The "early adopters" among us might go for higher prices for cleaner energy, but no "mass market" consumer is going to accept lower grid reliability in exchange for a greener power supply or comparatively higher prices for a "greener" one.
- glomph 12y ago
  You have just asserted your view that Solar/ Wind are only useful sources for peaking but the linked article contains an argument that they could plausibly be used for base load (with a linked sources). It seems reasonable to consider it your turn to argue against that rather than just reassert. In light of your comment on the goals of the grid do you not think we have a moral responsibility to disregard what people appear to want to a certain extent and start doing what is sustainable? Even if it does have some cost some short term stability and price. Profit surly shouldn't be the only consideration. It may not be the people right now that pay the cost of fucking up the planet but some people will. Do you not think everyone has a responsibility to consider the externalities?

dredmorbius 12y ago

Wind is cheaper than nuclear, and competitive with or cheaper than gas, depending on technologies. Solar PV is modestly more expensive, but has seen prices falling at ~20% annually (50% every 3.5 years) since the 1970s. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/16/solars-dramatic-cost-fall-may-herald-energy-price-deflation/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/16/solars-dramatic-cost-fal... http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-solars-99-cost-plunge-to-grid-parity-48733 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-solars-99-c... http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/citigroup-how-solar-module-prices-could-fall-to-25cwatt-41384 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/citigroup-how-solar-module-p...