3 ms·

> Solar is already cheaper than oil This is highly unlikely, based on my research. It's all a question of ROI. If it took one barrel of oil to extract another

by mcone 12y ago

> Solar is already cheaper than oil This is highly unlikely, based on my research. It's all a question of ROI. If it took one barrel of oil to extract another barrel of oil out of the ground, would we still be extracting oil? The answer is no, but for some reason we don't apply the same logic to solar power. Solar is strongly subsidized here in the United States, so there is currently a financial incentive for homeowners to install solar panels on their roof. But if it takes x years to generate enough electricity to pay off the solar panels, and the solar panels only last on average x*2 years, there could be a problem with the ROI. And we haven't even started talking about the energy storage problem yet. So unless you can provide some references, I find it very difficult to believe that solar is cheaper than oil at this point in time. Edit: Removed the erroneous part about solar panels only lasting on average 12 years.

Retric 12y ago
Panels have a 20+ year lifespan. Putting solar panels on roofs is dumb. Panels run about 1/3 the cost of home installations. Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. PS: Solar is cheap enough it's changing the cost of energy over the day. Subsides actually prevent it from being cost effective because they lower the cost of electricity reducing the value of solar power. aka producing 5% of a countries power with solar can be vary cost effective producing 100% is not and subsidies push adoption past the point of profitability.
- mcone 12y ago
  > Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. I guess it all depends on your definition of "far cheaper." The DOE reported this year [1] that the price of electricity generated by utility scale photovoltaic power plants is higher than every other plant type, except offshore wind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#E...
  - Retric 12y ago
    ~1/2 the cost of rooftop solar = far cheaper. Also from your chart PV = 130 which is between Conventional Combustion Turbine = 128 and IGCC with CCS = 147.4. But that's "U.S. Average Levelized" so some solar is well below that number. In the end it's a complex subject where for example building solar power plants reduces the value of solar power. Edit: Further down the page you find the minimum cost for PV solar = 101.4 which is below the max cost of Conventional Coal = 114.4 or Advanced Nuclear = 102.0 and close to the average cost of coal 95.6. So there is quite a bit of overlap.
    - mcone 12y ago
      You're absolutely right about it being a complex subject. In addition, some energy "costs" simply can't be calculated, such as the environmental damage and the human toll documented in this article. But at the end of the day, most people just want their gas and electric bills to be as low as possible. So I think there is a conflict here between low energy prices and "doing the right thing," for lack of a better way of saying it. At this point in time, the high cost of solar electricity (whatever the cause) relative to other sources is a huge barrier to adoption.
7952 12y ago
A fossil fuel based plant is still extremely expensive to build, and has inefficiencies due to heat loss and transport losses. And after all that you still have to buy fuel and address externalities such as health problems caused by pollution.

by mcone 12y ago

Retric 12y ago

Panels have a 20+ year lifespan. Putting solar panels on roofs is dumb. Panels run about 1/3 the cost of home installations. Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. PS: Solar is cheap enough it's changing the cost of energy over the day. Subsides actually prevent it from being cost effective because they lower the cost of electricity reducing the value of solar power. aka producing 5% of a countries power with solar can be vary cost effective producing 100% is not and subsidies push adoption past the point of profitability.

mcone 12y ago
> Utility scale solar on the other hand is far cheaper. I guess it all depends on your definition of "far cheaper." The DOE reported this year [1] that the price of electricity generated by utility scale photovoltaic power plants is higher than every other plant type, except offshore wind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#E...
- Retric 12y ago
  ~1/2 the cost of rooftop solar = far cheaper. Also from your chart PV = 130 which is between Conventional Combustion Turbine = 128 and IGCC with CCS = 147.4. But that's "U.S. Average Levelized" so some solar is well below that number. In the end it's a complex subject where for example building solar power plants reduces the value of solar power. Edit: Further down the page you find the minimum cost for PV solar = 101.4 which is below the max cost of Conventional Coal = 114.4 or Advanced Nuclear = 102.0 and close to the average cost of coal 95.6. So there is quite a bit of overlap.
  - mcone 12y ago
    You're absolutely right about it being a complex subject. In addition, some energy "costs" simply can't be calculated, such as the environmental damage and the human toll documented in this article. But at the end of the day, most people just want their gas and electric bills to be as low as possible. So I think there is a conflict here between low energy prices and "doing the right thing," for lack of a better way of saying it. At this point in time, the high cost of solar electricity (whatever the cause) relative to other sources is a huge barrier to adoption.

7952 12y ago

A fossil fuel based plant is still extremely expensive to build, and has inefficiencies due to heat loss and transport losses. And after all that you still have to buy fuel and address externalities such as health problems caused by pollution.