Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 3, 2017
Solar Could Beat Coal to Become the Cheapest Power on Earth
Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it’s likely to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere.
In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further. Taking advantage: Companies such as Italy’s Enel SpA and Dublin’s Mainstream Renewable Power, who gained experienced in Europe and now seek new markets abroad as subsidies dry up at home.
Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. That’s help cut risk premiums on bank loans, and pushed manufacturing capacity to record levels. By 2025, solar may be cheaper than using coal on average globally, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
“These are game-changing numbers, and it’s becoming normal in more and more markets,” said Adnan Amin, International Renewable Energy Agency ’s director general, an Abu Dhabi-based intergovernmental group. “Every time you double capacity, you reduce the price by 20 percent.”
Better technology has been key in boosting the industry, from the use of diamond-wire saws that more efficiently cut wafers to better cells that provide more spark from the same amount of sun. It’s also driven by economies of scale and manufacturing experience since the solar boom started more than a decade ago, giving the industry an increasing edge in the competition with fossil fuels.
The average 1 megawatt-plus ground mounted solar system will cost 73 cents a watt by 2025 compared with $1.14 now, a 36 percent drop, said Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis for New Energy Finance.
That’s in step with other forecasts.
- GTM Research expects some parts of the U.S. Southwest approaching $1 a watt today, and may drop as low as 75 cents in 2021, according to its analyst MJ Shiao.
- The U.S. Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Lab expects costs of about $1.20 a watt now declining to $1 by 2020. By 2030, current technology will squeeze out most potential savings, said Donald Chung, a senior project leader.
- The International Energy Agency expects utility-scale generation costs to fall by another 25 percent on average in the next five years.
- The International Renewable Energy Agency anticipates a further drop of 43 percent to 65 percent for solar costs by 2025. That would bring to 84 percent the cumulative decline since 2009.
The solar supply chain is experiencing “a Wal-Mart effect” from higher volumes and lower margins, according to Sami Khoreibi, founder and chief executive officer of Enviromena Power Systems, an Abu Dhabi-based developer.
The speed at which the price of solar will drop below coal varies in each country. Places that import coal or tax polluters with a carbon price, such as Europe and Brazil, will see a crossover in the 2020s, if not before. Countries with large domestic coal reserves such as India and China will probably take longer.
Coal’s Rebuttal
Coal industry officials point out that cost comparisons involving renewables don’t take into account the need to maintain backup supplies that can work when the sun doesn’t shine or wind doesn’t blow. When those other expenses are included, coal looks more economical, even around 2035, said Benjamin Sporton, chief executive officer of the World Coal Association.
“All advanced economies demand full-time electricity,” Sporton said. “Wind and solar can only generate part-time, intermittent electricity. While some renewable technologies have achieved significant cost reductions in recent years, it’s important to look at total system costs.”
Even so, solar’s plunge in price is starting to make the technology a plausible competitor.
Sunbelt countries are leading the way in cutting costs, though there’s more to it than just the weather. The use of auctions to award power-purchase contracts is forcing energy companies to compete with each other to lower costs.
An August auction in Chile yielded a contract for 2.91 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, a United Arab Emirates auction grabbed headlines with a bid of 2.42 cents a kilowatt-hour. Developers have been emboldened to submit lower bids by expectations that the cost of the technology will continue to fall.
“We’re seeing a new reality where solar is the lowest-cost source of energy, and I don’t see an end in sight in terms of the decline in costs,” said Enviromena’s Khoreibi.
128 Comments on "Solar Could Beat Coal to Become the Cheapest Power on Earth"
Cloggie on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 6:02 pm
Good news for the ‘T’s, but not really a surprise.
There is no long term energy problem.
salinsky on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 6:05 pm
“We’re seeing a new reality where solar is the lowest-cost source of energy, and I don’t see an end in sight in terms of the decline in costs,” said Enviromena’s Khoreibi.
Too cheap to meter.
dave thompson on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 6:14 pm
Solar and wind power might supplement some electrical demand, but when the the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine………
makati1 on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 6:23 pm
dave, you hit the nail on the head…lol. That is a fact ignored by the techie dreamers.
John Kintree on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 7:03 pm
Lower prices for solar and wind helps, but is not good enough.
Replacing gasoline powered with electric vehicles helps, but is not good enough.
Replacing 250 million individually owned gasoline powered vehicles in the U.S. with 50 million electric, autonomous, shared vehicles would help a lot more, but this requires a cultural as well as a technological shift; much more difficult to do.
Vehicle to grid battery storage and leveling of irregular renewable electric supply would also help. That still might not be good enough, but it’s moving in a more sustainable direction. It could be worse.
Hubert on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 7:17 pm
1. Why don’t these idiots ever talk about water? Do they have any clue just how much water it takes to clean those panels?
2. Solar panels do not last forever.
shortonoil on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 8:02 pm
How long could solar be kept going without a huge world wide transportation system powered by oil? I would guess maybe two months. Without oil they are likely to also be a little short of costumers for their product. Customers are buyers with “money”. Something that is likely to be growing increasingly rare with the the oil!
shortonoil on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 8:15 pm
“Solar and wind power might supplement some electrical demand, but when the the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine………”
Until a low cost, effective means of storing electricity is devised solar will remain a very small part of total electrical production regardless of the price. 66.3 Kwatt-hrs per pound for oil is hard to beat, and it never goes flat until it is set on fire.
makati1 on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 10:19 pm
A good summary of the situation, I think … from Rice Farmer.
“The 100 percent renewable energy future: The good news and the bad news
Unfortunately, the bad news is even worse. Fossil fuels are needed to manufacture and deploy renewables. There appears to be simple-minded belief that we could use the electricity from renewables to power not only industrial civilization, but also the hardware scrap-and-build cycle. This belief overlooks the crucial difference between fossil fuels and renewables. In the case of fossil fuels, nature did all the heavy lifting for us by producing biomass on a vast scale and then putting it in gigantic pressure cookers. Humans just have to dig or pump out the products and refine them. With renewables, we must do this ourselves over immense areas of land. In other words, fossil fuel energy is concentrated, stored energy, while that from renewables is diffuse, real-time energy. Using electricity from renewables to run the industrial machine would be prohibitively expensive. But there’s another major factor that most people completely overlook: Large-scale infrastructure like wind and solar farms needs to be financed with debt — LOTS of debt, and that requires a sound financial system. Unfortunately, the global economy and financial system are doomed. Furthermore, although there could be a post-crash revival, the system will never recover to the current scale because net energy is already too low, and will continue to decline. — RF”
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.jp/2017/01/the-100-percent-renewable-energy-future.html
Dream on techies! lol
Dooma on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 10:23 pm
Solar “could, may, might, possibly, maybe, is projected… blah blah blah”. How I truly wish that solar CAN. That and the population was 4 billion less and the remaining people were capable of independent and critical thought.
GregT on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 11:38 pm
More Bloomberg BS.
GregT on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 11:45 pm
“There is no long term energy problem.”
Thats right Cloggie, we live in an infinitely expanding universe. We just need to figure out a way to destroy the universe too, so that we can continue to wallow in consumerism, and all of that crap that we never really needed in the first place.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 2:38 am
Solar and wind power might supplement some electrical demand, but when the the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine………
Then we use storage. You can convert kWh from solar and wind electricity into fuel or hydrogen, or you can use pumped hydro storage. The possibilities are endless. Furthermore, the larger the connected the continental grids are, the lesser storage you need, on statistical grounds. You don’t even need storage at all up until 40% renewable energy share in the total mix.
Thats right Cloggie, we live in an infinitely expanding universe. We just need to figure out a way to destroy the universe too, so that we can continue to wallow in consumerism, and all of that crap that we never really needed in the first place.
So you basically implicitly admit that solar has the potential for the things you describe and are afraid of? And that your real motive behind interest in the “peak oil problem cluster” is a desire to change society away from consumerism, “back to nature”? And that for you peak oil would have been a blessing in disguise? And that you are disgusted by the idea of a planet of 9 billion, every one of them owner of a car, with which they can drive to their local Walmart/IKEA?
Well, I can very well sympathize with these ideas. For me that is a horror vision as well.
But I am not willing to delude myself about the potential of renewable energy.
/T
Perhaps you should advocate unrestricted immigration to North-America from the third world and as such replace inventive white people, who are behind all this destructive creativity, to ensure that their technological/scientific culture gets thoroughly destroyed by people unable & unwilling to carry on this culture. Once that has been achieved a massive die-off is ensured and humans are wiped off the map. What’s not to like.
/E
brough on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 2:59 am
Solar will never beat coal with its ability to generate electicity in the dark.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 3:25 am
Shortonoil opines: “66.3 Kwatt-hrs per pound for oil is hard to beat”
That would indeed be hard to beat. The truth is that in reality a liter of oil contains ca. 10 kwh.
Not sure what an “US pound” is, but in case it is half a kilo, it means you are a factor of 14 off the mark.
And you are an energy consultant?
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 4:13 am
“Then we use storage. You can convert kWh from solar and wind electricity into fuel or hydrogen, or you can use pumped hydro storage. The possibilities are endless. Furthermore, the larger the connected the continental grids are, the lesser storage you need, on statistical grounds. You don’t even need storage at all up until 40% renewable energy share in the total mix.” So Cloggie tell us all where this is going on in the world at industrial scale? Or is this just another techie dream?
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 4:34 am
So Cloggie tell us all where this is going on in the world at industrial scale? Or is this just another techie dream?
You are right, I repent. Technological progress doesn’t exist. Everything will remain the same for all eternity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Rl6BWoQp0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOdATLzRGHc
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 4:47 am
So Cloggie tell us all where this is going on in the world at industrial scale? Or is this just another techie dream?
Yesterday the construction started of yet another submarine electricity cable from Holland to Denmark:
http://tinyurl.com/glusm6c
Purpose: eliminating intermittent nature of renewable energy by connecting national grids.
Earlier a cable was laid between the Netherlands and Norway to use Norway’s mountain basins for pumped hydro storage:
http://tinyurl.com/jptqctr
Norway has the ambition to become Europe’s battery, so there you have your “industrial scale storage”:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/norway-wants-to-offer-hydroelectric-resources-to-europe-a-835037.html
The renewable energy revolution is happening in Europe before your eyes if you would care to open them.
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 4:49 am
Nice vids Cloggie, still no sign of endless possibilities that you tout.
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 4:52 am
Norway may show ambition. However this is not at any kind of scale that will replace FF any time soon.
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 4:54 am
Sorry for your your hopium fail. Cloggie.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 5:08 am
Sorry for your your hopium fail. Cloggie.
Precisely what I want you to think. No imagination. No can-do mentality. Fail.
The examples of coal-Britain in the 19th and oil-USA in the 20th century have shown that there is a strong link between a country’s new energy base and its subsequent dominant geopolitical position.
And since Europe has been a colony of its former colony USA of 3 centuries long enough now, we in Europe want the US to remain backward stuck in fossil fuel or believing in no future whatsoever. Give us a call when you are drowning in diversity and on second thoughts conclude that WhiteLivesMatter after all and we can help carve out a white chunk out of the American pie and incorporate it in a Huntingtonian Eurosphere culture circle/alliance system.
/provocative_language
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 5:27 am
‘Give us a call when you are drowning in diversity and on second thoughts conclude that WhiteLivesMatter after all and we can help carve out a white chunk out of the American pie and incorporate it in a Huntingtonian Eurosphere culture circle/alliance system.’ Dude, Cloggie totally not the subject. You fail again.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 5:47 am
So if I say that 2+2=4, I fail because it is off topic?
I’m telling you, the excessive despair on this forum has more to do with a sense of foreboding of the immanent failure of the US to obtain its century old objective, namely to bring the entire world into the hands of the self-chosen (NWO) than with peak oil/resource depletion blues. White America will need to reinvent itself after the coming USSR-style downfall of the “benevolent hegemon” (provided they don’t end up in the Gulag if the old guard manages a come-back. But hey, we in Europe will be ready for 1776 2.0 intervention, just to keep Washington from allying itself to China).
Say hello to George from me.
/off-topic
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 6:03 am
Solar could beat coal…… That was the topic. How you get to this point? Cloggie fail!
Davy on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 6:35 am
Clog, you are an extreme techno optimist that is no better than an extreme doomer. It is intellectually weak to look at this unfolding of civilization at a paradigm shift of change as a game to win. An energy transition will have winner and loser but on a sinking ship of a world at planetary limits and a civilization diminished. This will be a condition of macro lose with winners and losers. This basis of overall loss will prevent any long term success. Your energy transition is decades too late. Europe is an economic basket case unraveling worse than any other major power. Your northern Europe represents the best location for coordinated and focused renewable transition but it lacks economic and political future in a global world unraveling. It lacks central relevance in the new world order that will revolve around China, the US, and Russia.
The rest of the world will never make an energy transition because it is not possible even with the best of times because globalism has done its damage. Socially and politically there is not the stability needed in many locations. Overpopulation and social breakdown is rapidly the focus not energy transition. Europe can never survive such break downs globally long term. Short term you can fool yourself into believing it can but longer term you are finished. Many of Europe’s resources and markets are global. It is just a great hub of economic and social strength but not a great power to shape the world. The world will shape Europe and that shaping is decline.
Many of the technologies you preach about are in their infancy. They are not at a point of a breakout of growth. Global growth is teetering on recession now and this will prevent any breakout to the upside only downside potential remain. This will stop any major force of change especially one that lacks physical “energy” potential. The EROI of renewables is good but not good enough. Scale is too great for any new source of energy. Positive time frame is gone. Your techno vision is one of a nation winning battles with a war that can’t be one. Your story remind me of Japan and Germany in WWII. It is clear both nations would likely never defeat the US and Russia because of the odds. You and your dreams are at the point of Hitler outside of Moscow with winter setting in and Japan after Midway. It is like Bob Lee after Gettysburg. Your techno dreams are great stuff without the right stuff. You are done and all that is left is a Baghdad Bob style talk of great things ahead as the tanks circle central Baghdad. I don’t expect you to hear me because you are deaf to reality.
If you lowered your expectations and talked realistically of technologies and achievements that will make a difference I would say you are very right. These things are vital and Europe is leading the way along with other pockets of success in the US and China. Yet, this cannot scale up to maintaining the status quo. Everything will decay and decline without the status quo. There is no alternative status quo lite of plan B for an adapted new status quo. There is just the end of the status quo and a radically different diminished world ahead. This diminishment is multidimensional and planetary. Now if you want optimism it could be a slow unwinding instead of the sudden collapse. That is some optimism you should bite on. Your northern Europe may be one of the last men standing. Instead you crow about great changes without a sense of reality. Good luck and I hope I am wrong. I would love to live in your George Jetson World.
onlooker on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 6:40 am
They’re are no winners just losers in the condition we are remaking the Earth. Unless you want to count as winners single cell organisms. haha
shortonoil on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 7:09 am
“The truth is that in reality a liter of oil contains ca. 10 kwh.
Not sure what an “US pound” is, but in case it is half a kilo, it means you are a factor of 14 off the mark.
And you are an energy consultant?”
A pound is a unit of mass used by the English Engineering System. That is the system of units used by the majority of the world’s oil producers, along with Darsie Units, and Field Units. Crude is sold through out the world by BARRELS, not liters. 1 barrel equals 42 gallon, one gallon equals 7.19 pounds (lb). One gallon of 37.5° API crude contains 140,000 BTU. 1 BTU = 0.293 Watt*hours. 1 pound = 140,000 BTU/ 7.19 lb = 19,471 BTU/lb = 66,453.9 Watt-Hours, or 66.4 Kilowatt-hrs.
Now that you have proven that you are a complete ignoramus, what is your next scheme to save the world? Still working on that gerbil powered flywheel thingy?
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 7:19 am
66.3 Kwatt-hrs per pound for oil is hard to beat
1 lb = 0.45 kg
https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-energy-from-koe-to-kWh.html
1 kg oil = 11.63 kWh
1 lb oil = 0.45 x 11.63 = 5.23 kWh and not 66.3 kWh
You are factor of 12.7 off the mark and no juggling with BTU, gallon and lb can mask that fact.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 7:27 am
The only one who is a complete ignoramus is you, mr peak oil dinosaur shortonbrains. You have dug yourself so deep in a hole with your obsolete 2005 Heinbergian theories, sold to everyone who wanted to hear about it, that there is no way back for you and your HillBillyGroup.
Renewables will win, not because of peak oil breathing in our necks or because of climate change, but because it will be the cheapest energy around per kWh… oh sorry, I mean to say BTU.
Davy on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 7:45 am
“it will be the cheapest energy around per kWh…”
Such generalities show extremism and lack of intellectual detail. Come one Clog, detach from your emotions and start being accurate. You have some good points but your agenda is getting in the way. More and more you are turning into a makati style failure.
Simon on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 7:48 am
Wow Arent we all having fun today.
From Humans are nasty to Coloured Humans are nasty, hey ho.
I remember when I first came to this board people were saying peak oil would encourage nationalism and a few other isms, we were right then.
Dave makes a good point about us in the EU, but on the whole are pretty good at collapsing (we do it at a regular basis). Since 2008 the end of the EU has been two years away (Kinda like fusion) from collapse, but I am sure it will happen this time (sarc.)
Looking outside my window at an EU capital city, the streets are full of people on bikes, taking Trams and Trains, car use is declining.
Now you can say this is eco-progress, or see this as a sign, that for a while now we are collapsing, I remember when everyone owned a car and would drive to work, and cities were tearing up tram lines.
It may be that we have cooler bikes and sexier trams, but essentially we are back to 1950’s technology.
Next step, death of the ICE and the electric car moving in, it will be too expensive for most, so the number of cars will fall again.
Back to the point, Solar will be cheaper than coal.
It will help us transition, the only question is to what standard of living.
Now, where was I
Down with the commie black jewish amerikans that cant spell.
Simon
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 8:46 am
coal and nat gas will rule the grid until BAU is done then it is back to horse plow and shovel.
marmico on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 9:17 am
mr peak oil dinosaur shortonbrains… there is no way back for you and your HillBillyGroup
ROTFLMFAO
Bozo Bunsen Burner Bedford is well versed in order of magnitude errors.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 9:17 am
coal and nat gas will rule the grid until BAU is done then it is back to horse plow and shovel.
Sure.
http://www.ogfj.com/content/dam/ogfj/print-articles/Volume-10/issue-7/z1307OGFJfdr01.jpg
The Danes got this far, even when in the recent past renewable energy sources were expensive. This is now changing rapidly, so expect renewable energy growth to accelerate accordingly.
rockman on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 9:26 am
Simon – Glad to have you here reporting from ground level in the EU. More credible the US MSM IMHO.
Back to “cheaper”. Obviously from daily ops cost you can’t beat free sunshine. So head to head solar has beaten fossil fuels on that basis forever. But equally obvious that only works comparing EXISTING power plants. But that rarely works since the solar plants seldom exist with the ff option.
So the economic battle is the cost of building the new solar plant vs the daily ops cost of the existing ff plants. That’s THE hurdle solar faces. Especially in a world where capital isn’t very available.
And even when the alt energy works like wind has in Texas (and now with solar expanding) those big private investments required customers to agree to INITIALLY pay higher alt rates then ff rates. And additionally required tax payers to cover the $7 BILLION needed to upgrade the grid to accommodate new alt energy sources. And then there’s additional tax breaks from the govt. IOW saying solar is cheaper is wrong in the SHORT TERM in most areas. Long term costs may be very appealing but unless the short term cost hurdle can be overcome progress will be very slow.
Combined that’s what it took for alts to boom in the largest fossil fuel producing state in the US. And concertn for the climate and GHG production DID NOT play a meaningful part of the process. It was simply a long term economic plan that justified the effort. Compare that to the slow implementation of alt energy when the primary motivation is environmental.
Until folks figure out a way to justify the switch to alts ECONOMICALLY on a full cycle basis then just pitching the “free sunshine” angle I doubt the transition will grow very quickly.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 9:48 am
I doubt the transition will grow very quickly.
http://tinyurl.com/pas7ng4
In 2015, the equivalent of 60 large 1 GW power stations worth of wind capacity was added to the global inventory.
http://tinyurl.com/zm5n2hg
With solar it is 30 of these power stations.
The decrease of cost of both wind and solar is spectacular.
But the most impressive figure is you look at new installed electricity capacity in Europe:
http://www.ecology.com/2010/07/06/renewable-eu-electricity-generation/
In 2009 the share of renewable eclipsed that of fossil fuel power stations.
dave thompson on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 9:50 am
Cloggie your chart shows coal, gas, oil at over 70% of total energy. Without that energy, all of the solar and the rest are not happening. Thanks for the confirmation of my point. No FF no industrial civ. see ya in the cave.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 10:01 am
Cloggie your chart shows coal, gas, oil at over 70% of total energy. Without that energy, all of the solar and the rest are not happening. Thanks for the confirmation of my point. No FF no industrial civ.see ya in the cave.
Ever heard of extrapolation? If Denmark can install 20% of their energy base in renewable power in a matter of two decades, than at the same pace they will have replaced all their fossil based energy in 8 decades more. But expect that pace to increase now that renewable energy is getting cheaper by the day.
http://english.rvo.nl/news/netherlands-offshore-wind-farm-borssele-cheapest-world-wide
Earlier I calculated that wind energy on the North Sea (very good conditions with shallow water and 9.5 m/s average wind speed) represents the equivalent of 6 euro/barrel of oil:
http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-burning-issue-the-energy-transition-from-fire-to-electricity
Have fun in your cave.
penury on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 10:19 am
I must agree that solar will be cheaper than coal at some time in the future. However, the distribution, storage, and installation of a distribution network will slow the growth. The economies of the world cannot and will not be able to replicate a distribution of wind and solar. The current infra=structure of the U.S.A. is either past or approaching the end of design life in many cases. The money for repairs and upgrades is being used to bomb others. And the U.S. according to all is the leading economy of the universe and always will be. So I guess 0- per cent of the world will have to sit in the dark when we fortunate few switch to wind and solar and the poor as usual are ignored.
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 10:45 am
And the U.S. according to all is the leading economy of the universe and always will be.
All? Always? Count me out, you are living in the past.
That statement was true in 1960, but no longer. The US is a debtor nation with huge trade deficits.
Don’t believe me, I might be a resentful European with an agenda.
Remember what Trump said during the campaign: “we are no longer winning, our airports and other infrastructure look like third world.”
But even Trump was too political correct to point at the real reasons:
1) at the toddler lever the US is no longer majority white
2) a MIC with strongly diminishing returns. Why would you want to maintain 19 carriers if can’t use them in an age of super-sonic missiles?
As compared to 1960, Europe, Russia and China have all catched up/shortened the distance with the US, except perhaps the military (not tested, thank God).
Davy on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:16 am
Clog, these are impressive numbers but dig into it a little. Notice the aggregate amount of wind and solar? Yea 4.6%. You are jumping up and down pounding you fist on the table for that? I am very impressed with what you Europeans have done. You are leading the way but without results yet to make big claims of a paradigm shift in motion.
“Cautious Optimism”
http://www.ecology.com/2010/07/06/renewable-eu-electricity-generation/
“In 2009, and in absolute terms, about 19.9% (608 TWh) of Europe’s total electricity consumption (3042 TWh) came from renewable energy sources. Hydro power contributed with the largest share (11.6%), followed by wind (4.2%), biomass (3.5%), and solar (0.4%). With regards to the new capacity constructed that same year (27.5 GW), among the renewable sources, 37.1% was wind power, 21% photovoltaics (PV), 2.1% biomass, 1.4% hydro and 0.4% concentrated solar power, whereas the rest were gas fired power stations (24%), coal fired power stations (8.7%), oil (2.1%), waste incineration (1.6%) and nuclear (1.6%)”
What are your numbers for large storage sources?
http://euanmearns.com/is-large-scale-energy-storage-dead/
“It’s probably not an exaggeration to say that the amount of energy storage capacity needed to support a 100% renewable world exceeds installed energy storage capacity by a factor of many thousands. Another way of looking at it is that installed world battery + CAES + flywheel + thermal + other storage capacity amounts to only about 12 GWh, enough to fill global electricity demand for all of fifteen seconds. Total global storage capacity with pumped hydro added works out to about 500 only GWh, enough to fill global electricity demand for all of ten minutes.”
GregT on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:16 am
Over on this side of the pond, we have been generating electricity with hydro electric for the better part of a century. 97% in the province that I live in, and 100% in my neck of the woods. As “renewable” as it gets.
Without an exponentially growing economy to continually upgrade and maintain the infrastructure, hydro would be dead in the water, literally, within a very short period of time. While it may be cheap, it isn’t free. Our economy relies heavily on natural resources, tourism, and retail. All of which require fossil fuels. Without that massive input from fossil fuels, we aren’t going to be spending the rest of our lives watching net flicks on TV, riding our bicycles to the super market, or lounging around snug in our electric techno-utopian homes.
The future will be one of conservation, for those who make it through the bottleneck, unless of course, runaway global warming kicks in/ already has kicked in first. In which case we are all in for a very nasty future. Electricity, or not.
Don on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:32 am
I wish people would stop comparing solar to coal as an energy source as they are not really comparable. Coal is a form of stored energy which can be used at any time, solar is not. Coal is essentially solar energy which has has been converted to a solid millions of years ago.
Solar energy can only be compared to coal when the additional cost of storing the captured solar energy is taken into account.
When the cost of storing the captured solar energy either in the form of hydrogen, methane,batteries etc is taken into account solar is still very costly.
See the following URL as an example of current research in converting solar energy into hydrogen or methane for storage
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/converting-excess-electricity-into-hydrogen-or-methane—technology-breakthroughs-shaping-the-future-of-power-to-gas-565884631.html
No doubt in the future the hydrogen and methane could be converted to liquid ( eg synthentic oil) or solid ( eg synthetic coal)
Davy on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:44 am
“Tesla Flips the Switch on the Gigafactory”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-04/tesla-flips-the-switch-on-the-gigafactory
The Gigafactory has been activated. Hidden in the scrubland east of Reno, Nev., where cowboys gamble and wild horses still roam—a diamond-shaped factory of outlandish proportions is emerging from the sweat and promises of Tesla CEO Elon Musk. It’s known as the Gigafactory, and today its first battery cells are rolling off production lines to power the company’s energy storage products and, before long, the Model 3 electric car. 1 The start of mass production 2 is a huge milestone in Tesla’s quest to electrify transportation, and it brings to America a manufacturing industry—battery cells—that’s long been dominated by China, Japan, and South Korea. More than 2,900 people are already working at the 4.9 million square-foot facility, 3 and more than 4,000 additional jobs (including temporary construction work) will be added this year through the partnership between Tesla and Panasonic. 4 By 2018, the Gigafactory, which is less than a third complete today, will be staffed by 6,500 full-time Reno-based employees and singlehandedly double the world’s production capacity for lithium-ion batteries, according to a new hiring forecast from Tesla.”
Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:51 am
Tesla GigaFactory in the middle of the dessert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkbA2FnQSpk
Location: http://tinyurl.com/zkfux2z
Impressive indeed.
Kenz300 on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:54 am
Clean energy production with solar panels / tiles and battery storage.
Clean energy consumption with electric vehicles.
Sign me up. A new roof, battery storage, an electric car charger and a TESLA vehicle.
Solar panels are now being projected to have a much longer life and lower cost than just a few years ago.
Solar is safer, cleaner and cheaper.
Kenz300 on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 11:56 am
Wind And Solar Now Cheapest Unsubsidized Electricity Sources In The U.S.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4031497-wind-solar-now-cheapest-unsubsidized-electricity-sources-u-s
World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That’s Cheaper Than Wind – Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind
Solar cheaper than natural gas and coal.
Wind and solar continue to get cheaper every year.
Fossil fuels are the past. Wind and solar are the future.
Climate Change will be the defining issue of our lives.
GregT on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 12:26 pm
“Sign me up. A new roof, battery storage, an electric car charger and a TESLA vehicle.”
Let us all know how it all works out for you Kenz. Most people don’t have an extra 100 grand lying around, and find it much more convenient to pay for their energy as they consume it. As a matter of fact, the majority of people in the first world today are living pay check to pay check, and continue to go even deeper into debt without a 25 year ‘energy mortgage’, and a car and battery bank that will be useless long before they can ever be paid off.
rockman on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 12:29 pm
p – I’m going to be nasty and take advantage of you to emphasize my point above: “I must agree that solar will be cheaper than coal at some time in the future.” No, solar is much cheaper today. In fact it has always been because sunshine has always been free while we’ve always had to pay something for fossil fuels.
But those economics apply only to existing alt infrastructure…less a small bit for maintenance. But last I looked no one has very figure how to build an alt power plant for free so they can replace the ff infrastructure at ZERO COST. LOL. Identical problem: it would be great to replace your 20 mpg ICE with a 40 mpg ICE let alone an EV. But you current vehicle will serve you well for the next 5 years. So do you pay tens of $thousands to replace a paid for vehicle that still serves you for any new vehicle? The majority has already voted: no.
Cloggie offers some interesting numbers. But not the most important one: how much fossil fuel sourced energy has been REPLACED by all that alt energy build out? The second most important number: how much alt energy has been built to REPLACE planned fossil fuel plants? Compared to those 2 numbers the increase in alt capacity in the EU isn’t that important if it isn’t reducing GHG production.
Essentially until the alt energy sources gains reduce the EXISTING GHG generating sources of energy there really isn’t much to be pleased about, is there? Same argument I’ve been making about a lack of transition with motor fuel consumption: if only 1 EV was sold in 2015 for every 98 new ICE’s the situation is getting WORSE…not BETTER. Right? As I’ve pointed out many times the world class wind power build out in Texas (and now with solar coming on) did not replace 1 Btu of fossil fuel energy capacity. The good news: it replaced planned expansion of our fossil fuel fired plants: we have a lot of local NG and a 100 year supply of cheap low grade coal that we won’t abandon. We have a booming demand for electricity that will be satisfied…one way or the other. If we couldn’t get the economics of wind power to work out we would have just burned more coal and NG.