Clean Energy Stunner: Renewable Power Investment Tops Fossil Fuels for First Time

[boutons_deux]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/26/376250/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photovoltaic-cost.jpg

Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis….

Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/26/376250/clean-energy-renewable-power-tops-fossil-fuels-for-first-time/

==============

Economics Stunner: “Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.”

Natural Gas Damage Larger Than Its Value Added For Even Low CO2 Prices

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/13/332882/economics-coal-fired-power-plants-air-pollution-damages/

One paradox about unscrubbed coal burning vs natgas is that it dumps 1000s of tons of poisonous, greenhouse-warming shit into the atmosphere, including particulates which reflect solar energy back into space, contributing to cooling, but at the cost of 1000s of people dying from particulate pollution (eg, non-smoking lung cancer, etc). Natgas contributes to the pollution, but not with the reflective particulates, so allows more solar energy to reach earth.

Of course, the "costs of damages" above are all externalized from the carbon-extractors and energy-producers to the rest of us, who pay $Bs in clean-up, pollution for air, land, water, and with sicknesses and death.

[Agloco]

Parlez vous Ingles? J'ai besoin d'aide avec ceci. Qu'est-ce que cela signifie?

Danke schon.

[baseline bum]

Parlez vous Ingles? J'ai besoin d'aide avec ceci. Qu'est-ce que cela signifie?

Danke schon.



vete a la mierda




vaffanculo




ló fasz a seggedbe

[boutons_deux]

vas te foutre

[Agloco]

vas te foutre

Que?

[boutons_deux]

Australian report reveals a start of the switch from coal to renewables.

If this figure held for the next few years, this potentially means that in 30 years time, less than 20% of Australia's energy use will be from coal. Thirty years is a perfectly logical timeframe because capital markets generally amortise large investments in plant over 15 years, and generally consider retiring and replacing old operations through new investments after 25-30 years.

Incentives to build coal-fired power are continuously diminishing – policy settings for lower emissions energy sources, prices on carbon and community opposition manifest in the market as increasing investment risk and financial institutions are increasingly unlikely to even consider funding a coal-fired power station.


in 2008 the forecast build for coal globally was 64 gigawatts, the actual build in 2010 was 14 GW! The suggestion the world is building more coal is myth based – the world is actually building less and less coal, not more and more.

Based simplistically on 2011 numbers, in 30 years time, the retirement of generation plant will be 36% gas, 41% wind, and 17% coal.

http://www.altenergymag.com/news/2011/11/18/australian-report-reveals-a-start-of-the-switch-from-coal-to-renewables/22226

=========

If BigCoal had to start with the real, total-life-cycle cost, all externalities included, then coal-generated electricity would be killed by solar and wind.

[RandomGuy]

Parlez vous Ingles? J'ai besoin d'aide avec ceci. Qu'est-ce que cela signifie?

Danke schon.

"schoen" Need to add in the "e" for the umlauts after the vowel it modifies.

It is the part of the energy equation that most conservatives and free-market dogmatics would rather ignore.

If one does a realisitic accounting of the benefits/costs of various energy sources, then coal/oil/gas with their rather large negative externalities (AGW, damage from mining/extraction, leftover pollution etc), then renewables win hands down.

The Darrins of the world don't buy the AGW argument, so they don't like to include the rather substantial costs imposed.

BUT

What the graph above shows, is that even with this substantial negative cost not added is that renewables are approaching "grid parity" due to economies of scale from production.

This means that, economically, if you are trying to decide how to spend your next $1.00 on producing electricity, then renewables are starting to be cheaper.

We are not very far along on the production curve for renewables as is, so there is still a huge amount of "bang for the buck" in terms of spending a dollar to get capacity.

In economics, each new unit of production costs more and more as the "low hanging fruit" is taken. Think of a limited good like farm land. At a certain price, X amount of land, usually the most economically productive/fertile, gets allocated to farming something. As the price goes up, more and more land becomes economical to farm, but it costs more because you have to use less and less suitable land, so you have to use more $$ for fertilizer and irrigation. This concept forms the basis of the supply curve for any good, and appears to hold good for anything.


As we produce more and build more infrastructure, the costs will come down, especially for things like PV that allows for research to increase productivity per unit.

The link does have some pretty good and well written material that will flesh this out a bit more.

[Wild Cobra]

The Darrins of the world don't buy the AGW argument, so they don't like to include the rather substantial costs imposed.

Darrin...

Do you agree that pollution, land use, and black coal on ice have an AGW effect, or not?

Random...

I think you are just blowing hot air. You are probably causing more global warming than CO2 does.

I think it's safe to say that us so-called deniers, who are the more honest skeptics of unproven sciences, do agree greenhouse gasses have caused some warming. We just believe it is very minor. It's you alarmists who are the deniers of real science. You will not accept the dramatic changes mankind has with BC on ice. You will not accept the solar increases and how it is very easily understood how there is a long term lag here, and that CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of warming rather than warming being driven by CO2.

Now I agree fossil fuels have environmental impacts, but they are tightly regulated and coal power plants are shutting down as it costs more to operate them. I agree that coal can be very harmful, in fact, i say it is the second largest contributor to global warming behind the solar changes, and the largest AGW source. However, that is because of Asia's large use of coal, and poring dirty black carbon into the atmosphere, and it settles on the polar cap, Greenland, etc.

Cleaner technology and methods will come. We need not force their usage. Over time the prices will come down.

[RandomGuy]

Darrin...

Do you agree that pollution, land use, and black coal on ice have an AGW effect, or not?

Random...

I think you are just bowing hot air. You are probably causing more global warming than CO2 does.

I think it's safe to say that us so-called deniers, who are the more honest skeptics of unproven sciences, do agree greenhouse gasses have caused some warming. We just believe it is very minor. It's you alarmists who are the deniers of real science. You will not accept the dramatic changes mankind has with BC on ice. You will not accept the solar increases and how it is very easily understood how there is a long term lag here, and that CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of warming rather than warming being driven by CO2.

Now I agree fossil fuels have environmental impacts, but they are tightly regulated and coal power plants are shutting down as it costs more to operate them. I agree that coal can be very harmful, in fact, i say it is the second largest contributor to global warming behind the solar changes, and the largest AGW source. However, that is because of Asia's large use of coal, and poring dirty black carbon into the atmosphere, and it settles on the polar cap, Greenland, etc.

Cleaner technology and methods will come. We need not force their usage. Over time the prices will come down.

I think they are beginning to find that the soot produced by coal burning is having a bit more of an effect than they realized. We'll get to see as more research comes in over the next decade or so, especially with all the new Asian coal usage. I highly doubt the Chinese power plants are going to have anywhere near the scrubbing that Western plants do. Acid rain anyone?

I accept what the people with PhD's who study it for a living say, simply because it is more probable that they are right than otherwise.

You have little to no evidence that they are wrong, and that doesn't make you an "honest skeptic", on the subject.

Meh. Another 10 or 20 years or so will settle it either way. That may be entirely too late as we will have again cumulatively doubled the amount of CO2 and other gasses we have emitted over our history. If the effect of this is minor, then what happens if our cumulative total emission over the next 20-25 years doubles from the total of today?

I don't know, and neither do you. Neither do we know where there might be a tipping point of some sort that starts a nasty self feeding cycle.

Conservative risk management says that given the potential negative effects, we should mitigate our activities until we know more. I just don't buy the liberal "do nothing" approach that accepts a potentially insane amount of risk on little to no evidence.

[boutons_deux]

"more research"

you sound like a Kock Bros-funded stink tank spewing lies.

[MannyIsGod]

Been screaming this shit for years. WE should be leading the charge as to reap the benefits of the rest of the world wanting this energy but we're not.

[boutons_deux]

"WE" don't count for nuthin

USA is run by UCA, not We The People.

The carbon-extractors' $Bs of votes get the policies that protect/enrich the UCA.

[Agloco]

"schoen" Need to add in the "e" for the umlauts after the vowel it modifies.

Well now you're just showing off. :lol





It is the part of the energy equation that most conservatives and free-market dogmatics would rather ignore.

If one does a realisitic accounting of the benefits/costs of various energy sources, then coal/oil/gas with their rather large negative externalities (AGW, damage from mining/extraction, leftover pollution etc), then renewables win hands down.

The Darrins of the world don't buy the AGW argument, so they don't like to include the rather substantial costs imposed.

BUT

What the graph above shows, is that even with this substantial negative cost not added is that renewables are approaching "grid parity" due to economies of scale from production.

This means that, economically, if you are trying to decide how to spend your next $1.00 on producing electricity, then renewables are starting to be cheaper.

We are not very far along on the production curve for renewables as is, so there is still a huge amount of "bang for the buck" in terms of spending a dollar to get capacity.

In economics, each new unit of production costs more and more as the "low hanging fruit" is taken. Think of a limited good like farm land. At a certain price, X amount of land, usually the most economically productive/fertile, gets allocated to farming something. As the price goes up, more and more land becomes economical to farm, but it costs more because you have to use less and less suitable land, so you have to use more $$ for fertilizer and irrigation. This concept forms the basis of the supply curve for any good, and appears to hold good for anything.


As we produce more and build more infrastructure, the costs will come down, especially for things like PV that allows for research to increase productivity per unit.

The link does have some pretty good and well written material that will flesh this out a bit more.

Danke schoen.

Where was boutons' explanation I wonder? RG doesn't even speak French. What's your excuse B?

[Wild Cobra]

Been screaming this shit for years. WE should be leading the charge as to reap the benefits of the rest of the world wanting this energy but we're not.
We already have been since the EPA was established in the 70's.

Our skies are so much cleaner. I remember the 70's.

[Winehole23]

show em the urban blight pictures in LIFE. much more effective.

[DarrinS]

Google gives up on Renewable Energy campaign (http://rt.com/usa/news/google-renewable-energy-campaign-261/)




Four years after Google launched a campaign to make renewable energy an affordable and mainstream alternative power, the Internet giant is tossing in the towel as their plan to help the world go green encounters a red light.

Google’s Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal project is one of seven ventures that the Silicon Valley search engine has announced it will be retiring, four years after the company started the campaign that has since proven to be unsuccessful.

Back in 2009, two years after it was launched, the company’s then-Green Energy Czar Bill Weihl told Reuters that the campaign would use Google’s massive brains and budget on the green initiative in order to make renewable energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

"It is even odds, more or less," Weihl said back then. "In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there."

Now only two years later, however, the project is being aborted. In a statement regarding the ending of the Renewable Energy campaign and the six other Google programs, Senior VP of Operations Urz Hölzle says, “we're in the process of shutting down a number of products which haven't had the impact we'd hoped for, integrating others as features into our broader product efforts and ending several which have shown us a different path forward.”

“At this point, other institutions are better positioned than Google to take this research to the next level.” Adds Hölzle. Weihl, who pushed the campaign back at its beginning, left Google earlier this month.

In addition to the retiring of the Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal project, Google is also halting work with Google Knol, Google Search Timeline, Google Gear, Google Friend Connect, Google Bookmarks Lists and Google Wave. Development with Wave was abandoned earlier this year, and only in recent days did the company reveal that it will also soon be eliminating Google Buzz, their unsuccessful attempt to compete with social network sites including Facebook and Twitter that was launched less than two years ago.

[Spurminator]

Yeah! Woohoo! Suck it, hippies!

[RandomGuy]

"more research"

you sound like a Kock Bros-funded stink tank spewing lies.

???

I think we have enough evidence to take some reasonable steps. I don't require more research to come to a fair policy conclusion, i.e. do something to limit fossil fuel usage.

The intended message of the post is that more research will be done, making the Darrins/WC's of the world look more and more like the hacks on the subject that they are. It will be like the peeling away of people from the 9-11 truth movement, until only the really obvious nutballs remain.

As the evidence accumulates showing AGW to be both real and marked in its effects, as I think it will, I will not be kind to those fucktards who wanted our civilization to ignore the risks and do nothing just because they wanted to be anti-environmentalist "free market" champions.

[RandomGuy]

Google gives up on Renewable Energy campaign (http://rt.com/usa/news/google-renewable-energy-campaign-261/)

Better article with updates and a lot more details:

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/why-did-google-shutter-renewable-energy-program.php


Chokshi said the company had stopped its own efforts to improve the technology because other companies, including BrightSource, were better positioned to do so, as it is their singular focus, compared to Google, which has a myriad set of renewable energy interests.

One of those interests, according to Chokshi, is looking to invest in geothermal. Google hasn’t actually invested in a specific geothermal provider yet, but after financing the completion of the latest U.S. Geothermal Map, showing the country has 10-times as much geothermal resource as coal, the company is now actively seeking geothermal companies to add to its investment portfolio.

Finally, Chokshi pointed to the fact that Google is continuing to advance its own green energy technology efforts. The company’s latest data center, the Hamina Data Center which opened earlier this year in Finland, was built out of a converted 60-year-old paper mill. It relies on a custom-built seawater cooling system that takes advantage of the nearby Gulf of Finland.

Google realized it wasn't in the business of energy R & D. Not surprisingly, they came to the conclusion that finding a good company that already is doing R & D and giving them some solid $$$ is probably a better use of capital.

Of course this has fuckall to do with the economics of renewables. I give it even odds you probably didn't know this or you knew it and are just being a douchebag.

Which is it?

[RandomGuy]

I am going to guess, since Darrin hasn't answered the question that the answer is: dumbass, not douchebag

Which, in its way, is sadder. One can always stop being a douchebag.

[DarrinS]

Better article with updates and a lot more details:

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/why-did-google-shutter-renewable-energy-program.php



Google realized it wasn't in the business of energy R & D. Not surprisingly, they came to the conclusion that finding a good company that already is doing R & D and giving them some solid $$$ is probably a better use of capital.

Of course this has fuckall to do with the economics of renewables. I give it even odds you probably didn't know this or you knew it and are just being a douchebag.

Which is it?

Google has entered a lot of markets that weren't in their "wheel house" -- and have done damn well.

[RandomGuy]

Google has entered a lot of markets that weren't in their "wheel house" -- and have done damn well.

You didn't really read the article I linked, I'm sure.

They haven't really gotten out of the renewables business, merely shifted the focus of their investment activities to more efficient channels. Their plans include increasing their funding and investments over the coming years.

Contrary to what your dumb ass seems to think, this means more renewable energy, not less, as the capital is better used.

My question was something of a false dichotomy, for that you have my apologies.

It is quite possible to be both a douchebag, and a dumbass. Congratulations, you may have finally proved me wrong.

[Th'Pusher]

Google gives up on Renewable Energy campaign (http://rt.com/usa/news/google-renewable-energy-campaign-261/)

We’ve made a new $94 million investment in a portfolio of four solar photovoltaic (PV) projects being built by Recurrent Energy near Sacramento, California. This brings our portfolio of clean energy investments to more than $915 million. We’ve already committed to providing funding this year to help more than 10,000 homeowners install solar PV panels on their rooftops. But this investment represents our first investment in the U.S. in larger scale solar PV power plants that generate energy for the grid—instead of on individual rooftops. These projects have a total capacity of 88 MW, equivalent to the electricity consumed by more than 13,000 homes.

We’re investing alongside global investment firm KKR and Recurrent Energy, a leading solar developer. Google will provide a $94 million equity investment and SunTap Energy, a new venture formed today by KKR to invest in solar projects in the U.S., will provide the remaining equity.

We’re joining KKR on their first renewable energy investment in the U.S. We believe investing in the renewable energy sector makes business sense and hope clean energy projects continue to attract new sources of capital to help the world move towards a more sustainable energy future.

The energy produced by these projects is already contracted for 20 years with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). SMUD recently created a feed-in tariff program (FIT) to help green the grid for Sacramento-area residents. We’re excited that these projects are the first to be built under the program.

We’ve had a busy year at Google. Since January, we’ve invested more than $880 million in clean energy projects. We believe the world needs a wide range of solutions—from wind, to transmission, to solar PV and concentrated solar—and we look forward to new opportunities next year to further expand our portfolio of clean energy investments.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/ending-year-with-another-clean-energy.

[coyotes_geek]

nm.

[boutons_deux]

Germans moving forward, government sets goals, the der volk agree and make the effort, but Amerika No Can Do

German Energy Consumption Drops 4.8% in 2011, With Renewables Providing 20% of Energy

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/GermanEnergyConsumption.jpg

According to new figures released today from Germany’s energy working group, AGEB, energy consumption in the country dropped 4.8% in 2011 from 2010.

German consumption of oil fell 3%, gas by 10.2%, lignite coal by 0.7% (although hard coal rose 3.7%), and nuclear by 22.9%. At the same time, use of renewable energy climbed by 4.1% and represented about 20% of the country’s energy consumption in 2011.

An increase in residential and industrial efficiency combined with milder temperatures in 2011 provided the conditions for the decrease in consumption.

So is that increase in renewable energy and efficiency killing the German economy? Analysts expect German GDP growth to be around 3% in 2011, about the same projected for the U.S.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/20/393545/german-energy-consumption-drops-in-2011-renewables-energy/

[Wild Cobra]

Yep, they are in the same boat we are in. Less money to spend vacationing, heating, etc.

[RandomGuy]

Yep, they are in the same boat we are in. Less money to spend vacationing, heating, etc.

Um, no.

Their economy is still growing at a pretty decent clip.

They are arguably doing better than we are, atm.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's an interesting side effect by the mandates being done:

BPA and wind developers: Federal energy ruling is wrong for our region (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/bpa_and_wind_developers_federa.html)

[RandomGuy]

Here's an interesting side effect by the mandates being done:

BPA and wind developers: Federal energy ruling is wrong for our region (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/bpa_and_wind_developers_federa.html)

Part of the Federal/regional dialogue.

Hope they can work it out.

Maybe the industrial scale battery technology being considered will make things a bit easier.

[boutons_deux]

The BPA problem could be tied to a out-dated, dumb grid where a smart, expanded grid could move the excess power to where it would be welcome.

dubya's FERC allowed KennyBoy to rape CA and other states in 2000/2001 by gaming energy trading.

[boutons_deux]

Top 10 Clean Energy Stories of 2011 (with Charts)

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/22/393201/top-10-clean-energy-stories-of-2011-with-charts/

[boutons_deux]

China wiping out Germany's solar panel industry

Flying too close to the sun: German solar companies fall on hard times

“We are looking at a consolidation of the global solar industry,” says Wolfgang Hummel, director of the Center for Solar Research in Berlin. “Having seen a whole range of US companies go under in the last few months, it is now Germany’s turn. And the biggest threat comes from China.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/1222/Flying-too-close-to-the-sun-German-solar-companies-fall-on-hard-times?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29

[Wild Cobra]

The BPA problem could be tied to a out-dated, dumb grid where a smart, expanded grid could move the excess power to where it would be welcome.

dubya's FERC allowed KennyBoy to rape CA and other states in 2000/2001 by gaming energy trading.
It doesn't matter. Mandating use of wind over water, so California can get a green credit, from energy that comes from Oregon and Washington... Really now. Especially when it means having to waste water, using the spillway, and putting excessive nitrogen in the water which damages the fish more than the dam does otherwise!

How can any one-size-fits-all federal regulation be good for 50 states?

[boutons_deux]

Google Invests $94 Million in Four Solar Projects

Google has really been cranking out the solar energy investments this year. Just a few months ago, the company put up $75 million toward rooftop solar installations out West and in the spring they made headlines by investing $168 million in Brightsource Energy's huge Mojave Desert project.

Now, in time to make us feel all warm and fuzzy during the holiday season, the tech giant has announced that they're investing $94 million in a group of four solar projects by Recurrent Energy. This latest investment brings the total of the company's renewable energy investments to almost $1 billion.

The four solar photovoltaic projects will have a combined capacity of 88 MW and will be located near Sacramento, California. The projects will provide enough power for 13,000 homes. A power purchase agreement has already been signed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for 20 years.

http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3665-google-invests-94-million-in-four-solar-projects?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29

[boutons_deux]

In Germany, Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear and Coal Energy For First Time

In 2011, Germany finally saw their renewable energy production top that of almost all other sources of energy, including nuclear, hard-coal and gas-fired power plants. The only other energy generation source greater than the renewable energy mix was lignite-fired power.

According to a report from German utility BDEW, renewable energy accounted for 20 percent of the country's total energy output, up from 16.4 percent last year. Lignite-fired output produced 24.6 percent of the electricity.

Nuclear power is dropping off in the country since Chancellor Merkel closed the eight oldest reactors this past year after the Fukushima catastrophe. Nuclear represented 17.4 percent of the country's electricity load, down from 22.4 percent last year and the country plans to step away from the energy source completely by 2022.

http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/3664-in-germany-renewable-energy-surpasses-nuclear-and-?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29

[boutons_deux]

Solar Grid Parity 101: How the Cross-Over Occurs

Solar grid parity is considered the tipping point for solar power, when installing solar power will cost less than buying electricity from the grid. It’s also a tipping point in the electricity system, when millions of Americans can choose energy production and self-reliance over dependence on their electric utility.

But this simple concept conceals a great deal of complexity. And given the stakes of solar grid parity, it’s worth exploring the details.

The following map shows the levelized cost of solar, by state, based on an installed cost of $4.40 per Watt, averaged over 25 years

http://energyselfreliantstates.org/sites/energyselfreliantstates.org/files/levelized-cost-solar-440-per-watt.png

Solar v. Grid Over Time

There’s one other calculation. Let’s say that in 2011 solar still costs just a bit more than the grid electricity price, but that the grid price is rising at a modest rate each year. In this case, solar may still be the right choice because the lifetime cost of solar (at a fixed price) will be less than the rising cost of grid electricity. We can use an accounting tool called net present value to estimate the savings from solar compared to grid power over 25 years, and we find that for every percentage point annual increase in electricity prices, solar can be ~10% more expensive that grid power today and still be at “parity.” We find that with electricity price inflation of 2% per year, solar grid parity shifts up two years using this method.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/25/394663/solar-grid-parity-101/

[RandomGuy]

Solar Grid Parity 101: How the Cross-Over Occurs

Solar grid parity is considered the tipping point for solar power, when installing solar power will cost less than buying electricity from the grid. It’s also a tipping point in the electricity system, when millions of Americans can choose energy production and self-reliance over dependence on their electric utility.

But this simple concept conceals a great deal of complexity. And given the stakes of solar grid parity, it’s worth exploring the details.

The following map shows the levelized cost of solar, by state, based on an installed cost of $4.40 per Watt, averaged over 25 years


Solar v. Grid Over Time

There’s one other calculation. Let’s say that in 2011 solar still costs just a bit more than the grid electricity price, but that the grid price is rising at a modest rate each year. In this case, solar may still be the right choice because the lifetime cost of solar (at a fixed price) will be less than the rising cost of grid electricity. We can use an accounting tool called net present value to estimate the savings from solar compared to grid power over 25 years, and we find that for every percentage point annual increase in electricity prices, solar can be ~10% more expensive that grid power today and still be at “parity.” We find that with electricity price inflation of 2% per year, solar grid parity shifts up two years using this method.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/25/394663/solar-grid-parity-101/

That right there is probably one of the best analyses that I have seen.

The economics are shifting in favor of PV and other forms of renewables.

The most delicious part about this is that it puts the lie to the global warming Deniers most alarmist claims of vast harms to our economy if we take steps to limit our CO2 emissions.

That is clearly not the case.

[boutons_deux]

That right there is probably one of the best analyses that I have seen.

But it's all a big fat conspiratorial lie, according to Repugs and their denier fellow travellers, Kock Bros-financed whore scientists, Darrin, WC, etc.

[boutons_deux]

4 or so states have feed-in tariffs to stimulate commercial/residential solar/wind energy.

I figure oilco/Repug TX will never setup feed-in tariffs. They'd rather fight over nuclear and coal plant permits and financing, and ever-more scarce water for cooling to cool it all.

I was talking with an SA solar installer who said he expects SA CPS to introduce time-of-day pricing, so you pay a lot more in peak periods (noon to 6 PM in hot months) than at nighttime.

TX grid now operates with less that 10% margin in peak periods of hot days. 100Ks, or Ms, of residential solar installations would go a long way towards reducing peak demand from the grid.

[boutons_deux]

Turbocharging Energy Efficiency 1: Utility Efficiency Program Budgets Double to $5.4 Billion

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/27/394722/turbocharging-energy-efficiency-1-utility-efficiency-program-budgets-double-to-54-billion/

[boutons_deux]

Time of Day Pricing in Texas

Time of Day Pricing in Texas

Quickly, the general news: “TXU Energy has rolled out a new three-tiered rate plan designed for customers who watch their household budgets and are willing to make some changes in when they fire up the dishwasher or do laundry. The power retailer also says its new plan is a sensible option for homes with solar installations or an EV in the driveway.

“Offering lower rates during specific periods – time-of-use rates – mimics the fluctuations in wholesale electricity costs that occur throughout the day. Perry said TXU has structured its new rate plan so over 90% of the hours in a year are nighttime or off-peak hours. And the difference between peak and nighttime rates is substantial: Compare peak rates (from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, May through October) of 21.9 cents per kilowatt hour to the discounted nighttime rates (10 p.m. to 6 a.m. all year) of 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour.”

http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/12/texas-tou-electricity-rates-e1324728172404.png



http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Don't stop there,TX, implement feed-in tariffs, watch residential/commercial solar explode, and 1000s of jobs added.

==============

The nationwide average now is 11.54 cents per kilowatt hour, the paper reported; in Texas, the average is 11.6 cents.

CPS residential customers paid an average of 9.3 cents per kilowatt hour this year, said spokeswoman Lisa Lewis, and 9.1 cents last year. That includes the fuel adjustment charge, which varies monthly.

The average CPS customer used roughly 1,100 kilowatt hours of electricity per month in 2010, she said, and paid an annual average of $1,262.

USA Today found the average American household paid $1,419 for electricity in 2010.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-customers-pay-less-than-state-national-2421241.php#ixzz1hmFRtsU6


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-customers-pay-less-than-state-national-2421241.php

[Th'Pusher]

On-Grid Solar: An Industry in Plight (Government-dependence perils)
by David Bergeron
January 6, 2012

“Without these subsidies … ‘On-grid PV,’ would be virtually non-existent. It only exists because the solar industry lobbied government officials to compel citizens to purchase this otherwise non-economic energy source.”

“Included in the list of failed solar companies is Solon of Germany whose corporate slogan was ‘Don’t Leave the Planet to the Stupid.’ Fortunately for taxpayers, it appears Solon will be leaving the planet.”

A recent Wall Street Journal article, Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector(December 27, 2011), surveyed the latest solar industry fallout, as well as overviewed the financial condition of the surviving companies.

But the article seems to mistakenly equate the fallout to viability as if better profits would mean sustainability. The industry is not viable, but this is unrelated to the recent fall-out. The industry was growing and profitable in the recent past and was equally non-viable then. The difference is that with profit-enabling government subsidies intact, many established U.S. and European manufacturers are now competing with China. And they cannot compete.

Risky Business

There is a measure of justice in this recent turn of events. The old adage “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” comes to mind. In this case, one might say, “the industry that lives by government intervention dies by government intervention.”

The U.S. solar industry has seen remarkable growth in the past six-to-eight years, principally on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers who have been forced to shoulder a significant percent of the cost of these solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to make them appear financially viable as on-grid resources.

The solar industry has amassed a ridiculous collection of additive subsidies, which total upwards of 80 to 90% of the total lifecycle cost. They have lobbied every conceivable legislative body to garner special handouts for installing the systems and production subsidies (Net Metering) for operating the systems.

This industry is artificial. Without these subsidies this market segment called “On-grid PV” would be virtually non-existent. It exists only because the solar industry lobbied government officials to compel citizens to purchase this otherwise non-economic energy source.

In fact, they did such a good job of creating an enormous demand, that it attracted the attention of manufacturers and governments around the world, governments whose only subsidy is perhaps favorable lending to those companies that wish to sell into this artificial marketplace.

Global Subsidies, Calls for Protectionism

So now those same solar companies, which lobbied so heavily to plunder the public coffers, are through some grand act of justice being forced out of the business by Chinese manufacturers, who can produce panels at much lower cost. This industry built on government intervention in the marketplace is now dying because of possible Chinese government intervention in the marketplace. I call that just deserts.

So what is the response of the U.S. solar industry? It’s mixed, but continues on the same self-serving path it has followed. Some panel manufacturers are trying to block solar imports from China, which leads me to believe they’re not really that concerned with green house gas emissions after all.

Solar installers are against the restrictions, because the cheaper panel prices are increasing the sales of PV systems and they’re as happy as ever to continue riding the subsidy gravy train. Both segments are guilty of participating in a massive plunder of public and private moneys.

It is almost comical watching manufacturers and installers fight over the import restriction policy. The manufactures want the restrictions so that they won’t have to compete against the low-cost panels from China, and the installers like the low prices so they have more business, thus showing little concern for the U.S. manufacturers who created the subsidies in the first place. Is there no honor among the plunderers?

The oversupply of panel production is the direct result of government subsidies for solar. The article, in part, credits the oil price boom for the investment surge, but solar is not a substitute for oil. Installing solar panels does not reduce our oil imports. Solar PV offsets electricity and only about 1% of our electricity is made from oil, so I can’t believe investors invested in solar in response to high oil prices, nor for the reason of climate concerns, since solar is a very expensive means of reducing GHG emissions.

Reality Check Needed

It is far more reasonable to assume that investors invested simply based on a belief that subsidies and mandates would continue for many years. The subsidies created an artificial demand, which those investing in the industry surely understood was unsustainable. But apparently they did not correctly foresee the competition.

And fortunately for the taxpayers, who were helpless against the massive lobbying efforts of the industry, the Chinese manufacturers have come to the rescue. So if we’re being forced to buy panels, at least we can buy less expensive ones.

The best possible outcome for the U.S. taxpayers at this point is:

1) those companies most responsible for the solar subsidies lose interest because of the competition, and

2) there is a widespread realization that our utility mandates are accomplishing little except supporting the Chinese solar panel manufacturing industry.

Hopefully, these two outcomes will result in a shuttering of the political forces sustaining the subsidies and the subsidies will finally end.

PV Grid Parity: Still Illusory

One other point worth noting about this article is that the cost of PV is finally down to about $1/watt, which is the price many in the industry claimed was the price needed for solar to reach grid parity without subsidies. Well, $1/watt is finally here and solar is still far from grid parity. The truth is even if China could sell panels to installers for 1¢/watt, the systems would still be too expensive. Even with free PV, the cost of installation, mounting structure, inverters, wiring, etc. make the systems financially unsustainable.

The article concludes with the statement that “as technology advances and costs drop, solar-panel makers can supply power without a need for heavy government subsidies.” This leaves the reader some hope that on-grid solar PV will wean the world off fossil fuels, but this is wishful thinking. There is no guarantee that the prices will ever reach the point of grid parity without subsidies.

PV would reach grid parity if the total installed cost plus the net present value (NPV) of the operations and maintenance cost were at or below about $1/watt. But given that the PV panels alone cost $1/watt, and the total system cost for utility scale PV arrays is still $3.75/watt not including the NPV of O&M costs, I don’t see on-grid PV as a rational bet. Unless of course, one gets to bet with other people’s money and can ignore the moral implications.

Perhaps it will someday be necessary to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for reasons of supply limits or environmental issues. If that happens, normal market forces will rebalance both the supply and demand of energy in logical and rational ways. Till then we’ll just have to suffer through yet another economic bubble created by government intervention in markets.

Will we never learn?

As a final note, included in the list of failed solar companies is Solon of Germany whose corporate slogan was “Don’t Leave the Planet to the Stupid.” Fortunately for taxpayers, it appears Solon will be leaving the planet.

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/01/on-grid-solar-plight/

[boutons_deux]

Energy Efficiency Lives! Devastating Debunking of Rebound Effect and Breakthrough Institute

http://co2scorecard.org/Content/uploads/EE_Table_1.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EE_Exhibit_6_71.gif



http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/12/403005/energy-efficiency-lives-debunking-rebound-effect-and-breakthrough-institute/

[boutons_deux]

"1) those companies most responsible for the solar subsidies lose interest because of the competition"

many US solar companies are thriving and innovating non-stop. And I thought you right-wing extremeist loved competition?

A huge problem is that China subsidizes its solar industry with $10Bs/year and holds its currency below market rate to gain advantage against US$ and Euro.

2) there is a widespread realization that our utility mandates are accomplishing little except supporting the Chinese solar panel manufacturing industry.

... see above.

[boutons_deux]

A Wind Technician’s Perspective Helps AWEA Fight for Tax Credits



http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/12/a-wind-technician%E2%80%99s-perspective-helps-awea-fight-for-tax-credits/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[RandomGuy]

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/01/on-grid-solar-plight/

Mildly interesting rebuttal.

Short on details or supporting data, and demonstrably indicative of a rather limited knowledge of energy topics.

One would expect a bit more from someone with a masters in finance.



It does bring to mind the fact that the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing its solar panel industry.

The funny thing to me is that the more of these things we buy the more the Chinese are essentially subsidizing our energy usage.

The biggest failure of the article is the failure of imagination and conceptualization when it comes to viewing energy in a wider sense.

He is completely and provably wrong when he says "solar is not a substitute for oil"

Battery technology will allow for electric vehicles, and that is already making for some interchangibility, and this will increase as technology improves.


The other sweeping statements he makes, such as dismissive "solar can only compete with all these government subsidies" are completely unsourced.

Oddly enough the only real article or source data that he did cite, turned out to be an op-ed written by.. .the same guy.

The guy is in the solar business, so I would put some stock in his expertise, but would be a lot more comfortable with some source data.





As a solar professional, I say we need to be very honest about the cost of the technology and not misuse the public trust.

...

If we reduce the cumulative solar subsidy from the current 90 percent level to a very reasonable 50 percent and the grid-tied segment of the industry can't survive, maybe it shouldn't exist in the first place.

Besides, we have much smarter ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate the economy and reduce our nation's reliance on foreign oil, none of which solar subsidies do to any meaningful degree. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is our least expensive and most effective means to reduce carbon dioxide




Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_f70ba215-7faa-5fd0-b3de-dc6f4071cbef.html#ixzz1jGzd0I5j

We should be upfront and honest about the costs.

I wonder if he has solid data on areas other than Tuscon, which would seem to be to be almost ideal for solar PV.

[RandomGuy]

Here is also a better bit by the same guy.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/econenviron-pvs/#more-10300

He does elaborate a bit on why he claims solar will not substitute for oil there, and that seems a bit more reasonable.

This one also is where he sources the data for his points. Nifty project for a lunch hour sometime in the future.

[boutons_deux]

City of Austin Activates Largest Texas Solar Farm

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/12/city-of-austin-activates-largest-texas-solar-farm/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29



CPS names two firms in mega-solar project

OCI Solar Power, whose parent is a South Korean chemical company, will build the solar farms using panels from a factory to be built here by Nexolon, another South Korean firm with close ties to OCI and a builder of solar cell components.

Both companies will open headquarters in San Antonio, part of their larger commitment to bring at least 800 jobs to town with a $38 million to $40 million payroll.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/CPS-names-two-firms-in-mega-solar-project-2471016.php




San Antonio Utility Negotiating Another 400MW of Solar in Next 5 Years

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/san-antonio-utility-negotiating-another-400mw-solar-next-5-years.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger% 29

[RandomGuy]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/26/376250/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photovoltaic-cost.jpg

Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis….

Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/26/376250/clean-energy-renewable-power-tops-fossil-fuels-for-first-time/

==============

Economics Stunner: “Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.”

Natural Gas Damage Larger Than Its Value Added For Even Low CO2 Prices

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/13/332882/economics-coal-fired-power-plants-air-pollution-damages/

One paradox about unscrubbed coal burning vs natgas is that it dumps 1000s of tons of poisonous, greenhouse-warming shit into the atmosphere, including particulates which reflect solar energy back into space, contributing to cooling, but at the cost of 1000s of people dying from particulate pollution (eg, non-smoking lung cancer, etc). Natgas contributes to the pollution, but not with the reflective particulates, so allows more solar energy to reach earth.

Of course, the "costs of damages" above are all externalized from the carbon-extractors and energy-producers to the rest of us, who pay $Bs in clean-up, pollution for air, land, water, and with sicknesses and death.

The free market at work.

[Winehole23]

Georgetown, Tx goes all-renewable:


A Central Texas city is waving goodbye to fossil fuels.


Georgetown’s municipal utility on Wednesday unveiled plans to abandon traditional electricity sources like coal and gas power plants, instead exclusively tapping wind and solar energy to meet all of its customers’ power needs. It is the state's first city-owned utility to make that leap.


The city announced a 25-year deal with SunEdison, the world’s largest renewable energy company, to buy 150 megawatts of solar power beginning next year. The company said it would build a solar farm in West Texas to meet the demand.
Last year, Georgetown signed a contract for 144 megawatts of wind energy through 2039. That electricity comes from an EDF Renewables wind farm 50-miles west of Amarillohttp://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/18/georgetown-goes-all-renewable-energy/