Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

There's interesting issues to consider with respect to scale + locality in generation/storage.

My father-in-law's partner has a property in a rural area. Their property runs on 100% solar. The surrounding area has no local (large scale) power generation. During a recent storm the whole town was knocked off the grid. The property with solar kept working (after the storm, not during) while town was without power for days.

It's pretty rare to invest in small scale, local fossil fuel power generation. Small communities have to rely on the grid. But small scale renewable is feasible. There are cost benefits to larger systems, but those benefits need to be weighed up against the risk mitigation of having local systems.

The opposite side to that is that often the best places to run renewable generation is in remote areas and cities may be dependent on larger scale grids. (not that too many people want a fossil fuel plant operating in their city)

I expect that storage system (utility scale batteries) will shift the proposition again. Maybe your rural community doesn't its own generation, just the ability to store enough power to survive a grid failure for a few days.

Batteries are great, but they have to be replaced. Tanks can last for centuries and the materials are way cheaper at scale (CAES makes no sense below the MWh scale).

http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel

This type of technology can allow the extra power generated by solar/wind to be used to create oil. If this technology is developed further, I think it could be a better alternative to batteries. Imagine a desert full of solar panels creating oil with excess electricity during the day. And at night the oil can be used to either provide night time electricity or directly in the existing oil infrastructure (cars, gas stations, etc.) The oil would be effectively carbon neutral.

Also, does it factor in the necessary costs for peak load and low production (cloudy / no wind)?

I actually don't think life would be that bad if society had to self-limit consumption during these times, but what are the real facts on these two items?

I also can see CSP being more attractive to locales with existing grids and who can probably attract financing easier for a +100 MW plant to one institution vs 100k+ people having to be sold on such to install PV on their house/property. There's definitely a market for both and they will all chip away at fossil fuels rapidly coming from different sides of the market for energy.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

[1]: http://www.examiner.com/article/market-growth-for-pv-solar-v...

There's another possibility which is that there will be an overbuild of solar and wind caused by a clean energy boom (ZIRP already did this to oil; where is that ROI-hungry risk capital going to look for returns next?).

The market will then figure out ways of putting the large irregular surpluses of electricity to use. For example, generating fuel as mentioned below, or running adjustable output aluminum smelting plants.

I think the opportunities opened up by periodic bouts of practically free electricity which have already started to occur have been vastly understated. People just look at the other side of the equation - probably because oil/utility companies have tried to keep us fixated upon it.

I think the most optimistic part of all of this, though, is the implications for democracy and peace. When the age of oil finally expires (and it is nearing a close) there won't be any way to put a chokehold on supplies of energy with raw military power.

This is probably the only thing, in fact, that could actually lead to lasting peace in the middle east, which has been plagued by the resource curse for a century or so.

My whole country is situated north of the 60th parallel north. Winters are friggin cold and I would be very concerned if there were no sources of energy not dependent on sunlight or wind.

Also, I'm a neurotic so in case of a nuclear winter type of effect I would love to have some nuclear reactor technology going.

For deep space exploration solar panels don't work. It would be nice if we maintained active interest in power generation systems not dependent on sun or atmospheric movements.

The big problem is that we still don't have effective ways to time-shift energy production. Solar and wind power sources will never replace base-load coal/gas plants until we can solve that problem. Battery technology doesn't solve this problem yet.

Batteries have improved over time, but I'm not convinced that they'll see the vast improvements necessary in order for them to replace natural gas for a long time. If natural gas really must be replaced the most logical alternative might be ammonia.

Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas, doesn't cause smog, numerous production methods including electrolysis, easily transported in liquid form, can be used in fuel cells or in ICEs. However it doesn't embrittle, in liquid form it's actually denser in hydrogen atoms than liquid hydrogen is, and due to its agricultural applications there is already an established distribution infrastructure (in the Midwest, at least).

You seem to be assuming that world demand for power can never rise. I find that... unlikely.

Basically, high-voltage electricity is distributed with networks that are dumb and old. The generation and usage is very carefully balanced with heavy users and large producers, because the network does not have storage capacity. It also has very little tolerance for power imbalance, the frequency cutoffs in the old equipment running most of the network are rather severe (in high-voltage networks, frequency increases with more power being fed into the system).

There are already extremely severe network problems in Germany for example where quite a bit of power comes from solar and wind. (I worked as an embedded sw engineer doing software that controlled solar inverters for a while)

The problem with upgrading distribution network is of course the MASSIVE amounts capex needed to replace it.

The other problem is industrial consumers - an aluminium smelter requires a certain amount of power coming in 24/7 or the ovens will freeze and if they do, restart is basically impossible. There are many other factories with similar problems. Given the trend towards just-in-time production and shipping, the chain of events that leads to massive disruption in the global trade can start from a fairly small shutdown with large snowball effects.

I'm not trying to put down green power generation, just saying that getting the price down to reasonable level is just one part of the puzzle.

I think the real advantage in places like China, Tanzania, Kenya, etc, is they don't seem to have half of their political class entrenched in the idea that they need to crush renewables because of an unholy alliance of their business backers (the Kochs, Murdoch, etc) and the portion of the population who are apparently pro pollution because they hate hippies or something.

Wired internet kicks wireless' ass everytime. So having land infrastructure is critical. That leapfrogging could bite them in the ass, if they have to gig now to lay down cables.

Elon's battery tech has serious negative environmental impacts yet the majority of people think its perfectly green because the media hasn't yet vilified this industry like they have fossil fuels.

Wind/solar + batteries will never cover everything, because statistically there will be an event that the (very finite) capacity can't meet - then people will die, either freezing or overheating.

"2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thorium. Fast breeder. Pebble bed. I don't care which you pick, no one is going to pour 10 years and $1-4 billion into a plant that won't be cost competitive when it turns up (maybe some governments, but you can't fix that; it'll just get mothballed)."

You're very wrong here. China in particular is investing heavily in nuclear going forward, including thorium. There are a number of companies here in the US, such as Flibe Energy and Thorcon that are working hard on next-gen nuclear solutions.

Nuclear is actually more environmentally friendly than wind, as it doesn't decimate bird and bat populations, has a much smaller land use footprint, and doesn't cause widespread noise pollution. It also has the additional attributes of reliability and low cost. The inherently safe next-gen nuclear technologies will come in at less than 5 cents per KWH, perhaps as low as half that.

On a level playing field, wind in particular can't compete. Eventually solar may, given enough technological breakthroughs.

The trend is very clear: solar and wind are dropping in prices. It's now only a matter of when, not if.

Additionally, the article notes that in some countries the costs are even higher for coal and natural gas, and in those countries, solar is certainly within competitive costs.

You might not like that governments are taxing some forms of electricity more heavily, but it's a valid way of encouraging the industry to migrate to cleaner options.

$83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision without adversely affecting overall energy production that much.

Indeed, that's pretty much what Germany has done.

>Also note that these are not costs of production, these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax discounts and incentives.

I won't speculate as to why you didn't note that fossil fuel subsidies are also included.

Islands that have to import oil to burn are ideal early markets for example.

And every solar panel or wind turbine reduces the price of the next, a positive feedback loop.

Every bit of coal or gas burned puts more CO2 in the atmosphere and increases the costs that governments will impose on production, a negative feedback loop.

Cost of production and what people pay are two different things. A true accounting would include cost of production and externalized costs. Doing that doubles the price of coal: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hid...

> Even the study’s most conservative estimate of the uncounted cost of coal — $175 billion a year — would more than double the average cost of coal-fired electricity, the authors found.

And most of that is from well-understood and well-measured health impacts of coal pollution:

> At this lower range, roughly 80 percent of the costs were from well-documented public health impacts like lung and heart disease

So you pay $75 per megawatt hour for coal. And then the poor sap who lives downwind of the coal plant pays another $75 per megawatt hour for your electricity use in the form of dying early from lung cancer.

Really wish there was some repository of what the "true costs" of the things we use are, this has got me thinking about even more mundane goods when you consider the whole supply chain.

Here [1] is the official press release. However, I don't think the full report is available as a free download.

[1] http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost-c...

"Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It's the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy."

I didn't paste the rest in here, its long, but you should read it. Its even better in the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind...

I once read a study from a major state university, commissioned by the state government, that argued that it was more economic to recycle plastic bottles than to landfill them.

BUT... when you dug into the details of the report (something the journalists and general public were unlikely to do), you found the calculations didn't correct for taxation (landfills) and subsidies (recyclers) as regulatory distortion. The report simply treated them as natural economic components; itemized, yes, but not removed from the conclusion.

When I saw that I have to admit I became rather more cynical about the intersection of politics and academics. It just wasn't right.

>As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels.

well, as it stands currently the whole society pays the tax for the fossil fuels use - that tax is the expenses and damages caused by the environment damage and climate change, oil wars, backward countries and people having huge political power due to being rich from oil, etc... It is only fair to shift at least some of the tax burden to the actual producers and consumers of the fossil fuels.

>What is the impact on people when their energy costs are raised?

what are you talking about? 100w solar panel costs less than $100, double that for installation and wires&converter. So $200 loan at 6% for 20 years is $1.5/month or $0.05/day. In CA the panel will produce 1kwh/day. I.e. $0.05/kwh. And no more kissing of Saudi princes' lower backs :)

Less than the impact on people when the land they own doesn't stay land.

There ought to be minimal impact on overall energy costs since renewable energy is capable of filling in the demand at the same cost these days.

Renewable energy is also perfectly capable of ramping up supply to match demand (unlike oil or gas there isn't a hard resource limit to manufacturing capacity).