• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 90% of new renewable energy capacity is now cheaper than fossil fuels

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
8,320
Reaction score
2,667
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Renewable energy are outcompeting fossil fuel all across the world.

"Solar and wind are now almost always the least expensive and fastest option for new energy generation, according to the UN.

In 2024, data reveals that additions to global renewable energy capacity reached 582 gigawatts - a nearly 20 per cent increase from 2023 and the highest annual expansion since records began.

Almost all new power capacity built around the world came from renewables, and almost every continent on Earth added more renewables capacity than fossil fuels last year."


With for example solar power and batteries being able to provide a large share of 24/365 power.

“Cloudy days mean that 24/365 solar generation – maintaining the same constant solar output every hour of every day of the year – would need so much solar and battery that it is likely uneconomical. However, in sunny cities it is possible to get more than 90% of the way. Las Vegas can reach 97% of the way to 1 GW constant supply and Muscat in Oman – 99%, using 6 GW solar panels and 17 GWh battery. Even cloudier cities like Birmingham can get 62% of the way to a constant supply every hour of every day across the year.”

 
Yet many are blind to the economics of renewables. Tax credits are not even needed. If government allowed free market forces a greater role to determine energy prices fossil fuels would begin to transition out. Where are the conservatives?
 
The problem with such stories is that they do not account for the storage costs, and the extra capacity to charge that storage.
Say someone has a home that uses on average 24 kWh per day (1 kW per hour ).
They would need (AI answer) seems close to what I have seen.
A solar panel capacity of approximately
6.23 kW is needed to produce 24 kWh24 kWh per day, assuming 5 peak sunlight hours and
23% system losses.
but you would also need about 10kWh of battery capacity to store that electricity for when the sun is not shining.
While the prices of the panels and batteries are coming down, the combines cost would still need to be counted.
 
Good article. Renewable energy production is advancing but really isn't a new concept. Canada produces 60% of its electricity from hydroelectric systems.

Hydroelectric systems can produce electricity on demand and also provide seasonal storage. So it can be good to combine variable sources like wind and solar power with hydropower. There it can be potential to build more hydropower in for example African countries.


While in developed countries can it be less opportunities to increase hydropower but it can be potential for building pump energy storage.

 
Last edited:
The problem with such stories is that they do not account for the storage costs, and the extra capacity to charge that storage.
Say someone has a home that uses on average 24 kWh per day (1 kW per hour ).
They would need (AI answer) seems close to what I have seen.

but you would also need about 10kWh of battery capacity to store that electricity for when the sun is not shining.
While the prices of the panels and batteries are coming down, the combines cost would still need to be counted.

My second source address the cost.

"The economics are great in sunny cities – just $104/MWh to get 97% of the way to 24/365 solar, 22% lower cost than just a year earlier and cheaper than new coal or new nuclear.

In a sunny city like Las Vegas, the estimated Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) at this 97% benchmark is $104/MWh. This is already 22% lower than the $132/MWh estimate based on global average capital costs of solar and battery a year earlier. It is also more cost-effective than coal in many regions ($118/MWh) and far cheaper than nuclear ($182/MWh)."

That batteries continue to become more affordable and also advancement in types of batteries that can offer cheaper and longer duration of storage. Solar power and batteries can also be combined with other forms of renewable energy and ways to balance the grid.

 
My second source address the cost.

"The economics are great in sunny cities – just $104/MWh to get 97% of the way to 24/365 solar, 22% lower cost than just a year earlier and cheaper than new coal or new nuclear.

In a sunny city like Las Vegas, the estimated Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) at this 97% benchmark is $104/MWh. This is already 22% lower than the $132/MWh estimate based on global average capital costs of solar and battery a year earlier. It is also more cost-effective than coal in many regions ($118/MWh) and far cheaper than nuclear ($182/MWh)."

That batteries continue to become more affordable and also advancement in types of batteries that can offer cheaper and longer duration of storage. Solar power and batteries can also be combined with other forms of renewable energy and ways to balance the grid.

Except a cost of $104/MWh is quite a bit higher than the national wholesale electricity rate, ~$40/MWh.
Do you really think that all those utilities are selling that electricity at a loss?
 
Except a cost of $104/MWh is quite a bit higher than the national wholesale electricity rate, ~$40/MWh.
Do you really think that all those utilities are selling that electricity at a loss?

A cost of $104/MWh is competitive in many regions around the world.


That a big reason for the US low electricity price is natural gas. There many countries around the world lack own natural gas resources. So for example EU countries had to import from Russia. There this led to spiking prices when Russia manipulated the prices both as black mail and as away to fund their invasion of Ukraine. There renewable energy played a key role in quickly reduce the dependency of Russian natural gas.


While natural gas and other fossil fuel also have enormous unpaid social and environmental costs.

 
Except a cost of $104/MWh is quite a bit higher than the national wholesale electricity rate, ~$40/MWh.
Do you really think that all those utilities are selling that electricity at a loss?
My search for a link that agrees with your ~$40/MWH comes up with this:


and the raw average comes to ~$43.6/MWH

So it looks like you're right for the USA. Bergslagstroll's number is for global costs.

So 104 vs 132. One has to wonder how much bias went into the calculations that came up with those two numbers.
 
A cost of $104/MWh is competitive in many regions around the world.


That a big reason for the US low electricity price is natural gas. There many countries around the world lack own natural gas resources. So for example EU countries had to import from Russia. There this led to spiking prices when Russia manipulated the prices both as black mail and as away to fund their invasion of Ukraine. There renewable energy played a key role in quickly reduce the dependency of Russian natural gas.


While natural gas and other fossil fuel also have enormous unpaid social and environmental costs.

Tor me from your graph it looks like most are below $104/MWh so adding in higher prices increases the average!
 
My search for a link that agrees with your ~$40/MWH comes up with this:


and the raw average comes to ~$43.6/MWH

So it looks like you're right for the USA. Bergslagstroll's number is for global costs.

So 104 vs 132. One has to wonder how much bias went into the calculations that came up with those two numbers.
Actually the global average is lower than the $104 /MWh, so adding in at that rate will increase the average price.
 
The problem with such stories is that they do not account for the storage costs, and the extra capacity to charge that storage.
Say someone has a home that uses on average 24 kWh per day (1 kW per hour ).
They would need (AI answer) seems close to what I have seen.

but you would also need about 10kWh of battery capacity to store that electricity for when the sun is not shining.
While the prices of the panels and batteries are coming down, the combines cost would still need to be counted.
Also doesn't take into account replacement cause these systems have very short lifespans.

Ive been using solar off grid for 8 years. It has its place but its not as simple as its made out to be. Location makes a big difference. A handful of US states have suitable climate. Midwest and eastern parts of US water vapor/humidity and clouds as well as latitude reduce the output a great deal.

What we should be doing is a holistic approach and using nature instead of brutally overpowering it. Take advantage of what is there instead of ignoring it. Its just inconvenient and requires a giant change in mindset. Still what is alos often unmentioned is all these "alternative" systems all require the fossil fueled industrial base we have to produce.
 
Tor me from your graph it looks like most are below $104/MWh so adding in higher prices increases the average!

Solar power and other renewable are now the cheapest option all around the world. While at the same time it have been rapid advancement in batteries. So just solar and batteries alone can offer 24/7 power at competitive prices. There the transition could have come decades earlier if economical and political interests hadn't delayed the transition.


 
Also doesn't take into account replacement cause these systems have very short lifespans.

Ive been using solar off grid for 8 years. It has its place but its not as simple as its made out to be. Location makes a big difference. A handful of US states have suitable climate. Midwest and eastern parts of US water vapor/humidity and clouds as well as latitude reduce the output a great deal.

What we should be doing is a holistic approach and using nature instead of brutally overpowering it. Take advantage of what is there instead of ignoring it. Its just inconvenient and requires a giant change in mindset. Still what is alos often unmentioned is all these "alternative" systems all require the fossil fueled industrial base we have to produce.

Germany already get 14 percent of electricity from solar power. With Berlin being on roughly the same latitude as Calgary and also having cloudy weather.


There the lifespan emissions of renewable energy being very low compared to fossil fuel.


While at the same time it also about saving both energy and resources and combining social and environmental sustainability.

 
Solar power and other renewable are now the cheapest option all around the world. While at the same time it have been rapid advancement in batteries. So just solar and batteries alone can offer 24/7 power at competitive prices. There the transition could have come decades earlier if economical and political interests hadn't delayed the transition.


Just saying the words does not make something real!
 
Germany already get 14 percent of electricity from solar power. With Berlin being on roughly the same latitude as Calgary and also having cloudy weather.


There the lifespan emissions of renewable energy being very low compared to fossil fuel.


While at the same time it also about saving both energy and resources and combining social and environmental sustainability.

None of your citations address what I'm talking about.
 
Just saying the words does not make something real!

Even Republican states and Republican voters see the benefits with renewable energy.



While Trump and Republicans in Congress instead listen to their fossil fuel donors.


 
None of your citations address what I'm talking about.

Solar power even works north of the Arctic circle.


There the electricity generated during summer time can be used to generate heat. There the heat can be stored and used in the district heat network during the cold winter months.


Solar power also has a lifespan of 25-30 years and it has been an advancement in recycling.

 
Solar power even works north of the Arctic circle.


There the electricity generated during summer time can be used to generate heat. There the heat can be stored and used in the district heat network during the cold winter months.


Solar power also has a lifespan of 25-30 years and it has been an advancement in recycling.

Yes it works anywhere, not the point. Let me give you a real world example. In Ohio I need double the solar capacity versus Denver Colorado.

Energy can stored a whole bunch of different ways. What else is new.

Uh No it does not. The panels in real life degrade and lose capacity to the point where even 18 years is pushing it depending on the environment. Battery storage you might get around 8 to 10 years these days with lithium. I just upgraded to those.

ALL of these things depend on a fossil fuel dependent industrial base.

Not all things recycle well. Wind turbine blades for example. Doubt shipping my dead panels somewhere is worth it either.

These systems have their place but they are not just plug and play usable anywhere despite all the hype and BS out there. Don't believe. Spend the $$ and try it.
 
Even Republican states and Republican voters see the benefits with renewable energy.



While Trump and Republicans in Congress instead listen to their fossil fuel donors.


What is your point?
 
love the term renewable lol

ya its renewable up until the point where the fossil fuels run out
 
Yes it works anywhere, not the point. Let me give you a real world example. In Ohio I need double the solar capacity versus Denver Colorado.

Energy can stored a whole bunch of different ways. What else is new.

Uh No it does not. The panels in real life degrade and lose capacity to the point where even 18 years is pushing it depending on the environment. Battery storage you might get around 8 to 10 years these days with lithium. I just upgraded to those.

ALL of these things depend on a fossil fuel dependent industrial base.

Not all things recycle well. Wind turbine blades for example. Doubt shipping my dead panels somewhere is worth it either.

These systems have their place but they are not just plug and play usable anywhere despite all the hype and BS out there. Don't believe. Spend the $$ and try it.

Yes that can of course be difference between location, but doubt it's such big difference between Colorado and Ohio. Also as I showed the lifetime emissions are extremely low for renewable energy compared to fossil fuels.

Cheap renewable energy can also help to decarbonize more industries. Like for example heating processes in industries.


There is also rapid advancement in, for example, electric vehicles.


While also advancement in recycling of wind power.

 
The cheapest most efficient way of moving goods and people hasn't changed in about a century. We built it out then destroyed it for the least efficient way.
 

The low duty cycle and non dispatchable nature of solar power is a major limitations in our on demand world. The type and scale of energy storage required to make solar compatible with our demand, is not something batteries can solve.
 
Back
Top Bottom