There is no reason to ever build another coal plant in the United States

[Nilly]

https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

I know many people here won't like the source, so here is a direct link to the report from Lazard (a leading financial advisory and asset management firm) that it quotes. The report is dates Dec 2016

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.
That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.
Analysts found that new solar or wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies — while the cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.

Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.
The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.

I can actually report from my friend who works in solar that thin film pv is now actually approaching $35 down from $51 - it's getting cheaper too fast to track :mrgreen:

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to tackle environmental issues is to make them economically attractive, and it's amazing to see it happening.

There is still a ways to go to curtail our energy footprint, and I want to bring attention to this particular paragraph of the article:

Given the pace of technological progress, it would be fair to ponder whether, left to its own devices, the market would take care of climate change. Low-emissions natural gas is rapidly displacing coal. Solar, wind and battery storage are getting cheaper every day. The power grid is decarbonizing itself, right?

The problem is that averting dangerous climate change demands the rapid transformation of our energy system. That means we can’t just build new, low-carbon power plants at the rate of replacement. We also have to shutter existing carbon-intensive power plants. Thus, while natural gas may offer an attractive way to curb emissions in the short-term, a gas-fired plant built today may need to be closed before the end of its operating life if we are to meet our emissions goals.

Again, it will be interesting to see who still denies the utility of renewable energy sources given this information. One can only imagine that they are either:

a) in the case of politicians - indebted to corporate interests that have an interest in seeing renewable energies fail
b) emotionally attached to the idea that renewables are poopoo and coal is patriotic

edit: For some reason my image is only uploading small but you can see it on both the article page and report (p.3) - Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison

 

[backpacker]

India and China will still use coal and it will cheaper for them to do so due to the lack of demand if we completely stop using it.

 

[Nilly]

India and China will still use coal and it will cheaper for them to do so due to the lack of demand if we completely stop using it.

Fuel costs are only part of the costs.

If we stop producing (and exporting) fossil fuels - then it won' be cheap for them.

China are investing hugely in renewable energy, so are India. It takes far more startup capital to construct a coal plant then it does to set up some solar panels.

If solar power stays cheaper than fossil fuels, then India and China are going to continue to use it - simple as. Not to mention, we should be caring about what we do. We should lead by example.

 

[longview]

Given the pace of technological progress, it would be fair to ponder whether, left to its own devices, the market would take care of climate change.

This has been my belief all along.
Fossil fuel will become more expensive than alternate fuels on their own, without the need of government
attempting to pre select a winner.
The winner will be selected by the market, People will buy the lowest cost product that still meets their needs!
The cost curves are already in motion, the cost of subsidized solar is coming down, and the cost
of fossil oil is increasing, all on their own!
Coal will play some role, but it's higher cost of extraction and transport, will make it a fossil also!

 

[jonny5]

https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

I know many people here won't like the source, so here is a direct link to the report from Lazard (a leading financial advisory and asset management firm) that it quotes. The report is dates Dec 2016

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf


n

Forget subsidies. Is the cost of fossil fuel production artificially high due to regulatory compliance, taxes, etc?

And of course this avoids the other problems like footprint and availability. Does it take into account the additional land required to generate solar or wind, or the storage or transmission needs due to solar and wind not being producbale 24/7?

In the end determining market competitiveness is easy. Let the market decide. Stop punishing some energy and helping others.

 

[Visbek]

https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

Sounds good to me. I heard Mike Bloomberg say the same thing. I was surprised that it had even reached parity.

I have a feeling that adding solar to a residence is still a bit pricey, though, due to the labor.

 

[Moderate Right]

https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

I know many people here won't like the source, so here is a direct link to the report from Lazard (a leading financial advisory and asset management firm) that it quotes. The report is dates Dec 2016

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf





View attachment 67217108

I can actually report from my friend who works in solar that thin film pv is now actually approaching $35 down from $51 - it's getting cheaper too fast to track :mrgreen:

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to tackle environmental issues is to make them economically attractive, and it's amazing to see it happening.

There is still a ways to go to curtail our energy footprint, and I want to bring attention to this particular paragraph of the article:



Again, it will be interesting to see who still denies the utility of renewable energy sources given this information. One can only imagine that they are either:

a) in the case of politicians - indebted to corporate interests that have an interest in seeing renewable energies fail
b) emotionally attached to the idea that renewables are poopoo and coal is patriotic

edit: For some reason my image is only uploading small but you can see it on both the article page and report (p.3) - Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison

thinkprogress? Lazard.com? Biased much?

 

[Visbek]

thinkprogress? Lazard.com? Biased much?

Lazard is biased? The name "Lazard Freres" means nothing to you?

It's an investment bank and equity research firm, not a left-wing think tank.

 

[Nilly]

thinkprogress? Lazard.com? Biased much?

LAzard biased? Do you just automatically assume a source is biased when you don't agree with it? How quaint.

Forget subsidies. Is the cost of fossil fuel production artificially high due to regulatory compliance, taxes, etc?

And of course this avoids the other problems like footprint and availability. Does it take into account the additional land required to generate solar or wind, or the storage or transmission needs due to solar and wind not being producbale 24/7?

In the end determining market competitiveness is easy. Let the market decide. Stop punishing some energy and helping others.

We are letting the market decide. And they're choosing renewables. That's the point of the article. 2 years in a row where renewable new builds eclipse fossil fuel builds.

Also the cost of renewables is artificially high due to compliance taxes etc. Much more so than fossil fuels. Soft costs make up over 50% of solar builds

This has been my belief all along.
Fossil fuel will become more expensive than alternate fuels on their own, without the need of government
attempting to pre select a winner.
The winner will be selected by the market, People will buy the lowest cost product that still meets their needs!
The cost curves are already in motion, the cost of subsidized solar is coming down, and the cost
of fossil oil is increasing, all on their own!
Coal will play some role, but it's higher cost of extraction and transport, will make it a fossil also!

From a market standpoint yes - but we can greatly accelerate adoption. We should do this for 2 reasons

1) Markets generally don't think long long term - they have shareholders to please that want quarterly results
2) Environmental externalities.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Some forms of solar are now less expensive than NG but not without more expensive backup systems being added. The gap is closing but likely not to be a major factor for at least 20 years. Power plants that remain viable are unlikely to convert (which is costly) until well after the break even point of unsubsidized solar vs. NG is reached - they will all likely live out their full useful lives. I expect to see NG remaining, mainly as a backup, even long after solar replaces most coal power generation plants.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Do we even have a firm grasp on what the long term maintenance and replacement costs are on solar and wind? Secondly, will that cost fall primarily on consumers?

 

[Nilly]

Do we even have a firm grasp on what the long term maintenance and replacement costs are on solar and wind? Secondly, will that cost fall primarily on consumers?

1000%

Solar and wind have deployed 10s of gigawatts around the world, there are entire industries devoted to just o&m. It's generally pretty simple because it is a very uncomplicated power plant. No fuel, no thermal combustion, no fumes, very few moving parts.

Things like weather stress and solar panel breakage are factors into the costs. Parts have failure rates calculated in advance.

 

[countryboy]

https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

I know many people here won't like the source, so here is a direct link to the report from Lazard (a leading financial advisory and asset management firm) that it quotes. The report is dates Dec 2016

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf





View attachment 67217108

I can actually report from my friend who works in solar that thin film pv is now actually approaching $35 down from $51 - it's getting cheaper too fast to track :mrgreen:

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to tackle environmental issues is to make them economically attractive, and it's amazing to see it happening.

There is still a ways to go to curtail our energy footprint, and I want to bring attention to this particular paragraph of the article:



Again, it will be interesting to see who still denies the utility of renewable energy sources given this information. One can only imagine that they are either:

a) in the case of politicians - indebted to corporate interests that have an interest in seeing renewable energies fail
b) emotionally attached to the idea that renewables are poopoo and coal is patriotic

edit: For some reason my image is only uploading small but you can see it on both the article page and report (p.3) - Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison

Think progress? You are dismissed out of hand sir.

 

[Nilly]

Think progress? You are dismissed out of hand sir.

Read the first sentence lol.

 

[countryboy]

Do we even have a firm grasp on what the long term maintenance and replacement costs are on solar and wind? Secondly, will that cost fall primarily on consumers?

To mention nothing of the devastation of avian eco systems. Libs only care about wildlife when it furthers their agenda. :roll:

 

[Fletch]

Fuel costs are only part of the costs.

If we stop producing (and exporting) fossil fuels - then it won' be cheap for them.

.

Why on earth would we do that? More to the point, you know that wont happen so why bring it up at all? You might as well Just say 'things would be better if the sun just stopped being so hot.'

 

[countryboy]

1000%

Solar and wind have deployed 10s of gigawatts around the world, there are entire industries devoted to just o&m. It's generally pretty simple because it is a very uncomplicated power plant. No fuel, no thermal combustion, no fumes, very few moving parts.

Things like weather stress and solar panel breakage are factors into the costs. Parts have failure rates calculated in advance.

Nevermind that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells is so toxic we can't even make them in this country. But that's okay, it's just some Chinese schlubs being poisoned, right? I mean, they're barely even human, right? **** 'em. :roll:

 

[Nilly]

Why on earth would we do that? More to the point, you know that wont happen so why bring it up at all? You might as well Just say 'things would be better if the sun just stopped being so hot.'

Because as energy gets cheaper and cheaper, the price of fossil fuels go down up to the point it doesn't make economic sense to mine for them any more.

 

[countryboy]

Read the first sentence lol.

Don't need to, if there were even an ounce of credibility to the story, Think Commie wouldn't publish it. :shrug:

 

[ecofarm]

Nevermind that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells is so toxic we can't even make them in this country. But that's okay, it's just some Chinese schlubs being poisoned, right? I mean, they're barely even human, right? **** 'em. :roll:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies#Photovoltaic_Manufacturers

 

[countryboy]

Why on earth would we do that? More to the point, you know that wont happen so why bring it up at all? You might as well Just say 'things would be better if the sun just stopped being so hot.'

:lamo

 

[countryboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies#Photovoltaic_Manufacturers

You can wiki wiki all you want. The environmental regs in this country are so onerous we can't even compete with China without massive subsidies. But you already knew that. :roll:

 

[ecofarm]

You can wiki wiki all you want. The environmental regs in this country are so onerous we can't even compete with China without massive subsidies. But you already knew that. :roll:

Just admit you were wrong. They're manufactured in the US and throughout Europe.

 

[Nilly]

Nevermind that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells is so toxic we can't even make them in this country. But that's okay, it's just some Chinese schlubs being poisoned, right? I mean, they're barely even human, right? **** 'em. :roll:

I'll take manufactured outrage for $1000 please Alex.

You know jack about the manufacture of solar cells countryboy, they are made here, and don't pretend for a second you care about 'chinese schlubs' (or schlubs of any sort). You'd be a hell of a lot of a different poster if you did.

I'll humor you though. What exactly is so toxic about the pv manufacturing process? What toxic materials are produced? What volume are they produced int? And how does that compare to the likes of coal, uranium etc. And are these materials already produced in the semiconductor industry at large (and if so, why are you not concerned about it in that industry).

Please use sources, and try to make them recent.

I'll wait.

 

[ocean515]

From the OP:

For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.​

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016

•Natural gas = 33.8%
•Coal = 30.4%
•Nuclear = 19.7%
•Renewables (total) = 14.9%

•Hydropower = 6.5%
•Wind = 5.6%
•Biomass = 1.5%
•Solar = 0.9%
•Geothermal = 0.4%​

•Petroleum = 0.6%
•Other gases = 0.3%
•Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
•Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4​

Somebody has their numbers wrong....