Yeah, with a few helpful tips, you could even have a nice discussion with the relatives with whom you don’t see eye-to-eye on climate … because who is against clean energy that’s cheaper?
Renewable energy starts to win on price – Business – The Boston Globe.
The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.
… According to a study done by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. Natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
How cool is that? The cost of clean energy is rolling down the hill, due to a virtuous cycle of innovation, investment, deployment, and competition. Remember that as you pay your natural gas bill this winter: Wouldn’t it be nice to get off of the commodity-price rollercoaster and add more and more zero-marginal cost (or close to it) energy?
Is clean energy viable long term? The real question is whether anything else will be. Watch Skip Pruss, a former advisor to Michigan’s Governor Granholm. The “credible” projections for growth of renewables has been grievously wrong — way too pessimistic:
Now, Pruss is talking about good-faith, authoritative analyses that have underestimated the growth and development of renewables by miles.
On the other hand, there are those who intentionally muddy the waters, the naysayers who just make stuff up, making themselves look ridiculous in the process. They cannot win on the facts.
In an intellectual ghost town, where no facts to be had, one finds the vaporware of the Shame of Suffolk, our good pals the Beacon Hill Institute and their Koch-cousin ALEC. In their series opposing statewide renewable portfolio standards, they just pull stuff out of their … the air. Synapse Energy plotted ALEC’s (made up) projections for wind energy prices; the green, red, and blue circles show the prices from actual contracts.
You cannot make up how made-up those BHI/ALEC’s numbers are.
As Pruss says, renewables-pessimism has an effect on the parameters of political discussion. In fact, such pessimism is actively encouraged by fossil fuel front groups like BHI/ALEC. The reality has been much brighter. As a matter of public policy in the public interest, we should continue to encourage the replacement of dirty energy with clean energy as quickly as possible — which seems to be much quicker than was anticipated.
Welcome to the pie in the sky. Have a slice. And share it with your family.
pogo says
…that the alternative energy industry has been able to do this because of huge government subsidies…with a list of government subsidies we provide the oil and coal industries…
1) Huge tax breaks for accelerated depreciation of equipment that most industries don’t get.
2) Sweet heart leases of government land for drilling and digging that is far below private leases/market rate.
3) The $40 billion a year we send on the 7th fleet to protect the shipping lanes in the Mideast (even though most of this oil now goes to Japan and Europe).
4) The environmental and health damage the oil, gas and coal industry creates but leaves for others (that would be you and I, in the form of taxes, increased health insurance and debt we leave our kids) to pay for.
So if they want to end government subsidies for solar and wind, will your cranky relative agree to end subsidies for the rest of the energy industry?
gmoke says
According to a recent report (http://priceofoil.org/2014/11/11/fossil-fuel-bailout-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-coal-exploration/), the G20 spends $88 billion a year subsidizing fossil fuels exploration, about $6 for every $1 spent on renewable subsidies.
Another recent report (http://www.dw.de/fossil-fuel-subsidies-outstrip-renewables-funding-by-billions/a-17465775) says that “depending on the calculation method used, estimates of the amount of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide varies between 400 billion euros ($548 billion) and 2.6 trillion euros ($3.26 trillion) per year.”
An earlier report published in 2010 using 2007 numbers (pdf alert – http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf) estimated annual world energy subsidies at
fossil fuels $400 billion
nuclear $45 billion
renewables (excluding hydro) $27 billion
biofuels $20 billion
johntmay says
If anyone thinks we invaded Iraq for anything more than oil, they are delusional. Add to that, 9/11 was a reaction to our troop in the gulf and on land considered holy by OBL and his followers.
gmoke says
The EIA and other energy forecasters also tend to overestimate energy demand. The fact is that US energy demand has been essentially stable for over 15 years, varying between a high of a little over 100 quadrillion btu’s per year and 95 quads, all while the Gross Domestic Product has continued to grow.
Another overlooked item is that US energy efficiency, the ratio of useful to “rejected” energy, is about 40 to 60. We get useful work (exergy) out of a little over 40% of the energy we generate and “reject” or waste close to 60% of the energy we produce.
Not only are renewables falling in price but there are still unbelievable amounts of efficiency that we can take advantage of.