Solar is now cheapest electricity in history says IEA

Whyayeman · Apr 9, 2021

Solar panels? Got mine!

'Ah, how long will it take for them to pay for themselves?' people ask. Well, probably not in my lifetime, but the money invested in solar panels was earning about 4p per month on bank deposit. I am expecting higher savings than that, so it seems like a reasonable investment. The value of our house will increase; so here is a long-term investment at a time when safe investments provide very poor returns.

When my storage battery is installed next month I am hoping for savings of several hundred pound per year, and a smaller carbon footprint.

prosperity4all · Oct 15, 2021

High Gas Prices

High Gas Prices

Gas prices are at 7-year highs

Gas prices are at 7-year highs - CNN

Students’ solar-powered camper van turns heads on 1,800-mile road trip

Growing Crops Under Solar Panels Now There’s a Bright Idea

China’s solar power has reached price parity with coal

Solar panels on half the world’s roofs could meet its entire electricity demand – new research

Whyayeman · Oct 15, 2021

It is the same in UK and Europe - and everywhere, probably.

The future is in solar and wind power. Heating buildings will be by ground or air source heat pumps or hydrogen fired boilers. The hydrogen will be produced from wind and solar plants electrolysing seawater.

The technology is already here. All it needs is the will.

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

Whyayeman said:
The technology is already here. All it needs is the will.

The will to change the laws of physics and make solar/wind viable as base load power?

Nithavela · Oct 15, 2021

Desk trauma said:
The will to change the laws of physics and make solar/wind viable as base load power?

How do the laws of physics prevent that?

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

Nithavela said:
How do the laws of physics prevent that?

By the sources of those two forms of power not being available continuously at levels required for base load due sun set and wind variability.

Saying physics was perhaps too specific.

Whyayeman · Oct 15, 2021

Desk trauma said:
Saying physics was perhaps too specific.

Yes, it was. Fossil fuels are finite resources. They are also very bad for the planet. The laws of physics (chemistry regarded as a branch of physics) support this.

Aussie Pete · Oct 15, 2021

Nithavela said:
How do the laws of physics prevent that?

The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. So some form of energy storage is required. The cost for most individuals is prohibitive. Batteries, solar panels and wind turbines have limited life and must be replaced. At present there is little in the way of recycling of the hardware. Solar "farms" require huge amounts of space to generate a reasonable amount of power. Australia is OK for space. Many countries are not. Sure, a new power station is not cheap either. But they can provide continuous power without worrying about variables like sun or wind. Forget about fusion power. It will be decades or more before that is viable. That is if the cost ever becomes competitive. I am a supporter of nuclear, but it has to be done exactly right. Thorium reactors are theoretically safer and cleaner, but no one has yet gone from prototype to full scale. I don't remember why. And they do not produce weapons grade materials, which dampens the enthusiasm of some governments.

Nithavela · Oct 15, 2021

Desk trauma said:
By the sources of those two forms of power not being available continuously at levels required for base load due sun set and wind variability.

Good thing we have coal and gas, which not only were created without any input by the sun, but which are also available in unlimited quantity and can be used without consequence.

Nithavela · Oct 15, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. So some form of energy storage is required. The cost for most individuals is prohibitive. Batteries, solar panels and wind turbines have limited life and must be replaced. At present there is little in the way of recycling of the hardware. Solar "farms" require huge amounts of space to generate a reasonable amount of power. Australia is OK for space. Many countries are not. Sure, a new power station is not cheap either. But they can provide continuous power without worrying about variables like sun or wind. Forget about fusion power. It will be decades or more before that is viable. That is if the cost ever becomes competitive. I am a supporter of nuclear, but it has to be done exactly right. Thorium reactors are theoretically safer and cleaner, but no one has yet gone from prototype to full scale. I don't remember why. And they do not produce weapons grade materials, which dampens the enthusiasm of some governments.

There have been great strides in recycling of wind turbine blades (which are the usual argument of those decrying renewable energy sources as non-recyclable).

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

Nithavela said:
Good thing we have coal and gas, which not only were created without any input by the sun, but which are also available in unlimited quantity and can be used without consequence.

Sorry, thought we were actually discussing this.

Nithavela · Oct 15, 2021

Desk trauma said:
Sorry, thought we were actually discussing this.

Well, I could point to the possibility of energy storage, for example in the form of hydrogen. But that was already mentioned in the post you quoted (though you left that part out of your quote for some reason).

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

Nithavela said:
Well, I could point to the possibility of energy storage, for example in the form of hydrogen. But that was already mentioned in the post you quoted (though you left that part out of your quote for some reason).

It's one thing to say we have the technology, quite another to have the technology working at the level required to service existing needs, we're not there yet.

Whyayeman · Oct 15, 2021

Desk trauma said:
It's one thing to say we have the technology, quite another to have the technology working at the level required to service existing needs, we're not there yet.

That is where the political will comes in. The technology is understood.

Coal is labour intensive as well as dirty. Gas and oil are dirty - direct contributors to CO2 build-up. Solar and wind power are clean and once set up very cheap - and clean. Hydrogen can be cheaply produced from solar and wind generation and is a non-carbon emitting fuel. Storing hydrogen is essentially C19 technology.

The science is compelling; only vested hydrocarbon interests stand in the way.

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

Whyayeman said:
That is where the political will comes in. The technology is understood.

Coal is labour intensive as well as dirty. Gas and oil are dirty - direct contributors to CO2 build-up. Solar and wind power are clean and once set up very cheap - and clean. Hydrogen can be cheaply produced from solar and wind generation and is a non-carbon emitting fuel. Storing hydrogen is essentially C19 technology.

The science is compelling; only vested hydrocarbon interests stand in the way.

Electrical utilities exist to make money and in the US are in possession of many plants that are ageing out, coal plants mainly, and that capacity has to be replaced. Gas turbines are replacing that capacity almost universally as they are the most economical option. If wind and soar were cheaper and ready to go, that would be replacing the coal plants capacity.

Blade · Oct 15, 2021

Its very hard to get rid of it Heres just one.. "In November 2016, the Environment Ministry of Japan warned that the country will produce 800,000 tons of solar waste by 2040, and it can’t yet handle those volumes. That same year, the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated that there were already 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide and that this number would grow to 78 million by 2050. “That’s an amazing amount of growth,” says Mary Hutzler, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. “It’s going to be a major problem.”

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

Blade said:
Its very hard to get rid of it Heres just one.. "In November 2016, the Environment Ministry of Japan warned that the country will produce 800,000 tons of solar waste by 2040, and it can’t yet handle those volumes. That same year, the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated that there were already 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide and that this number would grow to 78 million by 2050. “That’s an amazing amount of growth,” says Mary Hutzler, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. “It’s going to be a major problem.”

At current rates we will generate 7.6 billion tons of coal fly ash, which is also highly toxic, in that same time period. 78 million tons suddenly seems small.

grasping the after wind · Oct 15, 2021

OldWiseGuy said:
The solution is clear...buy recycled. I have for years and don't notice any difference. Sadly we have more paper than we know what to do with.

The recycling crisis

I don't think I want to use recycled toilet paper :swoon:

.

grasping the after wind · Oct 15, 2021

Desk trauma said:
At current rates we will generate 7.6 billion tons of coal fly ash, which is also highly toxic, in that same time period. 78 million tons suddenly seems small.

Perhaps we should be investing our national resources in trying to find truly clean energy sources rather than continuing to use the current amount of coal and increasing solar. IO would much prefer to spend money finding a way to have be zero tons of waste and a dependable supply of energy than to spend it on outdated and undependable sources, I prefer to spend money research ways that won't clutter up the landscape with eyesores or replace fertile farm land with sterile metal structures. I am fine with solar panels on suburban and city rooftops and in unfertile deserts but find it wasteful and poor stewardship of our resources to place them on land that could be used for farming. Filling up our open spaces with panels and windmills seems to me to be anything but wise. Replacing dependable sources of energy with undependable ones does not seem to me to be reasonable. Solar and wind are fine adjuncts to our energy needs but they simply won't ever be able to handle the full load.

Desk trauma · Oct 15, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
Perhaps we should be investing our national resources in trying to find truly clean energy sources rather than continuing to use the current amount of coal and increasing solar.

The idea along those lines I find most interesting is a Manhattan Project like effort to make fusion power a realty.

A non-starter in this political climate.

Solar is now cheapest electricity in history says IEA

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

our world is happy and mundane

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

our world is happy and mundane

our world is happy and mundane

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

our world is happy and mundane

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

Well-Known Member

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

Veteran

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

That's grasping after the wind

That's grasping after the wind

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

Similar threads