• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Don Trump Tilts at Windmills: Rescinds All Offshore Wind Energy Areas in the US; current leases up for review

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
22,740
18,661
✟1,481,448.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Would it surprise you to learn that climatologists favor limited nuclear energy during the transition?
We had a brief “nuclear renaissance” in the early 2000s but then Fukushima happened. Then US utilities demonstrated they still are incapable of bringing new reactors on line without being a decade behind schedule and a billion or five over budget. I thought that was the death of nuclear power in the US but now its corpse has been dug up and chained to the AI nonsense, because that’s not enough of a cash bonfire, can’t wait for that to fail and leave yet another string of half built nuclear plants in its wake.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,692
7,262
✟349,132.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"Plummeted."

Plummeted is correct.

According to IRENA, LCOE of solar globally has fallen around 90% in the last 15 years.


In the US, Lazard's analysis of LCOE has solar power dropping from $359 per MWh in 2009 to $61 per MWh in 2025.


That's an 83% fall.

Last I checked, there was a 20 -30 year payback on solar.

Depends where you are and what scale.

In Australia, household level solar general breaks even in 4-7 years. In the US, the average is about 8-13 years.

For industrial and utility-scale projects, the break-even return point is generally between 7 and 15 years.

Bottom line is that for all the crowing about wind and solar, we can't store that electricity.

Even with storage (batteries, hydro pumping or alternatives) solar and wind are still cheaper than fossil fuels, generally by a 25% to 50% margin.
 
Upvote 0

Tuur

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2022
2,854
1,546
Southeast
✟96,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even with storage (batteries, hydro pumping or alternatives) solar and wind are still cheaper than fossil fuels, generally by a 25% to 50% margin.
Depends on the fuel. If I eventually go with a back-up whole house generator, propane has less maintenance issues but isn't as energy dense as, say, diesel. I would look at a 500 gallon tank, and not factoring in delivery charges, that's around $1,600 US. That just under $2,450 AU. Note: I'm spit balling fuel cost here. It goes up in winter. How long that 500 gallons last depends, of course, on how much it runs and that depends on the size of the generator and demand. Highest energy density is coal.

The pay-back time here is longer than what you cite for Australia. A full off-grid system with battery storage is expensive enough that at one time Mother Earth News suggested it rolling it over into the mortgage when building a home. I'm aware of a local hunting camp far enough from the grid that the owner didn't want to pay aid in construction to run a power line back there, and had to opt for both conventional generator and solar. Saw some specifics on it when it came up for sale, but unless someone was using propane for heating and cooking, the installation was kind of anemic. Maybe sufficient for a hunting camp, though.

Very few of the residential / commercial accounts we serve generates more power than it uses. I think the grand total is two, from what saw earlier this year. Both are commercial accounts with low overall usage and large roof area. Large solar fields connect to transmission lines and we're distribution, so other than how they're connected (based on when we ran great big diesel generators for peaking), can't say how they stack up. I do recall a residential customer who, when told there was a 20 -30 year payback, replied "I'll just double it." Doesn't work that way, of course. if you have to build a transmission line to serve one, the price around four or five years ago was roughly $1,000,000 US per mile.
 
Upvote 0

Tuur

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2022
2,854
1,546
Southeast
✟96,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay: getting back to the current topic, cant help but think of local resistance to solar panel fields. I don't get it: None of them have been constructed through imminent domain, so if it's not on their land, I don't see why they think it's their problem. The same with wind on the coast. Even before issues of break-down cropped up, there was opposition. Both comes down to not wanting to look at the things. This predates the first Trump presidency by years.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
41,770
16,857
Fort Smith
✟1,443,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Plummeted is correct.

According to IRENA, LCOE of solar globally has fallen around 90% in the last 15 years.


In the US, Lazard's analysis of LCOE has solar power dropping from $359 per MWh in 2009 to $61 per MWh in 2025.


That's an 83% fall.



Depends where you are and what scale.

In Australia, household level solar general breaks even in 4-7 years. In the US, the average is about 8-13 years.

For industrial and utility-scale projects, the break-even return point is generally between 7 and 15 years.



Even with storage (batteries, hydro pumping or alternatives) solar and wind are still cheaper than fossil fuels, generally by a 25% to 50% margin.
Conservatives don't realize that gasoline prices would be a lot higher without the competition of hybrids and electric vehicles, and electricity generated by oil would be higher without solar.
The competition keeps prices down. Why do Republicans want a monopoly?
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
22,740
18,661
✟1,481,448.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Conservatives don't realize that gasoline prices would be a lot higher without the competition of hybrids and electric vehicles, and electricity generated by oil would be higher without solar.
The competition keeps prices down. Why do Republicans want a monopoly?
Oil fired power plants are vanishingly rare in the US, less than 1% of power generation.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
10,020
3,943
Massachusetts
✟177,920.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Conservatives don't realize that gasoline prices would be a lot higher without the competition of hybrids and electric vehicles, and electricity generated by oil would be higher without solar.
The competition keeps prices down. Why do Republicans want a monopoly?
Gee, I can't imagine why.


-- A2SG, 'tis a conundrum, certainly.....
 
Upvote 0

Tuur

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2022
2,854
1,546
Southeast
✟96,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Conservatives don't realize that gasoline prices would be a lot higher without the competition of hybrids and electric vehicles, and electricity generated by oil would be higher without solar.
Oh my word. This isn't a Conservative or Liberal thing; this is an engineering thing. If you want to say that Liberals are the sons and daughters of Mary and Conservatives the sons and daughters of Martha, as in the Kipling poem The Sons of Martha, that's up to you. This is about energy density and the cost per energy unit, and yes, you need to put batteries into that category as well. This is about energy output. This is about reality, not wishful thinking, and the reality is that without some sort of energy storage to put wind and solar into, it's not going to be a viable energy source. Period. Without sufficient energy storage, you'll always have to have generation you can quickly spin up to provide electricity when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine and it has to match the generation capacity of wind and solar. It's either that or sit in the dark.

Your electrics and hybrids have about as much impact on petroleum prices as spitting into the ocean does to sea levels and for the same reason. Most also charge at night, when the sun doesn't shine, so they aren't being charged by solar. Where you don't have much wind, they aren't charged by that, either. And they're not as many around as you apparently assume. Nor are EV sales going like gangbusters, especially as people discover the drawbacks of range and charge times. I'm quite sure that some wish EVs had a significant impact, but wishing doesn't make it so.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Desk trauma
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
30,085
29,854
Baltimore
✟809,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay: getting back to the current topic, cant help but think of local resistance to solar panel fields. I don't get it: None of them have been constructed through imminent domain, so if it's not on their land, I don't see why they think it's their problem. The same with wind on the coast. Even before issues of break-down cropped up, there was opposition. Both comes down to not wanting to look at the things. This predates the first Trump presidency by years.
I don’t get it, either, and IME, it doesn’t cleanly map onto political lines.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Beardo
Mar 11, 2017
22,674
16,966
55
USA
✟428,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Oh my word. This isn't a Conservative or Liberal thing; this is an engineering thing.
It's an engineering thing, but it is also about what thumbs are being put on which scales for which technologies. And the thumb has been on the scale in favor of fossil fuels for long time.
If you want to say that Liberals are the sons and daughters of Mary and Conservatives the sons and daughters of Martha, as in the Kipling poem The Sons of Martha, that's up to you.
I don't care what some poem says, and certainly not one by Kipling.
This is about energy density and the cost per energy unit, and yes, you need to put batteries into that category as well. This is about energy output. This is about reality, not wishful thinking, and the reality is that without some sort of energy storage to put wind and solar into, it's not going to be a viable energy source. Period. Without sufficient energy storage, you'll always have to have generation you can quickly spin up to provide electricity when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine and it has to match the generation capacity of wind and solar. It's either that or sit in the dark.
And while I thought the "storage aspects" of renewable energy plans seemed the most far fetched of them all. Storage has made huge strides in the last decade and it is definitely part of energy plans everywhere. Storage is probably the one limiting technology needed for the abandonment of fossil fuel base and surge plants, especially during the hours around sunrise and particularly sunset when demand is fairly high and solar production is modest.
Your electrics and hybrids have about as much impact on petroleum prices as spitting into the ocean does to sea levels and for the same reason. Most also charge at night, when the sun doesn't shine, so they aren't being charged by solar. Where you don't have much wind, they aren't charged by that, either. And they're not as many around as you apparently assume. Nor are EV sales going like gangbusters, especially as people discover the drawbacks of range and charge times. I'm quite sure that some wish EVs had a significant impact, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Part of this "charge at night" thing is related to that being the time of day when there was the most excess generating capacity. The switch to solar flips that around making mid-day the best charging time. Unfortunately most cars are "at home" then. It is my understanding that a lot of home solar systems include some modest storage, and frankly 99% of days I could charge my car with a modest storage battery and small solar panel on my roof as I typically drive less than 150 miles per week. The only time this "range issue" comes into play is the few rare overnight trips I make each year.
 
Upvote 0