Solar is now cheapest electricity in history says IEA

[Nithavela]

It won't though.

Humanity as a species, in all likelihood, will survive global warming.

However, the situation we find ourselves in - as a species - at the end of global warming very much depends on what we do now and over the next 20 to 30 years roughly.

I think of it this way: Are we willing to sacrifice a modicum of comfort and 'prosperity' now, in order to ensure that future generations will have a standard of living that approaches our present one?

I also doubt that climate change will wipe out humanity, but hopefully it will cause a lot of global wars and unrest that kill a lot of people.

 

[Pommer]

I also doubt that climate change will wipe out humanity, but hopefully it will cause a lot of global wars and unrest that kill a lot of people.

History will be written on slabs again.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think of it this way: Are we willing to sacrifice a modicum of comfort and 'prosperity' now, in order to ensure that future generations will have a standard of living that approaches our present one?

My answer is an emphatic 'yes!'. We owe this to our children and all who follow after.

Only it will need more than a 'modicum' of sacrifice. We must fly less, drive less, consume less red meat. Above all, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

 

[Tom 1]

Solar is now cheapest electricity in history says International Energy Agency

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

Solar Is Cheapest Energy: Renewable Energy Cost

Solar is now the 'cheapest electricity in history', report says




Solar energy will save USA $321,000,000,000.01

100% renewable energy will save Americans $321 billion – study

I heard the sun is a communist. It just spreads light everywhere as if everyone were entitled to the same stuff.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You're operating off an assumption that the response to climate change is about "wealth redistributive policies" and an "international agenda prioritizing the redistribution of wealth via government spending and taxation". It isn't. It's about preventing what is already a (man made) problem from becoming a catastrophe.

Also, climate scientists (and those with anything more than a passing understanding of climatology) understand and acknowledge that climate will continue to change. As it has always done.

What is concerning about climate change is the rate and consistency in direction of the change being experienced at present, and the rate and consistency in direction that the data indicates the climate is headed in.

Simply put, the world is heating up more rapidly than at any other point in human history. And, the data shows that this heating up will continue to accelerate, potentially for at lease another century. At least 90% of this change is due to the emissions humans are putting into the atmosphere.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that politicians and bureaucrats are interested in solving problems rather than using problems to increase their power and profit financially. I don't foresee any catastrophes as I see no credible evidence to suggest that there will be but certainly the continuing change in the climate will cause problems going forward no matter what useless ideas politicians and bureaucrats put forward that they pretend will be a solution to climate change.

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't foresee any catastrophes

No need for foresight. It is too late for foresight.

Catastrophic events are happening all round you - now.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No need for foresight. It is too late for foresight.

Catastrophic events are happening all round you - now.

Depends upon what one defines as catastrophic I guess. If you are talking about weather related disasters they do exist. As they always have and always will exist. There is nothing unique or even unusual happening on that front. Only ignoring the past history of climate and having an unquestioning religious like faith in a narrative would bring one to conclude that current weather related events are proof of future catastrophic global disaster. The current weather cannot be seen as either debunking or proving anything about the future effects of climate change. It is as silly to point to one hurricane season as proof that climate change is going to be globally catastrophic as it is to point to record low winter temperatures on a particular day as proof there is no warming going on.

 

[Whyayeman]

We disagree here, clearly. One swallow does not a summer make seems to be your position on climate change. If only it was just the one!

I consider the forest fires in America, Canada, Australia and in many parts of the world as catastrophic. These phenomena are not new; their extent and their lengthening seasons are increasing. Hurricane seasons now are longer and more severe; ocean currents in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are changing; the jet-stream too.

The science is very clear; average temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans have increased significantly over the period since records began. The scientific communities in numerous disciplines have for years been warning of the trends they have observed, trends which are accelerating. It is prudent and not in the least silly to heed their warnings.

If the science is wrong then countries investing in renewable energy will have made significant gains in competitiveness and economy. The goal of reducing carbon is by happy coincidence also the route to cheap energy in the long term. If the science is right then climate emergency sceptics will look silly - but no sillier than everybody else condemned to shrinking water resources, viable agricultural land, mass migrations in search of these resources together with the turmoil that comes with them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

We disagree here, clearly. One swallow does not a summer make seems to be your position on climate change. If only it was just the one!

I consider the forest fires in America, Canada, Australia and in many parts of the world as catastrophic. These phenomena are not new; their extent and their lengthening seasons are increasing. Hurricane seasons now are longer and more severe; ocean currents in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are changing; the jet-stream too.

The science is very clear; average temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans have increased significantly over the period since records began. The scientific communities in numerous disciplines have for years been warning of the trends they have observed, trends which are accelerating. It is prudent and not in the least silly to heed their warnings.

If the science is wrong then countries investing in renewable energy will have made significant gains in competitiveness and economy. The goal of reducing carbon is by happy coincidence also the route to cheap energy in the long term. If the science is right then climate emergency sceptics will look silly - but no sillier than everybody else condemned to shrinking water resources, viable agricultural land, mass migrations in search of these resources together with the turmoil that comes with them.

It isn't ever the science that is wrong as the science only delivers proof of what is currently factual in the physical universe. It does not deliver the educated but speculative opinions of specific scientists that often turn out to be at least somewhat incorrect. Conflating scientifically arrived at factual proof with speculative educated opinion and treating them as if they were equally valid is a problem that many non scientists and even a few scientists seem to be afflicted with. It is a fact that the climate is affected by global warming, it is educated speculative opinion as to what that will look like going forward. Denying that warming affects the climate is denying proven science, being skeptical about the speculative opinions of some, many or even all scientists about what will happen in the future because of any particular fact is reasonable and I would suggest in line with the spirit of the scientific method on which all science is based. Nothing can be considered the science until it has been proven to be so.

 

[Whyayeman]

I agree with almost all that, including:

'... it is educated speculative opinion as to what that will look like going forward ...'

However, science is about prediction too. The motions of the planets and the moon are perfect examples of observations leading to predictions. Nobody is likely to dispute the 'educated speculative opinion' that the new moon will be seen at such and such a time or that tide tables will still be right in future years.

However, I would take issue with your last sentence: 'Nothing can be considered the science until it has been proven to be so.' Many principles including such as quantum theory and evolution are considered scientific despite the lack of conclusive proof.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

My answer is an emphatic 'yes!'. We owe this to our children and all who follow after.

Only it will need more than a 'modicum' of sacrifice. We must fly less, drive less, consume less red meat. Above all, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

I'm not convinced that there will need to be much sacrifice. I can just as easily see an era of cheap renewable power driving innovation and comfort.

 

[Whyayeman]

I share your optimism that cheap and abundant renewable fuel will be available at some time in the future. The issue is that coal, oil and gas are being burned at increasing rates in many parts of the world - now.

The era of 'cheap and abundant renewable fuel' has not arrived. We cannot wait until market forces change; governments must intervene.

 

[rambot]

Depends upon what one defines as catastrophic I guess. If you are talking about weather related disasters they do exist. As they always have and always will exist. There is nothing unique or even unusual happening on that front. Only ignoring the past history of climate and having an unquestioning religious like faith in a narrative would bring one to conclude that current weather related events are proof of future catastrophic global disaster. The current weather cannot be seen as either debunking or proving anything about the future effects of climate change. It is as silly to point to one hurricane season as proof that climate change is going to be globally catastrophic as it is to point to record low winter temperatures on a particular day as proof there is no warming going on.

The issue is with the destabalization of weather patterns that have existed for at least centuries. The "heat dome" we experienced over north america this year and the "cold dome" we experienced the winter before last both occurred because of a weakenning of northern jet streams. That is going to have a HUYUUUUUUGE effect on weather patterns which, in term, will have an effect on what crops can grow where and when.

Everyone finds the "catastrophic events" sexy to talk about. But the far bigger problem will be things like farmland that become unuseable due to shifting weather patterns. Shifting weather patterns will disrupt manying things.

 

[Bob Crowley]

We've had solar power on our house for ten years, and haven't paid a power bill in that time. But that's only because we've received a subsidy which was an incentive in the early years of solar power. It's a small system of about 2KW which is sufficient for the two of us. We can't use it for our own power, so it feeds into the network. If there's a blackout, we're in the same boat as everyone else.

The problem is that our solar panels and / or inverter are already fading out after ten years, and we'll have to replace or upgrade them. I think we'll upgrade to about 5KW which means we could power some of our own equipment during the day, but we'll get advice first. I'd also look at getting better quality panels next time - maybe German made. If the price of batteries comes down enough, we might consider power storage. But they have a limited lifetime as well.

When we replace the system, we'll lose the subsidy. So power bills once again will become a feature of our budget.

In this world there's no such thing as a free lunch. Whichever system we use, there will be issues of manufacturing energy consumption, transport of components, recycling of redundant panels and inverters, and / or the CO2 production of coal fired power stations, and the installation and maintenance of networks.

On nuclear power, I once was talking to an electrician who specialised in power stations, and had spent a lot of time overseas on power projects. He had worked on nuclear power stations, and he said he liked nuclear power. But he was negative about nuclear energy in Australia. He remarked "With nuclear power you've got to be right on top of it! You can't afford mistakes! But I wouldn't recommend nuclear power in Australia. The bean counters would cut corners!" Or words to that effect.

On the business of the solar power feed-in causing issues for the power companies, there are 3 different viewpoints presented here - a network provider, an economist, and solar panel installer.

Electricity distributors warn excess solar power could destabilise grid

I believe think we'll move towards more and more solar power with battery back up in Australia, and some wind power. We get plenty of sunlight.

I'd consider a hydrogen powered car down the track, as they can be powered with "green" hydrogen. But that's not an option in Australia at the moment. There are only a few fleet cars on the road in Melbourne and Canberra, although Brisbane might have a handful by the end of the year. General public usage is probably a few years away.

I sometimes wonder if green hydrogen could be economically used to generate power, but that's just personal conjecture.

 

[Whyayeman]

We have recently installed solar panels and batteries. The idea is to offer the batteries for distributed power storage to store excess production from wind generation through the night and sell it back during peak hours. We are considering installing an air-source heat pump to reduce or replace gas heating.

There are pilot schemes now running to mix hydrogen with the natural gas grid supply in some areas. In the longer term hydrogen could fully replace natural gas with little or no modification to appliances. Hydrogen can be produced by hydrolysis cheaply and easily using solar and wind generators at off-peak times. For over a century the UK stored coal gas; hydrogen could be stored in the same way and used to generate electricity at peak times.

All of this is available technology. What is needed is the political will to develop it. An era of renewable power production is feasible in the near future. Maybe it will not be cheap at first, but very high petroleum prices have never deterred us in the past; it seems we will pay almost any price to preserve our lifestyle. If the price is to invest in renewable energy infrastructure then I'm in!

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I share your optimism that cheap and abundant renewable fuel will be available at some time in the future. The issue is that coal, oil and gas are being burned at increasing rates in many parts of the world - now.

The era of 'cheap and abundant renewable fuel' has not arrived. We cannot wait until market forces change; governments must intervene.

I'd say that era is pretty close though. Solar PV and onshore wind are already cheaper than coal and gas. In fact, it's so cheap that you can build a new PV / wind plant and still sell power to the grid for less than an established coal or gas-fired power station can. The only issue is with dispatchable power - batteries are still expensive (though coming down in price).

It's also not just about what power is used, but when it's used. It used to be the case that daytime power cost more because that was considered the "peak" - when everyone was trying to use the most electricity. With solar PV, that gets flipped on its head - you actually want everyone to use power during the day. So not only is the power cheaper because it's solar, it's also cheaper because the daytime "peak" no longer exists.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

And how much will your batteries cost to replace in 5-10 years? And your panels in 15-25 years?

 

[Aussie Pete]

We have recently installed solar panels and batteries. The idea is to offer the batteries for distributed power storage to store excess production from wind generation through the night and sell it back during peak hours. We are considering installing an air-source heat pump to reduce or replace gas heating.

There are pilot schemes now running to mix hydrogen with the natural gas grid supply in some areas. In the longer term hydrogen could fully replace natural gas with little or no modification to appliances. Hydrogen can be produced by hydrolysis cheaply and easily using solar and wind generators at off-peak times. For over a century the UK stored coal gas; hydrogen could be stored in the same way and used to generate electricity at peak times.

All of this is available technology. What is needed is the political will to develop it. An era of renewable power production is feasible in the near future. Maybe it will not be cheap at first, but very high petroleum prices have never deterred us in the past; it seems we will pay almost any price to preserve our lifestyle. If the price is to invest in renewable energy infrastructure then I'm in!

Australia is investing billions in hydrogen technology. It will be interesting to see how it goes. Hydrogen is terrible to work with. It is so light it can migrate through pipework and will explode with a tiny spark. I saw a worker with shirt that said, "I am the plant safety officer. If you see me running, follow me".

 

[Whyayeman]

I am expecting better life-times for my panels and batteries than that. Both will lose some efficiency with time but they will not become useless. In ten years panels and batteries will be better as the technology improves and cheaper as production scales increase - I hope!

I have good hopes of hydrogen. It is not more explosive than natural gas, which will ignite just as readily with a spark. People have a sort of folk memory of the Hindenberg disaster, but the injuries came mainly from the impact. The massive fireball was not the hydrogen but the fabric of the envelope which was canvas sealed with a highly flammable resinous compound. The hydrogen escaped upward, being very light, and burned away from the wreck.

Certainly safety issues are an issue with hydrogen as a fuel, but not an especially novel one.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

With regards to alternative forms of energy...

While I agree 100% that they're worth exploring and pursuing, there is a feasibility/pragmatic aspect to consider.

This especially becomes true when pundits/politicians start pushing overly-aggressive deadlines to cutover to it when the infrastructure isn't quite there yet in order for it to satisfy large scale needs.

An example I would use is lab grown/cultured meat.

There's no doubt that it'd be better for the environment, much more ethical than cramming a million cows into cramped dirty living conditions, etc...

It's less impactful in terms of emissions, water and land utilization etc...

However, if the current US demand for beef is 27 billion pounds per year, the lab grown meat approach simply doesn't have the infrastructure in place yet to produce at that quantity.

So saying "we're going to be 100% on lab-grown meat instead of factory farmed meat by 2030" isn't a reasonable goal.

That's not to say that switching to 100% renewables isn't the best approach to pursue for energy, I think it is...but it's not something that can be done as quickly as the flip of a light switch, it needs to be more of a "dimmer switch" approach (pun 100% intended)