Guest essay by Eric Worrall
One of the great myths promoted by renewables proponents is that government subsidies are not the enablers of renewables, they are simply accelerating a transition which would occur anyway, even without taxpayer help.
Trump: Ugly for world, ugly for climate, ugly for clean energy
…
Nevertheless, it doesn’t look good. And on any conventional assessment, it is a disaster on many levels – particularly for the efforts to address climate change and for the clean energy industry in the US.
…
The energy transition to cheaper and cleaner energy is happening, regardless. Trump can slow down the pace in the US, but it will accelerate elsewhere, leaving the US at a significant disadvantage; although it should be noted that US renewable investments are driven to a large extent by state-based targets.
HSBC has noted that Trump’s policies put at risk the decarbonisation and clean energy uptake seen during President Obama’s time in office, with potential to slow both the US energy system transition and domestic measures to mitigate climate change.
But at the same time Trump has no control over the solar market, which is heading towards 2c/kWh, and he has no influence over battery storage, which is heading to below 400/kWh and to its major inflexion point.
This is a crucial point. Wind and solar and their enabling technologies are getting cheaper with or without the Americans, and the fossil industry will be disrupted.
Read more: http://reneweconomy.com.au/trump-ugly-for-world-ugly-for-climate-ugly-for-clean-energy-37088/
President elect Trump has named his core goal as “energy independence”. He has no problem with renewables, he just wants to remove political impediments to other forms of energy.
From the Trump campaign website;
Energy Independence
The Trump Administration will make America energy independent. Our energy policies will make full use of our domestic energy sources, including traditional and renewable energy sources. America will unleash an energy revolution that will transform us into a net energy exporter, leading to the creation of millions of new jobs, while protecting the country’s most valuable resources – our clean air, clean water, and natural habitats. America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy. In fact, America possesses more combined coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth. These resources represent trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs, particularly for the poorest Americans.
…
Read more: https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html
Suggesting skeptics don’t like the idea of renewables is nonsense. I and I suspect many other skeptics would love to give a big one finger salute to the local electrical utility company. There are plenty of American Trump supporters who would love to give a big one finger salute to OPEC. But there is a huge gulf between liking the idea of renewables, and believing they are practical.
The problem is lots of household conveniences – in my case 4 x 8Kw air conditioners, several large electric fans and (occasionally) electric heating, my salt water pool, 2 fridges (one for the BBQ area) and a big upright freezer, a large washing machine and a large clothes drier – all rely on the supply of electricity on a scale I could never hope to produce using a few rooftop solar panels.
In my opinion, people who think renewables are currently a viable general replacement for fossil fuels are math challenged. I’m not alone in thinking there are unsolved problems – leading greens such as David Attenborough and Bill Gates have called for “Apollo Projects” and “energy miracles” to make renewables a viable energy option.
But in a free market economy, you don’t have to accept my opinion, you can make your own choices.
If renewables are the genuinely better solution, if they are a disruptive technology which will sweep fossil fuels into the dustbin of history, they don’t need any government help.
President-elect Trump is committed to giving renewables a chance. He certainly has no plans to ban or restrict renewables, but as he made very clear in his policy statement, he just doesn’t see any reason to bankrupt coal miners.
The history of the rise of disruptive technologies is clear. Smart phones, vacuum cleaners, automobiles, home computers, microwave ovens, the one thing they have in common is in most cases nobody subsidised them. A genuine disruptive technology doesn’t need subsidies, or political hostility towards competing technologies. The advantages sell themselves.
“IIRC our cash outlay before incentives was about $18,000”
According to the information provided by Juan the simple payback period is over 40 years based on the first 5 years of operation.
That is very bad and far from economical.
Which is why I said that it did not make economic sense sans subsidies at 2011 prices. But at current prices, down by half or more over 2011, it makes sense under favorable circumstances without government subsidy.
Juan you still no not understand the economics of power production. Even at half the cost. The laws of physics preclude a low density energy source such as rooftop solar from being economical. Too much labor and too much raw material. Too small of projects. Too short of production life. Not enough roofs in an ideal solar resource.
So if you have rooftop PV your are a victim of a sc*m.
Eric, have you had a recent quote for solar?
I think you should do the due diligence and quote the actual figures in $ and capacity shortfall, if any.
And bear in mind by my standards you are using one heck of a lot of electricity! I would imagine you are far above average use…
I know that tens of thousands of Australians can get all or most of their power from solar + batteries with a 6 year payback.
You can cut your Aussie energy bill with generous government mandated feedin tariffs, but they’ve been scaled way back lately.
In terms of actual energy coverage, solar energy for a house is not even in the ballpark.
If I covered my roof with solar panels I’d get a nameplate capacity of around 1Kw, a lot less in practical terms.
When the power goes out I have a 1Kw backup petrol generator. The generator can run one full size fridge (providing we’re careful about opening the door of the fridge), the TV and satellite box, a small low energy desk lamp and a medium size portable fan (it can run the big portable fan, but much increased risk of tripping the overload breaker).
Washing machine, drier, air conditioners, salt water pool (uses high amperage electrolysis to produce chlorine) – not a chance.
Of course, the 1Kw solar array would not be able to replicate the performance of the petrol generator.
I tried using a solar panel to power a cat fence, generates a small radio signal to trigger the cat’s collar to deliver an electric shock if the cat tries to wander out of the yard. At the time it wasn’t convenient to connect the device to mains power.
45W solar panel powering a 15W device, it could barely cover electricity usage. The cat fence didn’t start working reliably until at least two hours after sunrise, and stopped working well before nightfall. On cloudy days we had to keep an eye on it, if the cloud cover thickened beyond slightly wispy the cat fence failed.
If I tried using solar power to keep my fridge going, I would have to get used to eating a lot of spoiled food.
Eric, I think you should get a quote. I don’t think your figures look right. I just checked the readout on the inverter, and our solar system is producing 4Kw right now. And we don’t have a huge house, so I’m struggling to imagine how you’d only be able to run a 1Kw setup.
Anyway, I encourage you to get some quotes, find out exactly how many Kw of panels you could actually put up, and how much energy it would likely produce, and how that would effect your energy draw from the grid, and your power bill. Would make for a good article.
as with roads or hydro generation or many other examples, government policies and subsidies can accelerate the transition where states and private enterprise lack scale and standards to establish a new technology. The biggest challenge we have to transitioning to a modern energy ecosystem where renewables can provide a significant role is with our old and inadequate grid infrastructure and regulations, energy market rules and standards. If today renewables were essentially free of cost and also capable of providing 100% of our energy needs we wouldn’t be able to fully utilize that capacity because of those limitations in the grid and energy industry. We need subsidies and leadership. We cannot get there and be competitive relying on free market actors alone.
Sometimes, just sometimes, you have a *really* wicked thought doncha. (Not me, I iz as pure as the driven snow)
For the UK here especially, while we are somewhat bolshie mood with Brexit et al, arrange via facebork, titter or whateva, that between 6 and 7pm on a winter weekday evening (time of greatest electricity demand), all 30m households switch on their electric kettles, or tumble dryer or immersion heater or just any old electric heater they’ve got.
At maybe 3kW per household, that will put about 90GW onto a grid that can maybe supply 60, probably less as all the old coal plants are being ‘de-commisioned’ Read= smashed up
what would happen………………would *anybody* ‘get a message’ or would we all be pepper-sprayed, tasered, arrested, fined, criminalised and thrown in jail?
the way things are heading, its 50/50
Check with the preppers what to do. Else you might end up in a frozen Sh*t Creek. That can be hard.
When we lived in our own house in England first thing I did was get a 6Kw coal / wood burner. My experience is people who rely on electric heating in the UK had better buy a lot of very thick duvets.
South Americans are not going to be happy when we take their continent to make enough solar/wind farms to meet most of North America’s energy needs.
That is the order of magnitude required.
What effect on “climate” will plastering over an entire continent have? Two, actually, as Europe will need Africa plastered over.
Embodied energy of a solar panel is so ridiculously high, that any exploitation shorter than a full lifespan at favourable latitudes leads to negative EROI. Period.
2c my bottom.
OK, not exactly negative, but below 1. I hate to correct myself.
The problem with so called renewables (solar &. wind) is that they are using a source with inherently low power flux density. That means no matter how advanced your technology is, land use footprint is enormous. Raw land area being one of the few resources whose expanded reproduction is impossible even under the most futuristic technological scenario, they use up a resource scarce by its nature. And that’s unsustainable. Q.E.D.
There is abundant and free room in the Sahara, at temperatures -during daytime- that make your blood boil.
Sahara is not given for free, each piece of it belongs to some country. Do you intend to re-colonize it, or what?
If not, you will have to do business with extremely corrupt governments, build large fields of solar panels and high voltage long range transmission lines, then have them protected from attack by insurgents or terrorists using some armed force. That costs money and has political repercussions.
You will also need water to clean wind blown dust from solar panels, but there is no water in the Sahara desert. You’ll have to build long pipelines from coastal regions, another asset to be protected.
Then comes the question of storage, because the sun fails to shine at night, somehow. Batteries are far too expensive for that, and there are not many alternatives.
Actually there is tremendous amounts of water in deep aquifers in the Sahara. If you remember Khadafi was justifiably proud of his ‘Great River’ accomplishment. One assumes this will be rediscovered in time by an agent of the western world for exploitive capitalization.
@ur momisugly Berényi Péter November 13, 2016 at 8:20 am
Rent-the-sand! Hong Kong was rented on a 99-year-basis, Guantanamo as well. The payments are made in electric energy.
How long are the transmission lines in the US? Very long. A perfect target for any weirdo.
Remove the dust with vacuum cleaners or blow it off in reverse gear.
Transport energy to the coast and use the energy not needed for electrolysis (H2). You can fuel turbines with that.
You only have to look around the world to where ever they’ve already tied all of this to see what a costly failure it’s been. Power rates that only a few could afford, fewer people with electricity than there were just 10 to 15 years ago. People freezing to death because they can’t afford heat due to the taxes on heating fuels. Taxes that go to subsidize the alternative energy failure. Industry closing their doors because they need affordable and reliable energy and don’t have it. This is starting to shape up like Mao’s great leap forward that killed an estimated 30 million people. The same type of ideology that ends in calamity, but is likely to be much worse in its totality, if it isn’t stopped dead in its tracks.
As I said before: why do they tax energy higher than food or medicine? There is a reason…
“Told you so, 14 years ago…” 😉
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/26/britain-faces-energy-crisis-engineers-warn-green-isnt-working/comment-page-1/#comment-2130269
Sent to a few friends in the UK this morning:
Re: “Energy bills will soar as green policies shut coal-fired power stations and cause an “electricity supply crisis”, experts say. Prices will be forced up as the UK has to import more power, according to a report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers today. –Craig Woodhouse, The Sun, 26 January 2016”.
Congratulations to the IME for their conclusion – the IME is correct, but rather late in the game.
As stated previously, we predicted this severe energy shortfall in our 2002 written debate with the warmist Pembina Institute. We wrote in 2002:
(until recently posted on the APEGA website, now at) http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
I wrote the UK Stern Commission in 2005 that the UK’s approach to alleged manmade global warming and green energy was ill-founded and would greatly increase energy costs, with no benefit to the environment.
In 2013 I wrote an open letter to Baroness Verma, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. making similar points.
I suggest we are now proven correct.
Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
I suggest there is a two-year time limit to launch a lawsuit for Negligence and Misfeasance in a Public Office* against the parties who foisted this costly green-energy fraud on society.
Regards to all, Allan
* Addendum:
In the USA, lawsuits under Civil RICO have finally been initiated, as I suggested on wattsup in 2014:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/27/the-first-climate-change-rico-lawsuit-is-filed-by-defyccc-com-editor/#comment-2307586
Post Script:
“The test of science is its ability to predict.’
– Richard Feynman
More retrospectives… … from 2002 to 2015, and my last remaining prediction, published in 2002:
“Global cooling will start by ~2020-2030.”
All my other predictions have materialized, in contrast to the warmists who have gotten every one of their predictions WRONG to date. If anyone could have bet against these warmist charlatans, they would have made a lot of money.
I really hope to be wrong about imminent (moderate) global cooling – I’ll still be batting 900 instead of 1000 – but humanity will be much better off, Both humanity and the environment suffer, even in a moderately cooling world. I am concerned about a rise in Excess Winter Deaths, especially in Britain and much of Europe.
Of course, if we fall into another real Ice Age, as appears inevitable in the next few thousand years unless geo-engineering (via albedo control of the ice sheets?) can prevent it, all bets are off. A mile of ice thickness above all of Canada, Europe and the Northern USA is sure to depress our real estate prices, and make that commute to the office even more difficult.
Regards, Allan
Here are more of my retrospectives:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/24/1800s-poverty-diseases-malnutrition-surge-in-green-britain/comment-page-1/#comment-2106109
UK politicians have been warned again and again about their destructive and dangerous energy policies, based on false global warming alarmism.
Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple. However, green fanatics have destroyed this vital principle with their egregious “green energy” falsehoods.
We wrote with confidence in 2002 during our debate with the Pembina Institute, when we opposed the Kyoto Accord.:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
We also wrote in the same debate:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
All of our 2002 statements have now proved correct except one. Our sole remaining prediction from 2002 is for global cooling to commence by 2020-2030. We now think global cooling will be apparent by 2020 or sooner, possibly as early as 2017 after the current El Nino runs its course.
I wrote the UK Stern Commission in 2005 that the UK’s approach to alleged manmade global warming and green energy was ill-founded and would greatly increase energy costs, with no benefit to the environment. I suggest we are now proven correct.
In 2013 I wrote the following open letter to Baroness Verma, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
– Baroness Verma
[excerpted]
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
– Yeats
@ur momisugly Allan
I hope you are wrong, else it would be a waste of lives. Although that might mean that the Alarmista Gangstas have a slim chance of being right.
Well – even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn.
Non Nomen, the warmists are predicting a warmer world, while I am predicting a cooler one – I hope they are right, but their track record has always been wrong to date.
The UK excess winter mortality figure records in the main deaths from flu and other winter infections…
These are not universally influenced by cold homes, nor are cold homes in the UK particularly cold because renewables push up heating costs.. gas is the main UK heating fuel and gas prices are not high because of renewable energy.
And what prevents those aliments? Warmth! Idiot!
As usual Griff, you have it wrong.
Your greens have fought and long-delayed the fracking of gassy shales, abundant in the UK near Blackpool.
British natural gas prices are much higher than those in North America, thanks to the greens.
The greens have severely damaged energy systems and increased Winter Mortality rates, which especially target the elderly and the poor.
The greens have actually damaged the environment due to their misguided policies – history will remember them as a remarkably deluded and destructive gang of scoundrels and imbeciles.
Regards, Allan
Post script:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/01/celebrate-weve-finally-hit-a-climate-tipping-point/comment-page-1/#comment-2249552
[excerpts]
The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant.
Furthermore, warm is good and cold is bad – for humanity and the environment. Excess Winter Mortality globally is about 2 million people per year, including about 100,000 per year in the USA and up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom. Excess Winter Mortality rates are high even in warm countries like Australia and Thailand.
Reference: “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather” by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
The scientific conclusion is that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the minds of warmist propagandists.
…
There is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of life on Earth.
I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and recently others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf
“I suspect many other skeptics would love to give a big one finger salute to the local electrical utility company.”
Any American can do just that. All it takes is money. Renewables will power a house—for a price. I read of a guy who spent $18,000 on Tesla batteries and still could not run his home off of them for any extended period of time. For a mere $50,000 or so, you can put in Tesla batteries, solar wind and say good-bye to the power company. Tesla will have to install the batteries—as far as I know, they are not to be installed by individuals. If you don’t want to go Tesla, there’s marine battery banks, controllers, converters, etc, all for asking. All you need is money. And time. With enough batteries, turbines and panels, you can power your house. In this case, where you are totally off-grid and on your own, when the controller gets fried, you’ll be making that midnight trip out to change it out if you were smart enough to have an extra in stock. If not, you’ll be fixing it when you can get a replacement. When the squirrels chew up your lines (or gophers if you went underground and they made it through the conduit), you’ll be troubleshooting the situation. When the temperatures drop to -50F and the batteries freeze, the wind stops blowing and there’s no sun, you’ll happily enjoy living without electricity until new batteries are obtained, the sun shines and the wind blows.
My point is people don’t live off grid in part due to cost and in large part due to the need for intense understanding of systems and the maintenance thereof. Yes, there are a few who do live off-grid, but they are a very small minority. Most people seem to make a couple of years and the charm wears off. Wind and solar are no where close to being adequate for stand-alone living in most cases. If they don’t work small scale, they are highly unlikely to work large scale. However, large scale, the problems can be hidden and it’s easy to mislead people on how effective they are. Maybe everyone who believes in wind and solar should be required to live truly off grid for 5 years before being allowed to speak on the subject. I suspect the supporters would be far fewer than now.
Living off grid is a lifestyle choice that has nothing to do with liking your utility or solar panels. It is less costly too. When we retired after returning from China we bought a good quality but old 32’ motorhome with less than 50k miles for less than $10k. After 2 years we have upgraded to a newer bigger rig with features like a washer/dryer.
We have stayed in only 2 commercial RV parks. We prefer free camping spots. For example, there is an infinite number of free camping spots in front of million dollar beach homes on the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. When it is hot and humid in Texas, you might find us in the PNW camped on the Pacific Ocean or sailing the Columbia River.
The secret is too not need AC.
Hooking up to power is great too.
R. Check, I caution you against a false dichotomy: your scenario is not false, and is useful, but there are many other ways to do it, such as by having your own diesel generator. You don’t have to use Tesla batteries/solar.
If “renewable” energy is so good, how about SUPERRENEWABLE energy?
There are at least 2 forms of energy that breed new energy sources when you use them: breeder reactors (with grave safety issues) and fossil fuels. The fossil fuels produce woods and other plants that can be burned forever for continuing energy. Those are not currently viable, but perhaps they will become so in the future.
Most critically, fossil fuels and ONLY fossil fuels increase the carrying capacity of the Earth for life.
So grid scale battery storage is not real as I guessed. It’s a curve on a chart with a major inflexion point.
“In my book, that comes in the porcine aviation category. If you don’t believe it, take a look at Haiti.”
Another idiot writing a book. Why would I look at Hait if my goal is to heat a house in in a northern climate?
The notion that an energy source must be sustainable to meet all our energy needed is stupid.
The reality is that each energy need must be based on the available choices. For example, if the existing choice is heating with trucked in oil on road that we often impassible in winter and that required a reliable electric supply; then heating with wood is a better choice.
There is a huge supply of wood in many places in the world. Of course it is not sustainable for big cities. Nothing is!
Sustainability is a false idea. Society needs a finite supply of energy. Clearly coal and nuclear does not have a problem meeting demand. Everything else is gravy.
A ground sourced heat pump would save trucking in wood or oil.
Heating choice favoured by UK aristocracy for their massive stately homes!
Not if electricity is being made with oil, which it was at the time where I was living. That was why I was working at a nuke plant under construction.
Griff thanks for speaking up and demonstrating stupidity when I am labeling people stupid. What rich people do in the UK is likely to be stupid examples of how to make good environmental choices.
Not to demean the UK, we have Al Gore.
Rich people in the UK got rich by being smart and efficiently using their money.
(also by riding in on a horse and stealing stuff off Saxons, peasants etc, but it is considered bad form to mention that).
“Griff November 15, 2016 at 4:12 am
Rich people in the UK got rich by being smart and efficiently using their money.”
Evidence? And you bag Trump!
@Tom H
“RKP, I think you are being unusually dense.”
You may want to consider how clueless and shallow statements are about ‘markets’ and ‘level fields’.
Maybe you can contribute some other banal cliches to the discussion.
Eric’s final comment:
“The history of the rise of disruptive technologies is clear. Smart phones, vacuum cleaners, automobiles, home computers, microwave ovens, the one thing they have in common is in most cases nobody subsidised them.”
is patently false. In fact the exact opposite is true – with the exception of the vacuum cleaner every singe
one of the items on Eric’s list required massive government investment before it could be considered a
commercial success (typically from the military which doesn’t care about profits as long as there is a tactical
advantage). Microwave ovens and integrated circuits came out of WWII radar research and the Manhattan project. Smart phones rely on GPS, integrated circuits, touch screens, the internet all of which were developed for the military. Automobiles would never have been popular without the billions spent on paving
the roads and developing the necessary infrastructure. Not to mention the defunding of public transport options which then required people to buy cars.
Applying technology that was developed by the military or even NASA is not a subsidy. The items were developed because the military/NASA had a use for them. Then they spilled over into the public domain. Most started out very expensive—VCRs, DVDs, cell phones were all very expensive at first. Only as the more wealthy bought them did the technology develop to where the items were inexpensive enough for the general public. As far as I know, the wealthy are not going off grid in an effort to get renewables accepted. They seem to use a lot of energy, all of it off the grid. They expect everyone else to pay for their “toys”, the renewables. Also, no one forced people to buy new technology such as cell phones and microwave ovens. On the other hand, RPS’s demand everyone pay for the product development.
The government did electrify the rural areas, build the interstate highways, etc. Whether or not this was “subsidizing” cars and current electrical appliances depends on what one calls a subsidy. You can define anything as a subsidy if you work hard enough at it. That doesn’t mean anyone else has to accept the stretch you made to cover what you wanted covered.
Whether or not you call it a subsidy is irrelevant. All of the items required massive amounts of government
investment over decades before they were commercially viable. And the government is the currently the only investor capable or willing to do long term research. Prior to the 80s in the US at least companies like Bell
and IBM we willing to invest in long term research but no more. Everything is about short term profits which is to the long term detriment of the country since investing in infrastructure loses out.
quite false, germinio.
NONE of the items “required” massive amounts of government investment over decades before they were commercially viable. Governments have a long history of trying to get credit for things they actually IMPEDED.
Automobile was born in England, but forbidden to be used without a man marching ahead bearing a red flag … that is, practically forbidden. Somehow french government was too weak or too retarded to be as “efficient”, so french car-makers took the lead. Automobiles HAVE have been popular without the billions spent on paving; early car races were mostly a way to prove the car was able and fit to serve on the dirt roads of the time.
Military didn’t see any use for planes and armored cars, and turn away propositions of industry for years, until war finally showed this stuff was effective
Microwave, integrated circuits and GPS were military secrets, which delayed their civilian use.
besides, TANSTAAGI. Ultimately each “governement dollar” is a taxpayer dollar. Car users pay far more in tax that it cost to pave their way.
And speaking of short term … government are unable to see further than next election, and they are very good at funding “long term” friends of them, regardless of the actual science.
This report shows the reality of renewables working in – guess where? – South Australia
“South Australia could more than double its renewable energy share by 2020 to 84.6% ….and go even further by 2025.”
“the state of South Australia could easily beat its aspirational target of 50% renewables by 2025, reaching 85% mark by 2020 and possibly as much ass 95% by 2025.”
“Queensland will like add a further 25,000 GWh by 2030 to meet its 50% renewable target by 2030, and Victoria will add 7,000 GWh of renewables by 2025. These will help Australia reach around 42% renewable energy by 2030, according to Deutsche Bank estimates.”
“The data appears to include rooftop solar, which the Australian Energy Market Operator has suggested could meet all of (SA) daytime demand on certain occasions within 10 years – a scenario likely to be repeated in Western Australia, although the fast fall in battery storage costs could reshape those scenarios and spread the supply through the day.”
“The Deutsche Bank analysis also predicts that coal generation capacity will also halve across Australia by 2030, mostly due to the fact that many coal plants will reach the end of their normal life and won’t be worth the expensive of upgrades.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/11/13/deutsche-bank-sees-south-australia-95-renewables-2025/
(this is Deutsche Bank’s info – the link above just is a handy summary)
RenewEconomy article republished by Green Technica. Just stop with the Giles Parkinson bull$hit propaganda, Griff. The guy has zero credibility with anyone who understands power engineering.
All you are demonstrating is a similar lack of knowledge.
er… no: a report by one of the world’s leading banks.
you have to start looking at the underlying source, not just banging on about where it is reported.
Are major German banks hotbeds of leftist sentiment or incapable of serious analysis??
Deutsche Bank has its snout deep in the trough of renewables and storage investments through loans to the companies in those fields. It is wildly sending out spin to shore up the markets against collapse so it doesn’t take a bloodbath when they fail.
And here’s another link:
Rooftop Solar + Tesla Powerwall 2 Already Cost-Competitive With Grid In Australia!
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/11/13/rooftop-solar-tesla-powerwall-2-already-cost-competitive-grid-australia/
RenewEconomy article republished by Green Technica. Just stop with the Giles Parkinson bull$hit propaganda, Griff. The guy has zero credibility with anyone who understands power engineering.
All you are demonstrating is a similar lack of knowledge.
I really don’t think you are keeping up with developments in costs and deployments of solar worldwide…
I really don’t think you are keeping up with reality.
Right here in my home town of Denver, Colorado, we had a big show of solar energy at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science..
President Obama came to town and was set to sign the $787 billion stimulus bill. Remember that? Anyway, he toured the roof top installation of solar panels installed on the roof of the museum before signing the bill.
It was a 100 kilowatt installation and cost $720,000. Without the incentives, the payback period was 110 years. The project was intended to replace between 2 and 12 percent of the electricity needs of the museum. It actually meets 1 to 2 percent of the needs of the museum.
There was quite the controversy around here due to the fact the museum was not exactly forthcoming about the facts of the project. Several reporters attempted to get this information, but could not. You know, simple things like the electric bills before and after the installation of the project.
And why is it so hard to get simple information about the costs of running a publicly financed operation such as the Museum?
I find this to always be the case regarding ‘sustainable’ technologies. Some people just go on and on about the beauty of these new technologies yet clam up when pressed for actual numbers. And they want me to pay for all these wonders.
These same people will not purchase a new car without some idea of mileage.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/02/18/110-years-to-pay-for-those-den
I reckon you could buy that system today for under $150, 000
(You can get a top end system of 110kw in Australia for AUS $192,500)
On the entry level house in most parts of Australia at ~AU$1mil. You are a moron!
It wasn’t big oil or big coal or nuclear that beat renewables. It was an excel spreadsheet.
Nuke systems because of the sheer expense of their infrastructure and bureaucracy will never match the potential efficiency affordability of a consumer based decentralized electrical generation, storage and distribution that renewable and non-renewable electrical generation matched with superconductive magnetic energy storage systems can provide. The questions is can superconductive systems be mass produced and consumerized…for exactly the same market Telsa is going after with their large battery systems that are marketing for home use. Has SC technology progressed and matured to a point it can be installed in peoples homes? .I have been a lay spectator of the huge expansion in SC research in the past 15 years. The race is on. It would be fun to hear from the SC experts on this issue.
“I have been a lay spectator ….”
Things that do not work always have great ‘potential’ compared to what is proven to work.
Superconductive magnetic energy storage systems appear to be the only electrical storage system paradigm that would make decentralized electrical generation, storage and distribution work because they can be scaled from micro to macro for renewable and non-renewable generation sources. Tesla understands the market force of decentralized energy production and distribution as it is now marketing large lithium ion batteries for this purpose but these batteries are small and waste heat. Until there is a electrical energy storage system that can be scaled and is as efficient and flexible as SCMES, (and far more affordable than SCMES), renewable for the consumer market will be marketed on the basis of the buy back tax subsidy< (the folks that buy them will still have to buy a expensive high inefficient internal combustion back generator systems) Match solar, wind, thermoelectical generators, natural gas powered micro-turbine driven superconductive generators with SCMES for the consumer market; then the whole world changes.
You seem to have missed that cheap solar panels plus ‘good enough’ batteries are a world changing thing in anywhere with half decent solar input… and that whether or not there’s a government subsidy.
Good enough batteries? You have no idea what you are talking about.
Wind generators kill birds, hydro power floods riparian ecosystems, nuclear waste is unthinkable, biomass destroys forests, in New England, 90% of forest land is privately owned (what happens to all that natural habitat when fuel wood becomes more economical than heavily taxed fossil fuel? You tell me.), solar arrays cover prairie and desert habitat, and all this is expensive and less efficient than the fossil fuels on which our civilization was built. Just what are we thinking? (What; are we thinking?)
“On the other hand, RPS’s demand everyone pay for the product development.”
There is no national RPS. There is a national PTC. It could by certainly be argued that a production tax when first proposed by POTUS Bush benefited all Americans by reducing the price of natural gas.
Batteries are not going to save the intermittent renewables. The needed concentration of energy will pose a much greater threat to safety than nuclear. It will take a disaster or two to learn this.
Three Mile Island, Tchernobyl, Fukushima…
Do you need more of that?
And who, exactly, was endangered by Three Mile Island? It was an event without an effect. Even the governor of the state decided that evacuation would cause more casualties than just letting people remain in place. The reactor safety features worked.
Chernobyl was designed to a standard recognized in the U.S. as being unsafe (no containment) and operated in a criminally negligent and destructive manner.
Fukushima was the result of a tsunami, whose effect was mainly to ruin the equipment. Again, no human casualties.
Replace panic with reason, and the technological world looks less dangerous.
What sort of disaster could you get with wind or solar ???
South Australia!
Reliability concerns associated with PV technologies
Quoting directly from a monograph [4] by Dr. Sarah Kurtz of NREL:
“General reliability issues across all PV technologies are:
1. Corrosion leading to a loss of grounding
2. Quick connector reliability
3. Improper insulation leading to loss of grounding
4. Delamination
5. Glass fracture
6. Bypass diode failure
7. Inverter reliability
8. Moisture ingress
Continuing, Dr. Kurtz said: “In addition, there are issues specific to the individual technologies, to name a few:
i. Wafer silicon: Light-induced cell degradation, front surface soiling, effect of glass on encapsulation performance, reduced adhesion leading to corrosion and/or delamination, busbar adhesion degradation, junction box failure;
ii. Thin film silicon: electrochemical corrosion of SnO2, initial light degradation;
iii. CdTe: interlayer adhesion and delamination, electrochemical corrosion of SnO2:F, shunt hot spots at scribe lines before and after stress;
iv. CIS: interlayer adhesion, busbar mechanical adhesion and electrical, notable sensitivity of TCO to moisture, moisture ingress failure of package; and
v. OPV: photolytic instability, moisture induced degradation, moisture ingress failure of package.”
We often hear that people interpret passing the IEC 61215 or 61646 qualification tests is proof that a product has been tested and shown to be durable and reliable. This is simply not true; like many ALT tests, the IEC environmental stress test protocols are designed primarily to test the infant mortality period of the above-referenced bathtub curve (Fig. 1) and do not adequately or realistically stress a module in the way that nature does.
During life, a product loses performance attributes according to the accumulated damage model. Continued damage (thermal, photolytic, mechanical, hydrolytic, etc.) inflicted over a long time—and influenced by the daily and seasonal diurnal cycles—takes a toll.
According to Wohlgemuth, “While qualification tests are important, they have limitations because the stress levels are, by design, limited… so, passing the qualification test means that the product has met a specific set of requirements, but doesn’t say anything about which product is better for long-term performance, nor does it provide a prediction of product lifetime [3].”
Translation: Do not worry about battery storage because solar PV panels will stop working faster than they can be built at some level of power production.
For those who understand second order differential equation, this is not a difficult concept.
Well recent tests indicate solar panels in northern US should have degradation rates as low as 0.2% per year. Those panels could retain 96% of their production capabilities after 20 years.
a panel manufactured today should produce 92% of its original power after 20 years…
http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
Gosh Griff is that an actual credible source of info?
Yes, but Griff misses the point. While the part of the panel that converts solar energy may be getting better manufacture warranties are not going to change.
When placed on the planet, they only work between 0% and 20% of the time before they break. A long list of things that cause PV to break was provided.
The reason it does not matter is no one bothers to fix something that was built for political reason. Quality will not get better because no one is held accountable.
Yes – and we were told in the 1950’s that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter”.