Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Australian government is so impressed by the alleged plunge in renewable and battery storage costs they think it will no longer be necessary to subsidise renewables.
Coalition rethinks need for clean energy target as renewable cost plunges
The Turnbull government is rethinking the need to adopt a clean energy target, believing the rapidly falling cost of renewable energy means there may no longer be a requirement for subsidies.
In the keynote address to The Australian Financial Review National Energy Summit, federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will highlight the falling costs of wind and solar energy, including battery storage capacity, as he stresses emissions reduction cannot come at the expense of reliability and affordability.
“It is challenging but possible to simultaneously put downward pressure on prices and enhance the reliability of the system, while meeting our international emissions reductions targets,” he will say at the start of the two-day summit that begins on Monday.
The speech will signal a possible shift away from plans to design and implement a CET from 2020 onwards, in the belief emissions reduction can be achieved without such a scheme.
…
Mr Frydenberg will place great emphasis on reliability. Apart from already flagged reliability measures such a strategic power reserves over the next four summers, and the push to keep open the Liddell coal-fired power station, Mr Frydenberg will flag the introduction of “day-ahead commitments” to apply to the renewable energy industry.
Currently, a wind farm, for example, produces power on the same day it sells it into the market. Under the change, it would have to commit to provide the power the day before, meaning it would need either back-up storage or an agreement with a gas generator, for example, to meet the commitment should the wind not be blowing.
“It is against this backdrop of a declining cost curve for renewables and storage, greater efficiencies that can be found in thermal generation and the need for sufficient dispatchable power in the system that we are considering the Finkel review’s 50th recommendation to which we’ll respond before the end of the year,” he will say of the plans for a CET.
…
Sadly existing subsidies will be maintained for now, but at least at face value this announcement by the Australian federal energy minister appears to provide a roadmap for the eventual complete elimination of renewable subsidies, and a normalisation of the relationship between renewable providers and other energy providers.
If this announcement is followed by swift action to axe all renewable subsidies, and remove all special privileges for renewables in the marketplace, it pretty much eliminates my objections to renewables. All I ever demanded is that renewables compete on a level playing field. If renewables businesses are now able to compete due to plunging costs of renewable installations and energy storage, good luck to them.
Of course, if claims of renewable and energy storage cost parity with fossil fuels all turn out to be a pack of marketing spin, with market normality restored most existing Aussie renewables businesses will die by the invisible hand of Adam Smith.
This ought to be good 🙂
So you subsidize batteries, wind and solar and big biz invests in same. Guv is surprised by rent seeking.
Stop subsidizing stuff and lower taxes.
Ya know what your problem is Geoff…You are trying to mane sense…Stop that and drink the Kool Aid
😉
in this case it is not just subsidies. the cost of providing reliable power must be added to the renewables that enter the grid. as it is the renewables get the best of both at the expense of coal/gas and the end user. there should be a figure attributed to the cost of security per kWh as well as no subsidy.
Hey! I got a half priced solar array and a ton of batteries paid for by you and your friends! It’s not my fault you guys don’t do it too. Free stuff!
You still only get one kWm^-2 max for sun vector oriented areas, and there are NO plans to increase that allowance any time soon.
Of course, you actually get only 20-25% of that as grid electricity; if you are lucky; excuse me that’s if you are damn lucky.
With global cloud cover typically at 60% according to NASANOAA, you can’t even count on that much.
Yes there are higher efficiencies available from Triple Junction Triple Band Gap solar cells; something north of 43%, but that is with concentrator cells and Non-Imaging Optics (NIO) collectors (fully steerable).
Please note that fully steerable arrays are known to cast shadows as the sun moves around the sky; so each steerable element in such an array uses a ton more land area than just the mirror area alone; pretty much as bad as windmill farms if you think about it.
Also note that ” a ton ” is NOT an SI unit of land area.
G & g
george, that’s why we save them for satellites.
I just heard a radio interview with a guy living off the grid on Majorca. It sounded idyllic. He would wake up, dust off the solar cells, check that the rain water was going into the right barrels, think seriously whether or not he needed a light, make sure there was no other electric load if he wanted to use the washing machine, make coffee over a butane stove, and go outside to sit and drink the coffee.
The interviewer asked, “What about someone living downtown in a flat?” The answer was, “Mumble, mumble, mumble, you can’t do it. It’s the fault of the zoning regulations.” (my paraphrase)
If you want a functioning economy, the majority of people can’t live off the grid. People need to go to work and they don’t have the energy at the end of the day to do all the wonderful eco friendly stuff that’s “just so easy to do if only you tried.”
It’s currently possible to have a net zero house which supposedly produces as much energy as it consumes. It’s still connected to the grid and funny accounting is involved to prove that it’s really net zero. The trick seems to be to build a house that’s so well insulated that the body heat of the occupants keeps it comfortably warm in the winter at -20F in Fargo.
Lots of things are ‘possible’. The devil is always in the detail. Could I live comfortably in a solar powered house? Sure, it’s ‘possible’ … under the right conditions. I’m retired so I could move to Majorca. 🙂 For my young friends who still have to work and live in apartments … and commute to work … not so much.
Bob, where I live we have several islands and a lot of boats that are off the grid…..it’s very expensive and time consuming….and the guy that delivers diesel lives in a huge expensive house that’s on the grid
There’s no end to the money people spend on research for cheaper solar cells; and they mean cheap.
There is no solar cell technology conversion efficiency that is too low; if it is cheap enough.
There are programs at all of the University of California campuses researching weird materials that seem to show some sort of Physical response to exposure to solar rays; and maybe give a trickle of electric current.
The end goal is a material that you put in a can on the end of your garden hose, and spray it on your house; the roof, the walls; maybe even the wooden fence, and somehow it generates electricity that feeds into the grid. So it’s 3 1/2 % direct overhead sunlight to DC power; but it’s cheap; really cheap.
Sorry; but in PV solar cells pretty much nothing but the conversion efficiency matters.
I can remember almost 40 years ago now, when the cost of building a structure in California reached $100 per square foot. A colleague was building a nice house on a one acre lot in a great area, and about the time, all of the exterior was done, somebody torched the place. So he still owned the land, and he decided to rebuild. I can remember that the contractors quoted him $112 per square foot; he was totally floored; and this was circa 1980.
So even if you have a solar cell technology that you can spray on your front lawn when you water, it doesn’t matter how cheap it is because, they aren’t making any more land area.
G
George says: “they aren’t making any more land area.”
..
Who needs land?
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_solar
Floating solar….really? have these morons though much past sunshine?
Will they be supplied with the anti-bird rotating whirly gigs? If not how long before these are covered in sea gull crap? And I would really like to see how these floating installations fair with any rough seas or storms?
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD!
Electronic’s mounted on a roof is a horrible environment, other than on a rocket, floating in salt water is about the only thing worse.
Whazamatta rocketscientist? Afraid of new technology and innovation? Look up: Longyangxia Dam Solar Park
That Mark hasn’t any fracking clue about.
“Electronic’s mounted on a roof is a horrible environment”
…
How does Dish Network keep their LNB’s working?
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_downconverter
Bwahahaha
You’re kidding right?
BTW, I was likely the first person in the world, who didn’t work for Hughes, or RCA to see HughesNet gets poor reception due to bad weather.
They are simple, low power and many are not mounted to a +150F roof. The circuits themselves are not large, minimizing both thermal expansion and mechanical flex. Oh, and there’s 1 of them.
While commercial solar farms are going to contain 100’s of millions of large, hot panels, that get vibrated in the wind, thermal cycles over 100F/day which causes significant expansion and contraction, are exposed to moisture which drives corrosion.
As I mentioned, this is about as bad an env for electronics as it gets. Failure rates are strongly influenced by temps, thermal cycles, vibration and contamination. This is why “burn in” became an important part of reliability screening and testing for high reliability electronics, which none of the solar panel mfr’s are doing.
All those “good” clean energy jobs? Are going to be washing and replacing failing panels Woot Woot
PS micro6500, Longyangxia is a fresh water lake sitting behind a dam.
Bad weather does not cause the electronics to malfunction, it’s loss of signal due to what is between the antenna and the transmitting satellite. For proof of this statement, when the bad weather subsides, the reception improves. So, answer the question. How does Dish do it?
The LNB’s and the panels are both in the same environment. Oh, and the “electronics” of a panel are not that complex….in fact each roughly 4″ square in the module is just a simple diode. If you can keep a LNB working in that environment, it’s not difficult to keep a bunch of series connected diodes working also. Oh, by the way, have you seen the industry standard warranty that module makers provide?
+100 george e.!
and the position of the european wind industry in it’s lobbying of Brussels is – Give us the Same Subsidies to Replace end-of-life turbines that are no longer in subsidy or we can’t afford to replace them.
At the same time renewables PR is being pumped out claiming that renewables are competitive with conventional power generation and costs have fallen by 50% ……..
https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/policy/position-papers/WindEurope-Repowering-and-Lifetime-Extension.pdf
and of course the ‘Subsidies’ come from Higher electricity costs charged to industry and consumers … and applying those subsidies from Higher Electricity Charges are apparently what makes Electricity Generation 50% Cheaper for the Consumer and Industry .
Politicians who refuse to apply, or are too stupid or naive to be able to apply commonsense have chosen to swallow this fantasy and are complicit in the destruction of their nation’s economy.
In Australia there has been a massive rise in electricity costs because renewable energy is so expensive, not to mention unreliable. Australian consumer spending continues to fall as a direct result, energy intensive industry and jobs are exported and the Australian Dollar is seeing it’s exchange rate hit hard. (recent article in The Australian covers this well)
That’s an interesting link. It’s almost amusing that they can’t bring themselves to use the word ‘subsidies’, preferring instead ‘revenue stabilisation mechanisms’. I guess they regard it as good PR to disguise their true intent by the use of fancy phrases.
Of course fossil fuels get huge subsidies from those big tax deductions for actual cash expenditures. These oil and gas companies wouldnt even be profitable without those subsidies. At least thats what the science as posted at skeptical science says.
In the meantime – government mandates to buy renewable / solar/wind generated electricity first is not a subsidy.
sarc
However, if they simply refuse to let non-wind and non-solar to compete and face the market to use just their preferences, the public will go bananas. Unfortunately, the government might very well ignore the will of the people.
I should add that there is no real, tangible reason for these costs to have decreased as much as claimed. Either there is money under the table or they are counting on being able to abscond with millions as the various companies fail. Solyndra had enormous treasure missing after it collapsed.
Don’t believe anything from Turnbull camp on such matters!
I’ve got my doubts as well, about whether actions will match the rhetoric – but its still a good stir.
I am with you Warren. I trust the idiots about as far as i could kick them. But maybe they are calling the renewables bluff. Many people have been arguing recently, usually without any form of evidence, that renewables are now more cost effective. Perhaps our govt could develop some backbone and remove all subsidies. If the renewables argument is true than it will all work out fine and renewables will give us lower cost power. And pigs will fly!
the subsidies are not just the discounted panels and FIT etc, the largest one is the ability for renewables to feed in when they want. you cant just remove the fixed subsidy, there must be some added cost per kWh to reflect the costs to the grid/anyone relying on the grid, which is almost everyone.
Renewables will need more than good luck to compete as a dependable generation source. They will need a technological miracle
I can hear the greens throwing a tantrum already and they’ll throw in something about blame coal aswell
Got this on my twitter feed, first to comment I guess but the last laff will be on the invisible hand.
Interesting proposal on pricing wind power, but why not a month out? a year?
When I was a little boy (70 years ago ) in New Zealand, an idiot was refereed to as an “Aussie. living next door we smelt it first!
See, nothing changes.
Even if they remove subsidies for renewables, we will still have the requirement that power retailers must take solar and wind generated power first at any price, leaving coal stations to bid in for the left overs, and I don’t think that will help investment.
That’s keeping your eye on the pea!
Looks like Fake News generated by Oz itself (the Oz Gov lives on subsidies from the EU an UN).
Back in the day this would be called disinformation.
Let The Good Times Role!
Speaking as an Australian taxpayer I know that your statement is definitely not true.
(the Oz Gov lives on subsidies from the EU an UN). ??????????
Could you explain what this means please, I’m puzzled.
Graham
I think there is a lack of understanding of the difference between + and – signs
JBom You have no idea. the Oz govt gives far too much of OZ taxpayers hard earned to the UN. The EU bullies our markets with their subsidised industry and particularly primary produce. We pay our own way and a few other countries as well.
You just never know – if the subsidies are pulled they will have to become efficient or die. That is very motivational.
I have lately been reading (and hearing) about the “plunging” costs of renewables (wind & solar), but I have never encountered an explanation exactly what costs have been reduced. Is it labour or materials, or are windmills and solar panels now way more efficient and reliable? Can anyone explain the logic behind this, or what they think the logic might be?
I live in the province of Ontario that is continually adding unnecessary additional wind and solar capacity. May I expect, at some point, a reduction in the KWH price that has more than doubled since 2006? That’s when the Liberal government started shutting down coal-fired generating plants and replacing them with windmills, solar and 19 (at last count) gas-fired “peaker” plants. The Output of windmills, in Ontario, over the last 1-1/2 years I’ve been tracking is ~26% of Capacity. Solar is ~19%.
Means China is charging less for you to buy renewable equipment.
Chinese companies Trina Solar, JA Solar and Hanwha Q Cells are the largest Solar cell providers by number with Canadian Solar going down to 4th. On wind turbines China’s Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology was the largest supplier but was narrowly beaten to 3rd this year behind Vestas from Spain and GE 2nd. Overall companies manufacturing from China dominate both markets.
Pretty easy to become the cheapest manufacturer when your currency isn’t floated and the rate is pegged to a fixed rate of 8.28 yuan to the US dollar with a small trading range. Find a market analysts who will tell you it isn’t undervalued to make manufacturing and exporting much more competitive … good luck with that.
> I have lately been reading (and hearing) about the “plunging” costs of renewables (wind & solar)
One of the people in my office is a fully converted disciple of the church of renewables and he keeps stating this as well. The only explanation I get from him is that the wind and sun are free. This is the same fellow we never trust to complete a cost estimate for anything as he is always leaving things out. The only reason we keep him is that the customers like him and he seems to keep the support systems moving along.
A “face man”? The “A” team strikes again!
“… wind and sun are free”
Have you explained that coal and oil are also free? In all cases the cost comes from converting what is free into something useful.
Or gathering something from where it is, to where it is needed.
3c worth: Take heart! You’re about to get a reduction (on top of the PST reduction) via a loan that will be repayable by you at some future date (with interest). See? No problem with high rates! The
The main thing to remember is these people are dealing with a totally nonskeptical audience that wants desperately to believe every claim they make. So, nearly 100% of positive claims about wind/solar are heavily exaggerated. Because the only people that will ever question this stuff are a few malcontents on WUWT. The other main truth is that so long as wind/solar have a guaranteed market….every other energy source subsidized them when they don’t produce.That makes most cost comparisons totally faulty.
I’m shocked at those claims about Ontario wind/solar btw. Source?.
+1 LdB
Trouble is, the cost of solar panels is now ~10% of the cost of the whole installation, so, even if it turns free anytime soon, it will still be too expensive.
“means there may no longer be a requirement for subsidies.”
And the far-left wailing and screeching begins !! 🙂
It sounds clever … but it is not coming from parties that are renowned for their cleverness I’m afraid.
It’s clever politically. The green lobby has used the argument that renewables are more cost effective than fossil fuels without realising the obvious consequence of their argument. (Of course, thinking about consequences is not easy for them, or leftists in general.) They can’t now change their argument and say renewables are not more cost effective and therefore require on-going subsidies.
“… the obvious consequence …”
Once, at work many years ago, someone justified their proposal by claiming massive time savings. The manager calculated that would amount to three full time people. The proposer nodded enthusiastically. So who would we be able to lay off, asked the manager? Consternation and crickets was the stern reply.
At my last job, I occasionally suggested that I receive as a bonus 5% of the salary of anyone I made redundant. No one ever seemed to take me up on it.
Indeed, the expression is:
“Once you lie, you must continue to lie.”
And the always descriptive:
“They’ve painted themselves into a corner”.
Hooray!! Now we’ll see a plunge in “the most expensive electricity tariffs in the world”, won’t we? Won’t we? Oh! so any reduction in costs will be taken by the providers and not passed on to the consumers. I’m so surprised.
Forrest is a very precise statistician – and is 100.0000000% correct.
toorightmate
He started this project in the 1950’s
bloke-down -the-pub, (soon with no beer)
Alan Finkel says…coal is not the answer…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/coal-is-not-the-answer-to-energy-crisis-says-chief-scientist-20171009-gyx1g9.html
Of course. Coal is doomed in Aus. But China and India can have it along with our gas too. Local serfs can get stuffed is basically what they are saying.
But there is no “energy crisis”.
There is only a crisis in neo-Marxist ideology.
BTW:
Tesla battery, subsidy, and sustainability fantasies
http://principia-scientific.org/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies-2/
Tesla Cars Aren’t As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-10/tesla-cars-arent-carbon-and-taxpayer-friendly-you-think
Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/
Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/
I don’t know if this has been posted on WUWT before, if not, This is Tony Seba on the rapidly changing situation with battery and solar costs and his expectations for the next few years.
Let’s take California as an example (since they want to convert to electric vehicles only by 2030).
Charge a Tesla 85 KWh.
California vehicles – 30 million.
Charge 30 million vehicles for 365 days per year – 931 GWh
Total California electricity production in 2016 – 198 GWh
How are they going to increase electricity production by 500%???
Pipedreams are more clear when a person actually does the math. That is why I always default to it.
Sorry, the GWh numbers above are actually 931,000 GWh and 198,000 GWh respectively.
The range of the Tesla is 310 miles. Average annual driving in CA is 13,636 miles/year, or 37 miles per day. Call it 40. So a Tesla will need to be charged once per week, not once per day. So the annual energy capacity required to support 30M Teslas, is 931,000 GWhrs/7 = 133,000 GWhrs per year. Not a pipedream at all when one does the math properly.
That’s range under ideal conditions with no other loads on the batter.
Since that never happens, most Teslas will be charging more frequently than once a week.
That’s only under ideal conditions.
Ideal conditions are rarely found in the lab, and never found in the real world.
ChrisL So, continue your calculations. That is 133 TWh that is currently (pun intended) not being generated. What is going to supply that?
Steve Fraser, 15 million houses each with 25m^2 of solar on the roof would do it. At 30c/W for solar cells that’s $2500 per house (plus installation batteries)
To generate an additional 133 TWh of electricity to power the electric Teslas, …
California would need another 128,000 Windmills (13,000 currently generate 13.5 TWh).
The average cost of a windmill is $300,000.
So, California would need investment in windmills of $38.4 trillion dollars over the next 12 years..
Total GDP of California is $2.45 trillion dollars per year.
So, the investment needed would need to be 15.7 years of GDP over the next 12 years.
The annual capital cost (principal and interest) of $38.4 trillion dollars at 6.0% IRR over a 15 year average lifespan of a windmill is almost exactly double the annual GDP of California (maybe only 175% per year once the fossil fuel costs are eliminated). Sounds like another Venezuela experiment.
Where are the government economists and financial analysts in this government??? What is this Tony Seba economist talking about???
Bill Illis, as you obviously haven’t watched Seba’s presentation you’re not qualified to comment on it.
Mr Illis,
We Californians have been told that the rule is no new ICE cars or light trucks after 2029 – not total conversion. And I haven’t heard a whisper from what passes for a Government here as to their plans for heavy trucks, buses, etc. So, the switchover will take a while. I intend to buy a super-reliable ICE car in 2027 (if this idocy is still in force), and keep it until I no longer need transportation. ‘Course, I’m assuming that there will be gasoline available.
Andrew Worth,
I am just doing the math.
While I am a math guy, the main reason is that math tells basic truths, it gets to the core of the matter. It is not an emotional reaction. It cuts the BS out and makes a person truly informed.
Electric cars get a person from point A to point B as long as they close by, but we need to more than double electricity production to fuel these cars. Why is that such a big number? Because fossil fuel gasoline is extremely efficient. It costs less than water but can move you and your car 10 kilometers for $1.0 dollar. It can’t be beat.
Andrew Worth October 9, 2017 at 11:20 am
There probably aren’t 15 million houses in CA.
The state’s population is around 40 million. No one can say precisely how many people live there, with so many illegals, nor what the average occupancy rate might be. But many residents dwell in apartment buildings rather than houses.
Bill Illis, you have to allow for the rapid fall in the production costs of batteries and solar panels, Seba mentions a current price of 30c/W for solar panels, which is far below the cost of just 5 years ago. California gets about 1/6 of the rated power out of those panels once you take into account cloud and day/night, so $1.80 capital cost of cells/W actual production ability (if I can put it in those terms) produced. Each year $1,000 worth of those panels produce 333 x 1460 Whr = 486kWhr.
Obviously there are other costs (batteries and installation) but using more localised production transmission costs can be substantially reduced.
Andrew Worth, even if solar panel were free of charge, that won’t much change the price, because it is mostly transport and installation already right now. Which is why the 0.3$/W panel bulk out of China turns into a 1$/W panel for the western customer, turning into a 2$/W complete material (with converter, fixation etc.) and 4$/W installation. Rule of thumb, this means a ~0.4$/kWh. far from competitive. Even more so that you have it only when the sun shines.
You cannot have both more localized production and chinese costs, if things are done in China that’s precisely because it cost more to produce locally
His solar (PV roof-top) numbers seem to be way off. Just put up 8.03kWh PV system costed $30K before subsidies; $20K after here in PG&E land Calif (current average kWh cost of 27c/kWh; worst in the land, or at least ‘main-land’). 6.7yr payback (actual production will be close-to 12MWh/year. Even with net-metering (costs redistribution to the poor people), at 10 years my cost is $0.17/kWh – still 42% higher than the nat ave (0.12/kWh) and 80% higher than Mom in Coal Electricity Country. If my system requires no maintenance and makes it to 25 years (Warranted Lifetime), i get to $0.07/kWh with 30% federal capital subsidies and the poor paying for about half the rest thru ‘net-metering’ slight of hand. I suppose i could get the government to buy me a 20-30kWh Battery via subsidies and i could arbitrage the net-metering scam,… but it still doesn’t get me to ‘nirvana’ in a couple of years. Flashy foil flipping is too fast without assumptions well documented. Just the ‘neat “S” curves’ and extension of Moore’s law to where it doesn’t belong.
I’m finding prices around $1200/kW on the net for complete system, retail price, uninstalled, I assume his figure of $0.30/W are for current manufacturers prices for the cells only. So his figure x 4.
Right. I see the 365W LG Panels for ~$400/panel or about $1/Watt. BUT, you have to add a Inverter aggregator and optimizers OR microInverters for each panel. And you have to pay someone to go up on the roof to install etc. All in System installed is ranges from $29 – $35K for a 8kWh system. That’s $4/w DC. (When moved to AC you lose ~7%). Anyway,.. PV does NOT run on Moore’s Law. Although it’s silicon, when you ‘shrink’ cells you actually ‘lose light’. PV is about 25% efficient in capturing the irradiance of the Sun’s (watts/meter ^2). It’s economic growth – more Watts/M^2 captured is more like 15-20%/yr with the support hardware (racking/inverters, etc) showing slower ‘cost learning’ Installation Labor, installer profit margins are “fixed” unless they are mandated to pay for more ‘social welfare’. So,.. I don’t see how roofed residential gets to $0.30/watt or 1/13th of current market prices. His ’10x’ is upside down.
DB did a report in 2015. Here’s the all in Costs for Retail PV
Note – the panels are only about 1/3 the cost by DB’s estimate.
I doubt the “installation”, “sales”, and other costs go down as modeled. Reminds me of GCMs.
https://www.db.com/cr/en/concrete-deutsche-bank-report-solar-grid-parity-in-a-low-oil-price-era.htm
Those figures are about my expectation, though the panel cost has dropped faster than DB’s estimate, I’d expect $1.60/W total for 2017 or back to the $1.20 I’m finding retail plus ~$0.40 for installation.
here you go. A complete price list and BOM builder if you want. Kit’s too. Only the cheapest, least efficient panels (alone) are ~$0.60, not $0.30. Decent technology is closer to $1.00/w before infrastructure and installation.
http://www.freecleansolar.com/Solar-Panels-s/2.htm
The biggest problem in the solar debate is that we have:
– Tera, Giga, Mega, Kilo and 1 watt measures;
– per hour, per year, at maximum solar radiation of the daytime measures;
– 5 or 10 or 15 year lifespans;
– basic panels, panels with installation, panels with installation and electricians; with batteries;
– with government subsidies or not;
– with resale back to the utility or not;
– cloudiness is rarely taken into account, even by the biggest solar investors;
– nobody says in average conditions throughout a 24 hour day;
– what about winter.
The average consumer cannot tell what is economic or not. The average government decision-maker can easily fall for a sales pitch given all these variables.
At the end of the day, the physics is converting photons into electron flow. They are completely different things which most people do not understand.
Of course… once you have driven the cost of energy from the “non-renewable” sources high enough, you can cut the subsidies for renewables since they now look “cost competitive”. That was the plan all along…. drive up the cost of energy and force the populace to live with less while paying more to support the Progressive agenda. In California for instance, we are forced to turn off our air conditioners when it is “hot” outside or our heaters when it is “cold” outside because of the Progressive “Flex Alert”, or pay extremely punitive energy prices. Now, if renewables can compete with the true price of coal and natural gas electric (ie 10c a kwhr delivered to the customer which is was in the 1900s) then I’m all for renewables.
BINGO!
My kin in Cali just bought a 10Kw propane genset for ~ $1500 bucks. They lost a couple of expensive pet birds because of grid issues. Yes, they are nuts – but its Cali.
Poor Adam Smith must be doing gyrations in his grave, see http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/annual-fossil-fuel-subsidies-from-g20-total-452b-including-5b-from-australia-/news-story/132f7cd872e31c42dd52d5c3033512a6 .
Adam Smith already turns fast enough, he can account for the whole global warming since 1850, when socialism began to gain enough traction to be noticeable. Coincidence? I think not.
In Oz we still have the situation where the wholesale cost of electricity has risen from only 4.6 cents/Kwhr two years ago to 9.7 cents today. In addition to that price which all generators receive, wind/solar generators get to sell certificates worth 8 cents/KWhr. Competitive with coal or gas? I think not. But let’s stop the extra payments and find out.
Ouch, my retail gen cost is~6 cents/kWhr
and the sell to customer price in peak hrs is?
around 28 to 32c per kwh dep on what reseller n deal you get
I cannot understand why ‘renewable’ generation companies were able to get away with not supplying continuous power. If they tout that their wind farm will generate xMW then they should be held to this, rather than other sources backing them up at no cost to the wind farm.
Because the Govn’t gave them the “permission” to do so.
Actually it was to give them a leg-up on the competition/GettyImages-505156688-583b97695f9b58d5b15a0063.jpg)
Brown trousers all round in the boardrooms of “Renewables Australia”.
well addded to the green dacks i gues thatd pass for khaki
campbell when you get in sniffing range;-)
Perhaps Tacky Khaki
More important than the subsidy issue is the paragraph
If the situation where there is low or no wind for a week then the renewable operator will either have to commit to selling someone else’s electricity or not supply. If the someone else charges more than the going rate for that power then the renewable company has a problem If the renewable company decides not to supply then the grid operator may not come back if let down too often. Either way good news for the consumer I think.
Pity the day in advance wasn’t 3+ days that way the renewable operators would have a difficult life.
“Pity the day in advance wasn’t 3+ days…”
One day will suffice at the start. The important part is the concept, i.e., that if you promise power, you’ll provide it. At first the promise will be for one day and we’ll see if there are any renewable sources able to survive under that regimen. Maybe none will and that will be that (and we’ll be able to see a lowering of the cost of electricity as we return to stable sources again.) But if they can survive, it will be relatively easy to increase the number of days guaranteed from one day to two days, etc.
As I said, the important part is the concept: if you promise power, then deliver power.
In a commodity market, contracts for future delivery are the norm.
Just felt a huge rush of air … looking …. yep, its Elon Musk heading for the exit !
Well, he has his money, so why not? If the SA Govn’t is fool enough, fools will be parted with their money before the door closes behind the foolster!
Is that the squealing of stuck pigs I can hear in the background?