Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister(climatechangenews.com)
climatechangenews.com
Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/18/solar-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-says-india-energy-minister/
255 comments
Great! If he's right, we don't have to do anything, right? No direct subsidies, no feed-in tariffs, no cheap loans, etc. We can just let it happen!.
Your use of the suspiciously specific phrase "direct subsidies" suggests that you already know that coal receives plenty of government subsidies and that if those were removed, and coal had to account for the damage it does, then yes it would just happen.
>Your use of the suspiciously specific phrase "direct subsidies"...
Was to contrast cash grants from other forms of subsidies like feed-in tariffs, cheap loans, net-zero metering, etc. There's no reason to parse my comments like some kind of religious text - I will tell you what I mean.
Was to contrast cash grants from other forms of subsidies like feed-in tariffs, cheap loans, net-zero metering, etc. There's no reason to parse my comments like some kind of religious text - I will tell you what I mean.
It'll happen better with feed-in tariffs though.
And if it doesn't happen at all?
Say hello to another Permian-Triassic extinction event?
i don't get it, countries export electricity for ages. other than money and infrastructure, what are we missing so that we all, as a united humanity, use our shared sun to export, on a daily basis, electricity from the sun lit part of the planet to the other one. why must we still wait on the genius who will revolutionize batteries, considering we already have non stop sunlight. is this lack of political will? or is such a planetary scale effort impossible?
I don't know how things work in India, but it seems to me that big government backed projects in India don't quite work out.
The great thing about solar is NOT depending on government. If government puts the right regulation in place, that allows people to locally build solar cells on their houses, farms etc then that it where the great potential for solar power is. Not being dependent on central authorities doing their job.
Solar scales down so much better than coal and that is its real advantage for developing countries with weak governments and lots of red tape.
The great thing about solar is NOT depending on government. If government puts the right regulation in place, that allows people to locally build solar cells on their houses, farms etc then that it where the great potential for solar power is. Not being dependent on central authorities doing their job.
Solar scales down so much better than coal and that is its real advantage for developing countries with weak governments and lots of red tape.
In general I understand the principle of the argument, that the government is not as driven as private sector because there is strong incentive structures in private companies. But with some good management decent incentive structures in govt, it can also work. Case in point, the some of the Indian banks which were nationalized, the Indian railways(the largest rail network in the world), and in many Indian States govt. diary companies have worked decently well as well.
> it seems to me that big government backed projects in India don't quite work out
> The great thing about solar is NOT depending on government
We have these theories on the one hand, and the evidence of solar's success in India as a government program on the other. I'll take empirical evidence over hypothesis.
> The great thing about solar is NOT depending on government
We have these theories on the one hand, and the evidence of solar's success in India as a government program on the other. I'll take empirical evidence over hypothesis.
Who would have thought that India outdoes all the west when it comes to making sustainable growth.
Google CEO Indian. Microsoft CEO Indian.
Watch out all you fox news watching Americans.
Google CEO Indian. Microsoft CEO Indian.
Watch out all you fox news watching Americans.
I do think ambitious & driven Indians can do very well in a global market place. I think the stiff competition in resources have made the cream of India very competitive at a global level and we see things like Indian at Microsoft CEO position. But I dont buy your argument that Indians are outdoing the west yet(not saying it can't be done), but there have been more American CEO's in the fortune 500 than Indian CEOs.
You're going to claim that the Google CEO and Microsoft CEO being of Indian ethnicity somehow contributes to India's growth? I think it does the opposite, considering what people of their talent might or might not have achieved if they remained in India.
I'm not saying that they should have remained in India (far from it), but they chose not to so they could contribute to largely American growth.
I'm not saying that they should have remained in India (far from it), but they chose not to so they could contribute to largely American growth.
These are all red herrings from the most immensely important technology we must regulate....
We must put carbon capture technology on all coal plants as the immediate high impact stop-gap solution to CO2 emissions. I think the only way this happens is regulatory.
The general utility verdict on solar/wind is that it's good for displacing natural gas peaking in a small way.
We must put carbon capture technology on all coal plants as the immediate high impact stop-gap solution to CO2 emissions. I think the only way this happens is regulatory.
The general utility verdict on solar/wind is that it's good for displacing natural gas peaking in a small way.
As the headline says, solar is already breaking even with coal and the projection is for it to continue to drop for some time, even without further big breakthroughs.
If you add carbon capture to coal, you decrease efficiency and increase costs to the point that it simply isn't viable. It's simpler to just regulate coal out of existence directly and replace it with a mix of gas/solar/wind/hydro/etc.
The only people who care about carbon capture for coal are those invested in coal. Everyone else sees it as pointless (though it may have applications for other carbon producing processes like concrete).
Solar and wind are ready for prime time, displacing peaker plants is just the beginning, solar will wipe out all contenders during daylight hours and then the stuff they displace into the off-peak hours will start getting eaten by storage that shifts solar into the evening.
If you add carbon capture to coal, you decrease efficiency and increase costs to the point that it simply isn't viable. It's simpler to just regulate coal out of existence directly and replace it with a mix of gas/solar/wind/hydro/etc.
The only people who care about carbon capture for coal are those invested in coal. Everyone else sees it as pointless (though it may have applications for other carbon producing processes like concrete).
Solar and wind are ready for prime time, displacing peaker plants is just the beginning, solar will wipe out all contenders during daylight hours and then the stuff they displace into the off-peak hours will start getting eaten by storage that shifts solar into the evening.
If you want to help make solar even cheaper, Genability is hiring a VP of Engineering and a full-stack developer.
http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html
http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html
1. The Indian government issues grandiose announcements of these sort on a regular basis. Each announcement is followed by international news waving their hands "it's happening!" followed by no follow up coverage when every single time the claims fall apart and the plan never happens.
2. "I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant." Someone's "I think" is a gut feeling by a government minister, not anything to do with reality.
3. The given cost comparison takes a one-time outlier lowest-price-ever in an auction to provide a 70Mw plant installation with certain assurances, with the overall average cost of the other technology. An invalid comparison, as well as inaccurate to imply that the lowest bid for 70Mw was also the bids for the other parts of the 420 mW projects.
2. "I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant." Someone's "I think" is a gut feeling by a government minister, not anything to do with reality.
3. The given cost comparison takes a one-time outlier lowest-price-ever in an auction to provide a 70Mw plant installation with certain assurances, with the overall average cost of the other technology. An invalid comparison, as well as inaccurate to imply that the lowest bid for 70Mw was also the bids for the other parts of the 420 mW projects.
This is called Swanson's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law
"The future is solar" isn't some hippy fantasy, it's a sincere market projection. Apparently, a robust, distributed, decentralized, sustainable power grid is unbelievably the actual long-term direction of free-market forces.
"The future is solar" isn't some hippy fantasy, it's a sincere market projection. Apparently, a robust, distributed, decentralized, sustainable power grid is unbelievably the actual long-term direction of free-market forces.
There is some other interesting economics at play. Solar is more suitable for local, small scale production for a few reasons including relative costs and the way those costs are distributed (capital cost vs variable cost).
That in itself is interesting for all sorts of reasons, many of them applying to countries like India with infrastructure difficulties.
About 7 years ago I visited Cow Bay, north of Cairns, Australia and past the end of the grid (it ends at the Daintree river, I think). All the B&Bs, houses, hotels and such were running on Diesel generators. Smelly, noisy... People turn them off at night. I wonder if solar has replaced much of this yet.
If local solar reduces the need for power infrastructure in areas where marginal costs are highest, I wonder if the economics of grids changes in some sort of useful way generally. Maybe the cost savings in marginal infrastructure reduce overall costs meaningfully. If governments (or the quasi independent private energy players) are too broke or disfunctional to provide good central power, there's an alternative. When telcom infrastructure was simplified by mobile, that had a big impact in places that never had wired infrastructure in the first place but got mobile phones.
That in itself is interesting for all sorts of reasons, many of them applying to countries like India with infrastructure difficulties.
About 7 years ago I visited Cow Bay, north of Cairns, Australia and past the end of the grid (it ends at the Daintree river, I think). All the B&Bs, houses, hotels and such were running on Diesel generators. Smelly, noisy... People turn them off at night. I wonder if solar has replaced much of this yet.
If local solar reduces the need for power infrastructure in areas where marginal costs are highest, I wonder if the economics of grids changes in some sort of useful way generally. Maybe the cost savings in marginal infrastructure reduce overall costs meaningfully. If governments (or the quasi independent private energy players) are too broke or disfunctional to provide good central power, there's an alternative. When telcom infrastructure was simplified by mobile, that had a big impact in places that never had wired infrastructure in the first place but got mobile phones.
The same thing has played out in mobile telecom vs wired. The 3rd world has leap frogged those who had to move from wired to wireless. For residential, micro grids are a totally viable solution where bulk storage happens at what would have been the substation. Generation happens at the edges and point of use, storage happens on a block or neighborhood level. Absolutely required load at night can be pretty low.
Can't the same be said for local nuclear?
Erm.. I assumed when he said about capital vs marginal costs of solar it was because the capital is not too high(compared to coal and other power stations/generators). Wouldn't nuclear be the opposite. I can imagine proper waste disposal alone costing more than a solar setup.(I know the solar setup for a small farm-house was very cheap).
In the age of global terrorism, local nuclear is a no-go from the start.
Dirty bombs hardly make sense in terms of headcount, but their psychological effects would be tremendous. Therefore, security around nuclear installations will remain high - and that's easier to organize and cheaper around big, centralized stations.
Dirty bombs hardly make sense in terms of headcount, but their psychological effects would be tremendous. Therefore, security around nuclear installations will remain high - and that's easier to organize and cheaper around big, centralized stations.
Bill Gates disagrees http://terrapower.com/
Modern LFTR and TWR designs addresses most of your concerns and leaves the rest with less risk than the incumbent status quo.
Update your ken on nuclear, the current narrative is hurting as all deeply.
Modern LFTR and TWR designs addresses most of your concerns and leaves the rest with less risk than the incumbent status quo.
Update your ken on nuclear, the current narrative is hurting as all deeply.
[deleted]
absolutely. thorium and thorconpower.com comes to mind. Recent news on supersonic jet comebacks makes me optimistic that eventually someone is going to pickup nuclear and challenges the status quo.
Local nuclear is not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone who remembers Chernobyl's fallout across half of western Europe.
Which is a real pity as we traded the flu for cancer when we discarded nuclear in favour of carbon. What will those that will have to live through the fallout of the coal era have to remember ?
Chernobyl was not local nuclear. It was regional nuclear. People are investing a lot of money in this tech for some very good reasons.
No.
Astounding! Yet another example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy !
I dub your comment: Function_seven's Law of Meta-Astoundment.
You stole that from dang I'll bet.
Isn't "The Man" selling the solar panels though? Of course that is much less dependency than being connected to a power grid.
This will definitely lower the demand for coal, which in turn could lower its prices as well. This is good, because India might still need few coal power plants, considering its population size.
The important part here is that solar is still under heavy R&D with consistent real-world non-zero advances in efficiency and cost reduction while coal has, AFIAK plateaued. Even under perfect market conditions, solar will still, eventually price-cut coal.
Considering that India is making progress on nuclear, it would seem inevitable that they shut down a few if not all of them.
No! Solar is solar; depends on available sunlight. India is not going to shut any nuclear power plant and is working on new one or next phase of existing ones.
I believe the parent meant they'd shut down coal plants in favour of nuclear.
This is great news. Years ago it was considered an indisputable fact that solar (and wind) couldn't compete with the economics of coal and nuclear.
And it is still true, wind will be never be able to compete with nuclear for the simple fact that wind blows when it blows and you need energy when you need it. Unless we develop a technology that is able to cope with the huge spikes that windmills put on the energy grid and store energy in a very efficient way (including gaining the energy back when we need it) wind will not be more than few percentage of the overall energy production with the cost of having gas turbines in the system to just to balance windmills. Solar is obviously far better, there are few things to sort out but the progress we made is definitely promising.
Note that nuclear is also not exactly grid-friendly, since you cannot quickly change the power output of a nuclear power plant. They are useful for base load and nothing else.
This is not the definition of grid-friendly. I am just calling out that windmills could never serve as base power plant, and serving as peak power source has a serious side effect of requiring gas turbines to provide smooth energy production that does not stress the grid. You do not change the output of your base power plant on a daily basis, this is why it is called base. For the peak coverage you have something that is easy to change the performance of.
The Ludington Pumped Storage plant (the largest in the world at the time of construction) was built to store nuclear and use it for peaking.
So the same storage tech that is needed to increase the share of renewables we can rely on also makes things better for nuclear.
So the same storage tech that is needed to increase the share of renewables we can rely on also makes things better for nuclear.
>And it is still true, wind will be never be able to compete with nuclear for the simple fact that wind blows when it blows and you need energy when you need it. Unless we develop a technology that is able to cope with the huge spikes
A) The spikes aren't actually that huge (fossil fuel companies exaggerate, who knew?).
B) It's a problem that's relatively easily dealt with by overproducing and variable pricing. After years of championing free markets, fossil fuel companies 'forgot' that they are efficient mechanisms for mediating fluctuating demand and supply.
A) The spikes aren't actually that huge (fossil fuel companies exaggerate, who knew?).
B) It's a problem that's relatively easily dealt with by overproducing and variable pricing. After years of championing free markets, fossil fuel companies 'forgot' that they are efficient mechanisms for mediating fluctuating demand and supply.
Can you provide some info about how pumped storage doesn't cover this need? Because pumped storage was developed to deal with the huge spikes that user demand put on an energy grid that's mainly generated with nuclear.
Ok. Maybe I shouldn't lump wind together with solar.
Wind is getting cheaper and more reliable, too. I think I read that it's because we're building bigger wind turbines.
Wind actually provides power at night. Currently at night wind has to compete against cheap base load power which tends to be subsidized. If coal and nuclear plants are phased out the economics of wind is very attractive.
Absent any credible options you would certainly expect to be able to sell whatever power people could get their hands on.
I'm not sure I believe this. Is this due to subsidies on solar? Or taxes on coal? I'm not sure this headline is possible at face value.
Neither - just production-level economies of scale. Operating costs of solar are way below that of coal, and setup and manufacturing costs have dropped significantly with volume.
Note the comparison is for new installations - coal power is only cheap now because the massive construction expenses were sunk long ago. Constructing a coal plant is a huge expense, particularly as it has to be centralized because it makes no sense below a certain size. Whereas with solar you can have very small installations closer to point of use that are still financially sensible. You win on capex, you win on operating costs, and you win on transmission losses. Capital expense used to be much much higher a decade ago for solar, and emission standards for coal plants were not rigorously enforced for old installations, making coal appear cheaper. Of course, if you count the expenses related to the pollution and health damage done by coal plants, coal was always more expensive.
Note the comparison is for new installations - coal power is only cheap now because the massive construction expenses were sunk long ago. Constructing a coal plant is a huge expense, particularly as it has to be centralized because it makes no sense below a certain size. Whereas with solar you can have very small installations closer to point of use that are still financially sensible. You win on capex, you win on operating costs, and you win on transmission losses. Capital expense used to be much much higher a decade ago for solar, and emission standards for coal plants were not rigorously enforced for old installations, making coal appear cheaper. Of course, if you count the expenses related to the pollution and health damage done by coal plants, coal was always more expensive.
From the article: “Of course there are challenges of 24/7 power. We accept all of that – but we have been able to come up with a solar-based long term vision that is not subsidy based.”
Headline is not possible at face value except that it is.
Headline is not possible at face value except that it is.
As best I can tell India's government is currently spending billions of dollars on solar. Maybe it will some day not be subsidy based. But as best I can tell it currently is.
In fact the government appears to be spending one hundred billion dollars on solar in the next six years. By 2022.
Furthermore, "The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy provides 70 percent subsidy on the installation cost of a solar photovoltaic power plant in North-East states and 30 percentage subsidy on other regions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India
I'm all for renewable energy. Solar is great. At this point I don't see how the headline isn't clickbait bullshit.
In fact the government appears to be spending one hundred billion dollars on solar in the next six years. By 2022.
Furthermore, "The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy provides 70 percent subsidy on the installation cost of a solar photovoltaic power plant in North-East states and 30 percentage subsidy on other regions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India
I'm all for renewable energy. Solar is great. At this point I don't see how the headline isn't clickbait bullshit.
They have to subsidize solar a bit so it can compete with the huge subsidies for carbon based fuels.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
Why is this guy getting downvoted?
There are multiple people saying "sounds too good to be true, but it isn't. Solar is great because I said so!". This guy provides evidence to support that it is not true and gets downvoted? Wut?
For the umptieth time HN hears only what it wants to hear.
There are multiple people saying "sounds too good to be true, but it isn't. Solar is great because I said so!". This guy provides evidence to support that it is not true and gets downvoted? Wut?
For the umptieth time HN hears only what it wants to hear.
Indeed. The HN hive mind is strong. Post oatmeal commentary about favorite subjects and receive up votes.
The headline's accurate in that India energy minister said "solar is now cheaper than coal." Doesn't necessarily mean solar is actually cheaper than coal.
He said that? Can you please provide the quote?
Ok - it seems he tweeted rather than said it:
>“Through transparent auctions with a ready provision of land, transmission and the like, solar tariffs have come down below thermal power cost,” Goyal said in a tweet.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/22/solar-power-now-cheaper-...
>“Through transparent auctions with a ready provision of land, transmission and the like, solar tariffs have come down below thermal power cost,” Goyal said in a tweet.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/22/solar-power-now-cheaper-...
There are very little subsidies for Wind and Solar in India. MNRCE subsidies are for specific projects. The vast majority are tenders or auctions. Developers bid a tarrif whatever they feel their Return on Assets can bear.
See here for more https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11520789
See here for more https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11520789
The developing world is in somewhat unique position. They can skip generations of technology - they can start from latest and greatest - the smart choice when you have tabula rasa..
Also there labor cost, and the cost (and time) of navigating the political system to get permits are lower.
So a big project can be made a lot cheaper and faster from first shovel to producing electricity.
Also there labor cost, and the cost (and time) of navigating the political system to get permits are lower.
So a big project can be made a lot cheaper and faster from first shovel to producing electricity.
It's the lowest bid that the government got for generating power from third party vendors.
“I sincerely believe that what the West is doing in this respect is anti-development and anti the fight against climate change,” he said, accusing rich countries of charging too much for clean technology."
I really don't believe any country is sincere towards climate change. Every country puts their economy before others. So expecting another economy to help you is a foolish assumption.
I really don't believe any country is sincere towards climate change. Every country puts their economy before others. So expecting another economy to help you is a foolish assumption.
You are correct that every country puts their economy before others.
However, India is not asking another economy to help them. India can develop its solar energy sector by itself.
The west accuses the developing countries to be big polluters since they use less environmentally-friendly means of energy production. Then when countries like India try to subsidize the domestic solar energy market, WTO accuses them of illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers. Its like you are called a drug-addict first and when you try to wean off it on your own, you are accused of cheating the rehab centres. Excellent example of double standards.
However, India is not asking another economy to help them. India can develop its solar energy sector by itself.
The west accuses the developing countries to be big polluters since they use less environmentally-friendly means of energy production. Then when countries like India try to subsidize the domestic solar energy market, WTO accuses them of illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers. Its like you are called a drug-addict first and when you try to wean off it on your own, you are accused of cheating the rehab centres. Excellent example of double standards.
> India can develop its solar energy sector by itself.
Until the US sues them and the WTO rules against them. http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD2...
Until the US sues them and the WTO rules against them. http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD2...
can someone explain to me how EU/US can heavy handedly protect their own agriculture and not violate the same rules? How is energy infrastructure not part of the same exemptions (assuming that those exist)?
Short version: Agriculture is one of the classic areas where countries usually said "no, we want to be independent, all the talk about free markets aside" .. That was the case when GATT[1] was still active (a framework, which built the base of the WTO), then came the Uruquay round[2] which established the WTO and stated that we now really, really have to find a way to include agriculture, which lead to the Doha round that ran since 2001 and more or less broke down in 2007/2008 - mainly over the issue of agricultural protection. Since then, nothing happened[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round
IMO it makes quite a bit of sense to exclude a few areas from enforced free trade. Otherwise we could as well argue that countries must allow a free market for acquiring military services. The thing is, it's silly to only do this for agriculture. There's a few areas that are vital for a nation to have some sense of independence, and allowing the protection of energy infrastructure is certainly one of them.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer a world without the need for nation states and borders - but as long as we do have them IMO some of these international organisations are overstepping, and WTO is near the top of that list.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer a world without the need for nation states and borders - but as long as we do have them IMO some of these international organisations are overstepping, and WTO is near the top of that list.
You need to be a pretty big country with a wide variety of natural resources to be truly independent (for instance, your "independent" agriculture is only independent if you have domestically produced fuel, fertilizer and machinery, etc. etc.) In today's world I think it's pretty tough (how many countries have their own chip fabs and how many don't? Chips go into a whole lot of products indirectly, etc.)
Of course having to protect this very wide range of domestic industries to maintain true independence will result in a huge loss of economic efficiency; so even if it is done right (without an "oops, we forgot the bit about the fertilizer" issue), not only do you have to be a rather large country with a lot of resources, you also have to accept a significantly lower standard of living and a degree of backwardness.
How much it helps I'm not sure; Britain for instance managed to feed itself during WWII even though it relied on its navy for food shipments and of course its cargo ships were constantly attacked. Certainly it did better than it would without a strong navy but with an independent domestic agriculture, since it would have been invaded.
On the other hand, presumably importing vitally important things without exporting vitally important things in return might put you in a bad bargaining position in international politics in times of peace, and maybe then domestic industries making sure that you can survive without imports are helpful; though even that doesn't seem like a huge problem unless you're importing from a cartel (and even very powerful cartels sometimes break down, the way OPEC did recently.)
As to agriculture - I sincerely think it's protected because producers simply bribe the people in the government; there was even research that the more concentrated and bigger ag producers are in a country, the more protected they are (even though a lot of the nominal arguments for protection are much stronger with many small producers than with few large ones typically employing fewer people), though I didn't look deeply into it and perhaps the researcher was biased by expecting this conclusion.
Of course having to protect this very wide range of domestic industries to maintain true independence will result in a huge loss of economic efficiency; so even if it is done right (without an "oops, we forgot the bit about the fertilizer" issue), not only do you have to be a rather large country with a lot of resources, you also have to accept a significantly lower standard of living and a degree of backwardness.
How much it helps I'm not sure; Britain for instance managed to feed itself during WWII even though it relied on its navy for food shipments and of course its cargo ships were constantly attacked. Certainly it did better than it would without a strong navy but with an independent domestic agriculture, since it would have been invaded.
On the other hand, presumably importing vitally important things without exporting vitally important things in return might put you in a bad bargaining position in international politics in times of peace, and maybe then domestic industries making sure that you can survive without imports are helpful; though even that doesn't seem like a huge problem unless you're importing from a cartel (and even very powerful cartels sometimes break down, the way OPEC did recently.)
As to agriculture - I sincerely think it's protected because producers simply bribe the people in the government; there was even research that the more concentrated and bigger ag producers are in a country, the more protected they are (even though a lot of the nominal arguments for protection are much stronger with many small producers than with few large ones typically employing fewer people), though I didn't look deeply into it and perhaps the researcher was biased by expecting this conclusion.
I agree with pretty much all you wrote - but I also don't think it's an actual counterargument. I never wrote that nation states should try to be fully independant as that is either futile or highly inefficient. However what India shows here is IMO a good example of a middle ground - you don't have to create everything from scratch, but it might be healthy to just mandate some percentage of vital infrastructure to be domestic, just as a reinsurance for when things go sour.
I dunno, you have to look at the cost side of these things and I'm not qualified in this instance. AFAIK India still protects its handloom manufacturers which IMO is madness cost-wise, but of course there's merit into looking at it on a case by case basis. I think the trouble with protectionism is you might end up subsidizing an inefficient domestic industry indefinitely; and I don't think "reinsurance" is a valid argument most of the time (there's usually enough sellers whom you can buy from even when things are very sour, and not having lost money on inefficient domestic production will keep you rich enough to afford it when things go sour), the valid argument IMO is you want to have a Korean auto company and you doubt that the first few cars it'll make will be able to compete with imported cars so you protect it. But what made this work great in Korea but not so great in India (which AFAIK produced pretty bad cars for internal market under similar protections for many decades) I'm not quite sure.
The EU/US make the rules.
India wants 8% domestic production, and the US has a cry. What a bully. How does the WTO enforce that sort of ruling? India has The Bomb.
America believes in free trade as long as they are able to crush the competition like a bug even before it gets started off the ground.
If you can have local producers that have 8% market share, then they might actually have a sliver of a chance to survive and compete in the market place, and thats unacceptable. Yep, free and fair.
When South Africa (where I live), violated trade rules and put up barriers to US chicken imports, the US retaliated with barriers to the importation of some SA goods into the US. Eventually, SA gave in and removed the barriers.
IMHO Free trade of commodities (food, solar cells etc.) is a good thing.
IMHO Free trade of commodities (food, solar cells etc.) is a good thing.
But I think the US has their launch codes
So what you're saying is that without a local content requirement India is incapable of making competitive solar cells. I don't believe that's true. I think the local content requirement was simply a gift to politically well connected Indian firms. The Indian people should be thanking the WTO in this case, that rather than serving the interests of the crony capitalists, the interests of the people are being served.
Few countries have been damaged as much by protectionism as has India, and fewer have had such great gains by its gradual elimination.
Few countries have been damaged as much by protectionism as has India, and fewer have had such great gains by its gradual elimination.
> Then when countries like India try to subsidize the domestic solar energy market, WTO accuses them of illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers.
Doesn't EU do the same (i.e. tax Chinese solar panels to support local producers)?!
Doesn't EU do the same (i.e. tax Chinese solar panels to support local producers)?!
Subsidizing local producers is against the rules, taxing foreign producers is not.
Don't expect logic, empiricism, or any kind of sanity to hold in international trade policies.
Don't expect logic, empiricism, or any kind of sanity to hold in international trade policies.
India is subsidizing only local solar panels, that's the issue. I think if all solar panels were subsidized, then that would be fine.
Thanks, this clarifies the intentions of the politicians. They couldn't care less about solar; they just want to help out their cronies. If they subsidized all panels, the Indian firms would probably go out of business while the average Indian got better, cheaper panels from the world leader, China.
The WTO should STFU in this particular case. It is clearly something that needs to be done, and many western countries also subsidize markets they want to stimulate. It is unreasonable to expect India to play by stupid rules that the US and EU constantly violate.
> many western countries also subsidize markets they want to stimulate
Subsidizing markets is different to favouring local suppliers. For instance, Germany's feed in tariffs subsidized solar, but it didn't distinguish between German, American and Chinese manufacturers, and that policy is a major reason why solar prices have come down so much - Germany almost single-handedly supported the scaling up of capacity, and scaling down of cost of the global solar industry, from about $20/W down to $2/W.
Subsidizing markets is different to favouring local suppliers. For instance, Germany's feed in tariffs subsidized solar, but it didn't distinguish between German, American and Chinese manufacturers, and that policy is a major reason why solar prices have come down so much - Germany almost single-handedly supported the scaling up of capacity, and scaling down of cost of the global solar industry, from about $20/W down to $2/W.
That is true. Still, I find it somewhat odd to expect a relatively poor country (per capita) to subsidize rich western companies. I'm for cutting developing countries some slack.
[deleted]
It's ironic that a couple of sentences after "accusing rich countries of charging too much" he's complaining about the WTO ruling "India was illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers." Either the evil foreigners are too expensive or too cheap requiring protection for local producers. Or both at the same time maybe.
Or maybe India does not want to bleed billions away with barely anything to show for it (Yes, they get the infrastructure, but the tech is proprietary and foreign and potentially an endless drain)
Instead they try to develop inhouse production that they own and have to cover the initial capital costs.
There was a theory in ~19th century that Portugal/Spain trading wine for machinery from Great Britain mean it was equal to growing said machinery on fields - Britain shot away technologically and that was that. (I can't find the name of the theory though :/)
Instead they try to develop inhouse production that they own and have to cover the initial capital costs.
There was a theory in ~19th century that Portugal/Spain trading wine for machinery from Great Britain mean it was equal to growing said machinery on fields - Britain shot away technologically and that was that. (I can't find the name of the theory though :/)
You are thinking of Ricardo's Comparative Advantage; and it is a little more complex than that they got machines: they traded for cloth, which was made with machines that the British then spent the time to improve and learn from, giving them eventual advantages in numerous other fields.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/free-trade-us-unemployment_b_...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/free-trade-us-unemployment_b_...
> Instead they try to develop inhouse production that they own and have to cover the initial capital costs.
Then provide tax credits and advantageous financing. A local content minimum insures that the local industry faces no incentive to become competitive and is simply a sinecure for well connected and politically powerful industrialists.
Then provide tax credits and advantageous financing. A local content minimum insures that the local industry faces no incentive to become competitive and is simply a sinecure for well connected and politically powerful industrialists.
It's a bit strange to say that "rich countries" are "charging too much for clean technology".
The countries generally don't own, operate or even develop the technology. The countries don't charge for it.
Individual companies, people, innovators make new technology, and they charge as much as they can, as much as the technology is worth to buyers.
If "rich countries" mess things up, it's through subsidies to solar, wind etc. which is suposedly bringing the price down, not up (though this may be inefficient).
Many countries in the so-called "developing" world, particularly those with oil-based economies such as Malaysia, Saudi-Arabia or Venezuela, are subsidising oil and coal based fuels to their population.
The countries generally don't own, operate or even develop the technology. The countries don't charge for it.
Individual companies, people, innovators make new technology, and they charge as much as they can, as much as the technology is worth to buyers.
If "rich countries" mess things up, it's through subsidies to solar, wind etc. which is suposedly bringing the price down, not up (though this may be inefficient).
Many countries in the so-called "developing" world, particularly those with oil-based economies such as Malaysia, Saudi-Arabia or Venezuela, are subsidising oil and coal based fuels to their population.
They are charging in the sense that the policies seeks to maintain the monopolies or positions of existing energy providers. An example being Spain where people have became energy independent, yet still have to pay to maintain the electricity companies infrastructure
You could argue that rich countries are charging too much from their own residents, but what does the energy minister of India have to complain about that? Spaniards certainly can complain about these policies, but I don't see how Piyush Goyal can.
> Every country puts their economy before others. So expecting another economy to help you is a foolish assumption.
Wealthy nations have been helping poorer ones for generations. Major institutions are devoted to it, such as the World Bank, World Health Organization, UNICEF, PEPFAR, and many, many more.
The world isn't entirely altruistic, of course, but there's a trendy notion these days, a sort of Ayn Randian (or Objectivist) idea, that it's entirely, unavoidably selfish, which is just as unrealistic.
Also, note that India is offering to help poorer nations with solar power, for free.
Wealthy nations have been helping poorer ones for generations. Major institutions are devoted to it, such as the World Bank, World Health Organization, UNICEF, PEPFAR, and many, many more.
The world isn't entirely altruistic, of course, but there's a trendy notion these days, a sort of Ayn Randian (or Objectivist) idea, that it's entirely, unavoidably selfish, which is just as unrealistic.
Also, note that India is offering to help poorer nations with solar power, for free.
>> "expecting another economy to help you is a foolish assumption."
He's not requesting other countries help them, he's requesting other countries help themselves. Dependence on coal and being a last major country to replace coal with solar is foolish. Engery defines economies, and solar is the future.
He's not requesting other countries help them, he's requesting other countries help themselves. Dependence on coal and being a last major country to replace coal with solar is foolish. Engery defines economies, and solar is the future.
They certainly are not. Here in the Netherlands we are mostly coal and gas based for electricity yet we want to (unrealistically) ban sales of fossil fuel powered cars. We also raised import taxes on Chinese solar panels, raising the price of solar installations significantly here. It's all for show.
Well, solar installs have still decreased in price overall. I'm writing this as they are in the middle of installing solar panels on my roof in the sunny Netherlands. ROI in <6 years, solar is doing well here. The refund of VAT (BTW) on the full cost of the install does imply the government is serious about solar, too.
Although I do agree government policy as a whole can be sorely lacking in some areas. The gentle, incremental approach has led us to fall behind almost all EU members in meeting renewable goals.
Although I do agree government policy as a whole can be sorely lacking in some areas. The gentle, incremental approach has led us to fall behind almost all EU members in meeting renewable goals.
Why would we raise prices on ANY solar panels? That seems self-defeating to me. It doesn't really matter where they come from. Any solar panels are good solar panels.
To stimulate local production. But local producers just raised their prices. And, when the new import tax was announced it immediately resulted in shortages because companies kept solar panels in stock to sell them after they raised their prices. Sounds like some good lobbying to me.
Shortages? Raised prices?
I've been tracking prices for solar for the last couple of years, and I've only seen them go down. Pulled the trigger and purchased our own install because they went down yet again this year.
I've been tracking prices for solar for the last couple of years, and I've only seen them go down. Pulled the trigger and purchased our own install because they went down yet again this year.
Google on "importheffing zonnepanelen" for the reports. I don't have solar panels, I just read the reports from time to time, your input is more valuable.
The excuse was that the Chinese were dumping and local solar industry in the US/EU needed protection. The likely actual reason was that fossil fuel companies demanded it and Obama/EU thought he/they could sell it to the public.
"I sincerely believe that what the West is doing in this respect is anti-development and anti the fight against climate change,” he said, accusing rich countries of charging too much for clean technology."
Look who is talking: http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/12/09/comparing-po...
Until countries like India do not take steps towards sustainable human population, these are all pointless games.
Look who is talking: http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/12/09/comparing-po...
Until countries like India do not take steps towards sustainable human population, these are all pointless games.
Sincerity varies. There can be economic advantages in moving towards renewables if you do it right as you develop new companies and technologies. One thing is for sure though, every oligarchy puts their mates before others.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/coalition-wants-to-build-1-2...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/coalition-wants-to-build-1-2...
It doesn't help that the developed countries want to flog off their increasingly-worthless coal reserves to developing countries.
I know, right? Why do those rich western countries like Indonesia and Colombia dump their worthless coal reserves into poor countries like the US, Germany, Japan and China?
Now comes the agonizing process of explaining this to many millions of people who have been propagandized by the coal lobby for decades. Hopefully we can also work in some best practices around these photovoltaics that leads to less pollution from the process of mining elements for them, and making them in the first place. It's still better than coal, but "better than coal" is a very low bar.
So his quote is
"I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant"
He thinks a NEW plant would give you costlier energy. Secondly, aren't the solar projects subsidized in a BIG way? I have seen many smart people say that solar is a sham. They say it's just an opportunist's play. Entrepreneurs want to get on the government's tit and the politicians are happy to portray themselves as environmentally friendly in front of the increasingly global warming wary voters.
If anyone can argue against that, please speak up. I haven't seen anything other than wishful thinking and naive people patting themselves on the back because someone got their hands on tax money.
"I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant"
He thinks a NEW plant would give you costlier energy. Secondly, aren't the solar projects subsidized in a BIG way? I have seen many smart people say that solar is a sham. They say it's just an opportunist's play. Entrepreneurs want to get on the government's tit and the politicians are happy to portray themselves as environmentally friendly in front of the increasingly global warming wary voters.
If anyone can argue against that, please speak up. I haven't seen anything other than wishful thinking and naive people patting themselves on the back because someone got their hands on tax money.
FTFA:
Capital costs [for solar] have fallen 60% in the past four years and could drop a further 40% reports Deutsche Bank
Solar energy prices hit a new record low in January with the auction of 420 megawatts in Rajasthan at 4.34 rupees a kilowatt-hour. In comparison coal tariffs range between 3-5 rupees/kWh.
You do the math.
Capital costs [for solar] have fallen 60% in the past four years and could drop a further 40% reports Deutsche Bank
Solar energy prices hit a new record low in January with the auction of 420 megawatts in Rajasthan at 4.34 rupees a kilowatt-hour. In comparison coal tariffs range between 3-5 rupees/kWh.
You do the math.
I can't do the math because there are no baselines. Talking about capex reduction in percentages doesn't tell me the overall picture. You also talk about energy prices, but are those prices subsidized?
All the talk about solar energy is making unfair comparisons and people are eating it up because it aligns with their wishful thinking. Just take as an example this article. The minister said that solar energy might be cheaper compared to energy from NEW coal plants. But everyone in here heard something else.
All the talk about solar energy is making unfair comparisons and people are eating it up because it aligns with their wishful thinking. Just take as an example this article. The minister said that solar energy might be cheaper compared to energy from NEW coal plants. But everyone in here heard something else.
No, not at all. see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11520789
Solar and wind is for the majority not subsidized in India.
What you are referring to is the Min of New and Renewable Energy offering a VGF "viability gap funding" for certain very large projects termed UMPPs (Ultra Mega Power Plants) of 1000-4000MW. These are few and take-up has been poor due to the execution complexities.
India is adding 15-20k MW of Solar and 10k MW of Wind per year - the vast majority of which is completely unsubsidized. State electricity distributors tender for plants, and private developers bid a tariff they feel will support their ROI.
Apart from the US and its PTC structure, most of the huge capacity additions happening in wind and solar in Europe, Asia, Africa, China and India are happening from pure private unsubsidized auctions for power.
Solar and wind is for the majority not subsidized in India.
What you are referring to is the Min of New and Renewable Energy offering a VGF "viability gap funding" for certain very large projects termed UMPPs (Ultra Mega Power Plants) of 1000-4000MW. These are few and take-up has been poor due to the execution complexities.
India is adding 15-20k MW of Solar and 10k MW of Wind per year - the vast majority of which is completely unsubsidized. State electricity distributors tender for plants, and private developers bid a tariff they feel will support their ROI.
Apart from the US and its PTC structure, most of the huge capacity additions happening in wind and solar in Europe, Asia, Africa, China and India are happening from pure private unsubsidized auctions for power.
>Apart from the US and its PTC structure, most of the huge capacity additions happening in wind and solar in Europe, Asia, Africa, China and India are happening from pure private unsubsidized auctions for power.
I don't want to enter into debates about the rest of the comment, but this is demonstratebly false in Europe from my experience as a EU citizen keeping an eye on funding programs and public discourse.
A quick google search says that the 2012 EC report on energy subsidies concluded close to 15 billion euros in subsidies for solar alone. The report DOES NOT include tax credits and DOES NOT include preferential lending support.
In addition, German citizen's bills have skyrocketed to the 2nd place (behind Denmark) because of solar power. German business refuses to eat up the solar power as part of a package because it will make them uncompetitive. This sentiment echoes around Europe, so I suggest you check your facts.
I don't even want to START on Chinese equipment manufacturers, many of whom face bankruptcy after the government dialed back on subsidies.
In all honesty, your opinion seems completely false based on the evidence I've seen.
I don't want to enter into debates about the rest of the comment, but this is demonstratebly false in Europe from my experience as a EU citizen keeping an eye on funding programs and public discourse.
A quick google search says that the 2012 EC report on energy subsidies concluded close to 15 billion euros in subsidies for solar alone. The report DOES NOT include tax credits and DOES NOT include preferential lending support.
In addition, German citizen's bills have skyrocketed to the 2nd place (behind Denmark) because of solar power. German business refuses to eat up the solar power as part of a package because it will make them uncompetitive. This sentiment echoes around Europe, so I suggest you check your facts.
I don't even want to START on Chinese equipment manufacturers, many of whom face bankruptcy after the government dialed back on subsidies.
In all honesty, your opinion seems completely false based on the evidence I've seen.
> federal subsidies have provided wind and solar developers with as much as $24 billion from 2008 to 2014, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
-- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/say-goodby...
Absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine if we spent $4BN annually on nuclear energy and public outreach on how it isn't dangerous?
Yet another case where leftists would rather feel good than do good.
-- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/say-goodby...
Absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine if we spent $4BN annually on nuclear energy and public outreach on how it isn't dangerous?
Yet another case where leftists would rather feel good than do good.
We did. We do.
> We did. We do.
What a completely useless response. Why even bother commenting? Four words?
Since you can't be bothered to come up with a source, see pages 3-10 of the following document from the Congressional Budget Office. [1]
Renewables get the large majority of the cash, and nuclear isn't even close.
[1]: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...
What a completely useless response. Why even bother commenting? Four words?
Since you can't be bothered to come up with a source, see pages 3-10 of the following document from the Congressional Budget Office. [1]
Renewables get the large majority of the cash, and nuclear isn't even close.
[1]: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...
Well it's going to cost over $150 Billion to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Site, so shouldn't that be considered as government support of nuclear power?
To be honest, that's a very fair point and figuratively speaking, a kill-shot. I might be right that solar subsidies are never going to pay off, but at least we can be sure it's not going to suddenly fail, foot us with a bill for the clean-up, and poison innocent people.
You're ruining the narrative.
I don't think India subsidises solar power.
A quick google search says you are wrong. Can you back your thinking with some facts?
This is the carrot to the Paris Agreement's stick (which India and China refused to sign until the differentiation of developed and developing is added).
Its basically an attempt to show that as a country, we can move to cleaner power if the right technology transfer is supported by US and Europe. It is the second step after the agreement to transfer US nuclear energy tech to India (which has not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty).
I think the US govt will have to open up its technology and patents to be used by India - if the climate change deal needs to be ratified. Otherwise there is zero chance of it being passed in the Indian parliament.
Its basically an attempt to show that as a country, we can move to cleaner power if the right technology transfer is supported by US and Europe. It is the second step after the agreement to transfer US nuclear energy tech to India (which has not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty).
I think the US govt will have to open up its technology and patents to be used by India - if the climate change deal needs to be ratified. Otherwise there is zero chance of it being passed in the Indian parliament.
Sounds exciting!
Whatever the realities of the cost of solar, I tend to worry about a future in which we cover vast swaths of areas with solar panels and the impact such a thing will have on the environment. I don't know if anyone has done good studies on it.
A bunch other sustainable forms of energy have environmental problems. Wind generators cause harm to birds, geothermal electricity sources like in Hawai'i raise the temperature of bodies of water disrupting wildlife. Nuclear power comes with great risks of radiation leakage. Biofuel is hugely inefficient. It seems any solution comes with problems.
A bunch other sustainable forms of energy have environmental problems. Wind generators cause harm to birds, geothermal electricity sources like in Hawai'i raise the temperature of bodies of water disrupting wildlife. Nuclear power comes with great risks of radiation leakage. Biofuel is hugely inefficient. It seems any solution comes with problems.
> Wind generators cause harm to birds
Domestic cats kill 1.3 .. 4.0 billion birds a year just in the US:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billi...
Even the high estimates for bird kills by windmills are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower:
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-...
Domestic cats kill 1.3 .. 4.0 billion birds a year just in the US:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billi...
Even the high estimates for bird kills by windmills are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower:
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-...
Those problems you cited all pale in comparison to global warming. It's a disingenuous comparison.
These problems pale in comparison partly because these sustainable forms of technology aren't being used any meaningful scale yet.
How much area do we have to cover with solar panels to power a largish metropolitan area?
How much area do we have to cover with solar panels to power a largish metropolitan area?
Rooftop solar could generate 38% of the US electrical energy. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65298.pdf
The best location for covering a large area of land for purposes of solar energy would arguably be a desert. "90% of the world’s population lives within range of a desert and could be supplied with solar electricity from there", says this article, which also shows you how much needs to be covered to supply the entire globe in theory: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/22/half-a-trillion-dollars-...
No it's not.
Solar panels must be free from dust to remain efficient, meaning you have to clean them, frequently, with water...
There are patents regarding ultrasonic cleaning of panels[1]. Not sure about actual products yet.
[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120285516
[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120285516
There is some type of coating that doesn't allow anything to stick to it. That is a start. I think is called enduroshield. It is not a permanent solution because it wears down but it would help.
The desert is full of life that would be impacted by these panels.
As compared to the environmental impact of coal, oil and gas, really? Are you joking?
Depends. If you assume that w/m^2 still have some growth and that solar panels will be as common on houses as front lawns, and that energy efficiency will continue to rise, it may be appreciably near zero; especially if the average future home becomes a net energy source (These are called zero energy buildings, or ZNE) and we still use wind, geothermal, tidal etc...
If you get high deployment in places with high urban sprawl (lots of rooftops), the long term prospects (say 35 years) negative power bills may become the norm - I know a number of people that already have them.
There's been dramatic gains in solar output and power efficiency in the past few years. The trajectories are looking good.
If you get high deployment in places with high urban sprawl (lots of rooftops), the long term prospects (say 35 years) negative power bills may become the norm - I know a number of people that already have them.
There's been dramatic gains in solar output and power efficiency in the past few years. The trajectories are looking good.
> w/m^2 still have some growth
There's a pretty solid upper-bound on that.
There's a pretty solid upper-bound on that.
In solutions that don't require unobtanium, current cells are arguably only about 1/4th of the way there. In solutions that have been constructed regardless of cost, it's still not 1/2 the way.
I think seeing another 100% gain in affordable solutions is conservative, since 400% is what's possible.
I think seeing another 100% gain in affordable solutions is conservative, since 400% is what's possible.
Sure, but a fourfold increase in efficiency does not lead to "effectively zero" land area over time, which is what you claimed.
If the vast majority of buildings used "negative" power (that is that they generated more back into the grid then they took out) due to small scale power generation on premises, then the net effect may not dictate a need for a grandiose centralized solution.
When people compare say a million homes power needs, which is about 1000Gwh/month, in the non-distributed systems you need a 1000Gwh/month solution (think nuclear). However, this hypothetical 4-fold increase in efficiency would need only 7 solar panel (1.6m x 1m) per house for a net zero need distributed system.
If the right market incentives were there, and in a future market anticipating the swanson curve, someone may install say 25 panels (18 in excess of their need) to generate monthly passive income ("fans" of solar have 30+ panels)
Under this model, someone would be powering their house and two of their neighbors.
You can see how this can add up with the right market structure.
My argument is that in a world of a free-market entrepreneurial energy, you won't need a centralized power generator capable of powering 1 million homes. In fact, you may not need centralized power generation at all.
The future problems aren't going to be in power generation, but in storage.
When people compare say a million homes power needs, which is about 1000Gwh/month, in the non-distributed systems you need a 1000Gwh/month solution (think nuclear). However, this hypothetical 4-fold increase in efficiency would need only 7 solar panel (1.6m x 1m) per house for a net zero need distributed system.
If the right market incentives were there, and in a future market anticipating the swanson curve, someone may install say 25 panels (18 in excess of their need) to generate monthly passive income ("fans" of solar have 30+ panels)
Under this model, someone would be powering their house and two of their neighbors.
You can see how this can add up with the right market structure.
My argument is that in a world of a free-market entrepreneurial energy, you won't need a centralized power generator capable of powering 1 million homes. In fact, you may not need centralized power generation at all.
The future problems aren't going to be in power generation, but in storage.
> Wind generators cause harm to birds
This is an often repeated exaggeration.
The Australian government did a study on this[1] as it was claimed that the Orange-bellied Parrot (an endangered species) was at risk from wind farm developments. They concluded:
"The potential threat that wind farm developments in Tasmania, western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia pose to the Orange-bellied Parrot has been quantified in the Wind farm Birdstrike Cumulative Risk Assessment Report (Smales et al. 2005). The assessment report concluded that the predicted annual cumulative mortality rate from all the wind farms modelled corresponds to an additional Orange-bellied Parrot mortality of around one bird per year."
The full study. "Wind farm collision risk for birds" can be found at [2].
[1]: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspe...
[2]: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2d42fcb...
This is an often repeated exaggeration.
The Australian government did a study on this[1] as it was claimed that the Orange-bellied Parrot (an endangered species) was at risk from wind farm developments. They concluded:
"The potential threat that wind farm developments in Tasmania, western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia pose to the Orange-bellied Parrot has been quantified in the Wind farm Birdstrike Cumulative Risk Assessment Report (Smales et al. 2005). The assessment report concluded that the predicted annual cumulative mortality rate from all the wind farms modelled corresponds to an additional Orange-bellied Parrot mortality of around one bird per year."
The full study. "Wind farm collision risk for birds" can be found at [2].
[1]: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspe...
[2]: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2d42fcb...
Which can also be alleviated by reducing the local cat population by 0.2%
I once drove from Sydney to Cooktown (according to Google, 30hrs over 2720.4km, which sounds about right) and horribly managed to kill 2 birds, 1 wombat and 1 wallaby. I'd hate to think what the truck transport industry kills with every single trip compared to this apparent risk from wind-farms.
Last month I drove from Launceston to Scottsdale, I stopped counting dead wallabys at I recon about 120 (pademelons propably, hard to tell if their spread so thin). Many of those were in pairs, a bigger smear, followed by a smaller, joey-sized smear... Amazingly I only almost killed one, and managed to drive over a echidna (missed him)
Took the fun edge of an otherwise very pleasant island trip.
Took the fun edge of an otherwise very pleasant island trip.
A colleague recalls a trip from Perth to Port Hedland on a overnight bus when she was doing picking up north as a student. Bus has a formidable roo-bar. During the night she was constantly woken up by annoying "pings" from the front. Early morning se got off at a stop to take a piss and witnessed the driver hosing of the roo bar. Something he did at most stops up.
Surface Area of solar panels needed to power the world:
http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08...
Its less than you think. Most of them could be on rooftops.
http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08...
Its less than you think. Most of them could be on rooftops.
> I don't know if anyone has done good studies on it.
And why would they! If an industry or country can get an advantage out of a renewable tech, it's not in their interests to fund studies if they could give the wrong answers. That's the reality of it. Biofuel was a good case in point, it's proponents are now back peddling pretty fast. The drive to profit forbids foresight.
You can add diesel cars, electric cars, and CFD, LED bulbs to that list too.
And why would they! If an industry or country can get an advantage out of a renewable tech, it's not in their interests to fund studies if they could give the wrong answers. That's the reality of it. Biofuel was a good case in point, it's proponents are now back peddling pretty fast. The drive to profit forbids foresight.
You can add diesel cars, electric cars, and CFD, LED bulbs to that list too.
Have a look at this picture - it shows the total area needed to be covered by solar to power the whole world. With efficient energy transmission technology the area is negligilbe.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/07/17/2D2AF4010000057...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/07/17/2D2AF4010000057...
It will probably be less worrysome than what we do today, covering a lot of the earth with animals that is horrible for the environment.
Humans are the only animals that seem to have a significant environmental impact.
Parent probably meant humans, or perhaps cattle as well...
> Whatever the realities of the cost of solar, I tend to worry about a future in which we cover vast swaths of areas with solar panels and the impact such a thing will have on the environment.
Compared to the downsides of coal and gas and the risks of nuclear? I really don't think you should worry.
Compared to the downsides of coal and gas and the risks of nuclear? I really don't think you should worry.
India has made huge investments in Solar and is gradually paying off.
1.World's first solar power airport is in India http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/technology/india-cochin-sola...
2.Solar power from dams http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-10/news...
1.World's first solar power airport is in India http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/technology/india-cochin-sola...
2.Solar power from dams http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-10/news...
Shameless plug: If you want to participate in India's progress towards bigger rooftop-solar, please consider joining http://www.oorjan.com. We believe we are doing something unique in leveraging banking and financial relationships to productize solar deployments. And looking for great devs right now - esp frontend :-)
Is solar viable for small installations without any subsidies ? I was recently looking at a 30KW proposal for a small enterprise in Tamil Nadu. The quoted price is Rs. 36 lakhs. At the rate of Rs 6.75 per unit, it doesn't even cover the interest costs. Does this match with your capex costs or is this way off ?
Solar is viable, you will be looking at a 6-7year payback on the system with interest, 36Lakhs is very high for a 30kW system. The prices should be in the range of 25-27L for an on grid system with a simple structure. Where in Tamil Nadu is this? Ping me if you are looking for more details(mail Id in profile), I work for a company that does solar installations.
Thanks for the reply. I could not find your mail id in your profile. You can send me an email to {My HN username}{at}gmail and I can send you more details
What we've found is it's immediately viable for commercial properties that make profits e.g. malls, workshops, small factories, petrol pumps, etc. The accelerated depreciation benefits mean you'll make your money back in little more than a year. If you own any such rooftop, this ought to be a no-brainer for you.
Even if you're not making profits (and so have no tax, and accelerated depreciation doesn't help you), commercial electricity rates in India are high, and you can expect break-even in about 3 years.
For residential consumers, break-even is 5-7 years, depending on which state you're in.
For your specific example, would need to know details to offer comments. At first glance, the quoted price seems way too high. Consider not installing batteries unless you absolutely must for your use-case.
Even if you're not making profits (and so have no tax, and accelerated depreciation doesn't help you), commercial electricity rates in India are high, and you can expect break-even in about 3 years.
For residential consumers, break-even is 5-7 years, depending on which state you're in.
For your specific example, would need to know details to offer comments. At first glance, the quoted price seems way too high. Consider not installing batteries unless you absolutely must for your use-case.
pretty cool. I dont know if you applied for YC this time, but I encourage you to do this for the next batch. Contact me if you need any gyaan.
Thanks - might just take you up on it!
Cheaper, or better subsidised? Politicians are usually quite keen to describe their pet projects as either cheap or free when in reality they're just taxpayer funded.
This was in my inbox this morning:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-inno...
Suggesting that costs are not falling fast enough to overcome value deflation. Seems quite US-focussed though. The numbers in the two articles don't seem directly comparable.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-inno...
Suggesting that costs are not falling fast enough to overcome value deflation. Seems quite US-focussed though. The numbers in the two articles don't seem directly comparable.
Great article. Sivaram's an impressive kid...
For the near term, financial engineers have not done solar any favors with recent "yieldco" abuses.[1] Though with value deflation, financial innovation and regulatory protection may not be able to save solar.
[1]http://on.wsj.com/1SW1BPH
For the near term, financial engineers have not done solar any favors with recent "yieldco" abuses.[1] Though with value deflation, financial innovation and regulatory protection may not be able to save solar.
[1]http://on.wsj.com/1SW1BPH
> Value Deflation.
When enough of the worlds billionaires and other powerful riffraff get spooked by climate change, you'll see carbon taxes imposed. And countries like China and India will simply phase out burning coal.
When enough of the worlds billionaires and other powerful riffraff get spooked by climate change, you'll see carbon taxes imposed. And countries like China and India will simply phase out burning coal.
This is being discussed at
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11520789
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11520789
We will need big wires to bring electricity to the dark side of the earth ;-)
You mean like this? :) http://www.pv-tech.org/news/asian-super-grid-could-get-go-ah...
Aren't warm countries incredibly suitable for solar power? I assume most of the electricity is used during the day for things like electric motors during the work hours and air-conditioning. So they don't need to store that energy to keep homes warm during the colder night (even if residential AC is kept running during the night it will consume less energy since the temperatures will fall)
Absolutely- factoring in refrigeration as well, it seems like an ideal location for widespread solar. On top of that, power transmission in a developing country would benefit a ton from decentralization. The tough aspects of managing a decentralized grid (sensing and load shedding) are much easier today than when the North American / European power grids were developed. I'd even wager to say that some non-industrial areas should push for HVDC transmission and start to move away from AC altogether. With most of our household amenities trending towards relatively low DC voltages, the AC losses don't seem as worthwhile if we can avoid it.
Interesting times for the energy economics and geopolitics. If people believe that solar(renewable energy) is getting cheaper, the prices of the oil is drop faster. And you don't want to keep holding to oil when the music stops.
I would argue this trend is showing off. The oil producing countries pumping out their oil, because they don't see value reducing the capacity, while the oil prices are historically low.
I would argue this trend is showing off. The oil producing countries pumping out their oil, because they don't see value reducing the capacity, while the oil prices are historically low.
> And you don't want to keep holding to oil when the music stops.
Or you want to be the only one holding to accessible oil, and pretty much sole provider of oil for plastics and other non-fuel petrochemical products.
Or you want to be the only one holding to accessible oil, and pretty much sole provider of oil for plastics and other non-fuel petrochemical products.
Yes. Still OPEC cartel doesn't seems to be working, neither does any kind monopoly. Given the wide and often conflicting interest between the oil producers I like to view this as less probable outcome.
With the amount of light we receive here in India, it's a shame this didn't happen sooner.
Only if it includes the price of all the overcapacity and storage required to produce baseload and still comes in lower can solar be considered to cheaper than coal (or more usefully whatever fossil/nuclear mix is actually currently providing that).
[deleted]
Solar is nuclear energy as Elon Musk has put it we have a reactor in the sky we can harness
Oh yes, let's credit Mr. Musk with recognizing the sun's potential.
I think that was an attribution for the qoute, not credit for inventing solar.
Various sci-fi authors wrote about that long before E. Musk was even born. I. Asimov is one for example.
[deleted]
Interesting...
A politician make a statement in a speech and HN eats it up as scientific truth.
People really can't leave their bubble worlds can they?
People really can't leave their bubble worlds can they?
There's quite a bit of disillusionment regarding the reality of energy production.
But solar is getting cheaper. Is anyone shocked?
But solar is getting cheaper. Is anyone shocked?
Any country using fossil fuels is stuck in the past; solar is the future, economies are driven by energy, and refusing to act on this is irresponsible.
So..., every industrial country in the world?...
I wish I lived in an alternate reality where the hippies and greens didn't effectively scuttle nuclear power development.
I wish I lived in an alternate reality where the hippies and greens didn't effectively scuttle nuclear power development.
When it comes to energy, there a lot of options, but doing nothing because you're stuck on your solution makes no sense.
Solar cost for domestic purpose
http://nedcap.gov.in/PDFs/Solar_Net_Metring/Indicative_Cost_...
Bit of a clickbait title, the article mentions only one case where solar was traded at a lower price than coal, which is still not lower than coal's average price. For a better comparison we should include the cost of manufacturing panels vs building coal plants and the money spent on r&d and pr. Also, afaik solar panels are not exactly eco friendly. I believe it is up to personal taste which power lobby agenda one buys in, for one, I see the most value in fission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
The minister being quoted explicitly compared cost of new solar installs versus cost of new coal installs - that's where the "cheaper than coal" quote was taken from, it's not about spot prices for solar energy (which are a senseless comparison anyway, as they go to zero and even negative in times of low demand)
EDIT: low demand, not high demand, of course
EDIT: low demand, not high demand, of course
Thanks for the clarification, it seemed to me that the writer was using these numbers to justify Goyal's claim. Without them we are left with the sentence that imo is worded exactly that way to reflect the minister's personal opinion/pr after Sun Edison bankruptcy. Which still makes it clickbaitish without any more facts.
Now that would be amazing in the USA if they could stop blowing up mountains and polluting the entire area, or dig filthy toxic mines just to extract coal, which is a horrible, horrible job for any human being (who will resist changing their job until the early day they die).
Too bad there is no "sexy" equivalent like a Tesla to make USA change from coal to solar/wind.
Too bad there is no "sexy" equivalent like a Tesla to make USA change from coal to solar/wind.
"Solar energy prices hit a new record low in January with the auction of 420 megawatts in Rajasthan at 4.34 rupees a kilowatt-hour. In comparison coal tariffs range between 3-5 rupees/kWh."
So the headline here is, as is usually the case with articles in this space, misleading at best. It's slightly cheaper than the highest-end coal, but dramatically more expensive - nearly 1.5X more - than the lower end. Overall, it's still more expensive, and that doesn't include the cost of batteries to deal with the fact that the sun sets each day.
To be sure, advances are being made in this space. But this headline is nothing more than clickbait.
So the headline here is, as is usually the case with articles in this space, misleading at best. It's slightly cheaper than the highest-end coal, but dramatically more expensive - nearly 1.5X more - than the lower end. Overall, it's still more expensive, and that doesn't include the cost of batteries to deal with the fact that the sun sets each day.
To be sure, advances are being made in this space. But this headline is nothing more than clickbait.
The comparison is between the cost of new installations - coal power is very cheap because the facilities are old and the capital expenses were sunk a long time ago. New solar power is now cheaper to build out than new coal plants, which is reasonable enough given the cost of both raw materials and production processes for solar had plummeted over the last decade whereas coal is a very mature technology that is effectively at the end of its efficiency curve (and getting worse over time as the cost of extraction grows).
>The comparison is between the cost of new installations
That may be, but that isn't what the headline says. It simply says that solar is cheaper than coal, which of course is not the case right now.
That may be, but that isn't what the headline says. It simply says that solar is cheaper than coal, which of course is not the case right now.
Yes, all solar installations are not cheaper than all coal installations.
But conversely, all coal is not cheaper than all solar!
That applies globally and in India.
The point is that solar costs are declining every year, by 10% p.a. In many sunny places it is already at parity or below (eg Arizona, Mexico, Rajasthan and Gujarat in India, Mexico). We have already seen several bids this year at US¢ 3/Kwh ($30/MWh). $20/MWh is in sight - that would be well under the cheapest coal.
This link is useful summary http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/15/why-energy-experts-are-s...
(And none of this accounts for the massive unpriced carbon + health externality of coal plants).
Coal is staying at best flat + whatever the fuel cost.
But conversely, all coal is not cheaper than all solar!
That applies globally and in India.
The point is that solar costs are declining every year, by 10% p.a. In many sunny places it is already at parity or below (eg Arizona, Mexico, Rajasthan and Gujarat in India, Mexico). We have already seen several bids this year at US¢ 3/Kwh ($30/MWh). $20/MWh is in sight - that would be well under the cheapest coal.
This link is useful summary http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/15/why-energy-experts-are-s...
(And none of this accounts for the massive unpriced carbon + health externality of coal plants).
Coal is staying at best flat + whatever the fuel cost.
> US¢ 3/Kwh ($30/MWh).
$30/MWh seems to be very very cheap. That is half the price of the lowest bid in India. Is there a source for that number?
$30/MWh seems to be very very cheap. That is half the price of the lowest bid in India. Is there a source for that number?
Dubai Nov 2014 - $58.40 per MWHr. See [1]
Austin July 2015 - $57.10 per MWh. See [2]
Nevada July 2015 - $38.7 per MWh. See [3]
Mexico April 2016 - $35.44 per MWh. See [4]
[1] http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/29/dubai-shatters-solar-tar...
[2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/02/worlds-cheapest-solar-po...
[3] http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/buffett-stri...
[4] http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Solar-Stuns-in-M...
Austin July 2015 - $57.10 per MWh. See [2]
Nevada July 2015 - $38.7 per MWh. See [3]
Mexico April 2016 - $35.44 per MWh. See [4]
[1] http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/29/dubai-shatters-solar-tar...
[2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/02/worlds-cheapest-solar-po...
[3] http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/buffett-stri...
[4] http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Solar-Stuns-in-M...
Short Headlines Omit Details, Experts Say
Seven Words Found Insufficient for Expressing Nuance
Headlines "Easy Targets" for Quibbling
Seven Words Found Insufficient for Expressing Nuance
Headlines "Easy Targets" for Quibbling
Sure, but you can't build an old coal plant. You can only build a new one.
True, but the externalities for coal are huge, as are the hidden subsidies. A fair comparison would also include those:
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/copy...
The important thing to note is that politicians are hopefully willing to act on this.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/copy...
The important thing to note is that politicians are hopefully willing to act on this.
Exactly. Huge externalities such as rising sea-levels, ocean acidification, etc. etc.
Takes political mechanisms to enforce those costs on polluters, so it's really important for solar to beat coal even in the presence of this hidden subsidy.
Solar does have externalities, as well. Solar panels aren't built from nothing.
And batteries neither, apparently
And batteries neither, apparently
No. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11524691
Why does solar always need batteries? These are not "advances". India is adding 20k MW of solar and 10k MW of wind p.a. China is at 20+20. US at 20+20. Europe at 20+20.
30% of all new power capacity additions globally will be from renewables for the foreseeable future. Probably more.
This is without "batteries". Without subsidies.
The need for "baseload", "storage", or "the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" are red herrings. They are not relevant.
Whether we like it or not, driven by massive cost and technology improvements, solar and wind are here in a massive way.
Why does solar always need batteries? These are not "advances". India is adding 20k MW of solar and 10k MW of wind p.a. China is at 20+20. US at 20+20. Europe at 20+20.
30% of all new power capacity additions globally will be from renewables for the foreseeable future. Probably more.
This is without "batteries". Without subsidies.
The need for "baseload", "storage", or "the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" are red herrings. They are not relevant.
Whether we like it or not, driven by massive cost and technology improvements, solar and wind are here in a massive way.
> The need for "baseload", "storage", or "the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" are red herrings. They are not relevant.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but how is my desire for electricity at night time "not relevant"?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but how is my desire for electricity at night time "not relevant"?
Haha. That's funny. Would the thought going through daytime renewables without batteries coincide with the idea to transition to natural gas or other power plants at night? I do not know if there would be problems here and observe the comments of all the great minds here usually, but I want to address the need to stop nuclear plants anywhere near faults or coastlines after reading the data of increasing shifting of our poles and daily earthquakes of low magnitude mostly, but a new thing for certain in my area of North Texas. Earthquake watch scared me last week after feeling and hearing two of enough strength to shake things up a bit. Until the observable large, dark objects in our solar system are reported on without disinformation and honesty, I truly believe we should be safe in case they are objects causing these great rifts. No need to argue, spread love and achieve more. I read so much here hoping to ring a mental bell and remember lost skills due to an accident and a coma. I just retained ability to learn in a new way of sorts and also want to thank all of you for your informational and technical posts.
The issue is for _new_ plants, not so much for replacement plants. These older plants can be used for base load where necessary; and in places like developed OECD nations which are seeing reductions in electricity generation year on year (not so much population growth, heavy industries moving to cheaper developing nations), the need for base load is going down.
Its not relevant to people who are prepared to sacrifice convenience for cost. Especially if night-time prices are directly linked to supply. Smarter devices will become available that use energy when its cheaply available. Long time storage will improve and spread the load, probably from smaller to larger scale. Base load is really an artefact of system and usage inefficiencies, not some inherent problem with renewables.
Exactly! If daytime electricity was cheap enough I would double the size of my refrigerator and fill it with water to increase thermal mass. At night time it would stay cold enough to not use any power. Almost all energy except lighting is good to go. My laptop already has enough power to last the evening. I just need a few watts for the router.
I live in central Texas and my biggest energy consumer is air conditioning. Rooftop solar makes a lot of sense for me because I use the most energy when the sun is shining. I've never seriously considered storage.
For sure. I lived in a house with solar + a few old car batteries and it wasn't bad at all.
Nobody is suggesting the grid go 100% solar.
>The need for "baseload", "storage", or "the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" are red herrings. They are not relevant.
They aren't red herrings they are poor excuses when used as a reason to not to expand renewable but they aren't without their merit.
We need to improve energy storage considerably to be able to push renewables to be actually a major part of the electric grid.
A a major part is a very important definition here because they need to be dependable, it's nice when you have a headlines that Denmark has reached 90% of it's energy production with wind for period X but we also need to put it into perspective that it was only a few hours in a single day on a specific year.
Solar and wind are being constantly improved it's true but we also need massive improvements in energy storage as well as to renew our interests in better and safer nuclear reactors to actually drive out Fossil Fuel completely and have an abundance of energy that could be used to improve everything around it.
Our energy goals shouldn't be aimed at something comparable to fossil fuel we should find ways to produce 10 times what we produce now in a cheap, reliable and environmentally sound fashion. If we have an abundance of electricity many other things can improve, we can stop sucking out out underground water and make desalination cheap for everyone, we can grow more crops faster reducing the amount of food, we can produce more at lower costs.
Energy is a much larger bottleneck than people assume, especially to developing countries, better energy production, better grids mean that everyone in Africa can get a water purified, an AC and a fridge, it also means that we can start treating the sewage which is a problem now in many parts of Africa where NGO's gave them a water pump and forgot that they also need plumbing and septic treatment facilities.
So while you might claim that solar and wind are here in a massive way, we haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg as far as energy production goes and where we should be. And sadly too many people in the environmental lobbies want to cut down on energy production rather than to increase it 10 fold.
They aren't red herrings they are poor excuses when used as a reason to not to expand renewable but they aren't without their merit.
We need to improve energy storage considerably to be able to push renewables to be actually a major part of the electric grid.
A a major part is a very important definition here because they need to be dependable, it's nice when you have a headlines that Denmark has reached 90% of it's energy production with wind for period X but we also need to put it into perspective that it was only a few hours in a single day on a specific year.
Solar and wind are being constantly improved it's true but we also need massive improvements in energy storage as well as to renew our interests in better and safer nuclear reactors to actually drive out Fossil Fuel completely and have an abundance of energy that could be used to improve everything around it.
Our energy goals shouldn't be aimed at something comparable to fossil fuel we should find ways to produce 10 times what we produce now in a cheap, reliable and environmentally sound fashion. If we have an abundance of electricity many other things can improve, we can stop sucking out out underground water and make desalination cheap for everyone, we can grow more crops faster reducing the amount of food, we can produce more at lower costs.
Energy is a much larger bottleneck than people assume, especially to developing countries, better energy production, better grids mean that everyone in Africa can get a water purified, an AC and a fridge, it also means that we can start treating the sewage which is a problem now in many parts of Africa where NGO's gave them a water pump and forgot that they also need plumbing and septic treatment facilities.
So while you might claim that solar and wind are here in a massive way, we haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg as far as energy production goes and where we should be. And sadly too many people in the environmental lobbies want to cut down on energy production rather than to increase it 10 fold.
Misinformed. Please see my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11524691
and these links would be helpful
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/02/base-load-power-is-a-myt...
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-p...
http://rameznaam.com/2016/01/31/how-far-can-renewables-go-pr...
and these links would be helpful
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/02/base-load-power-is-a-myt...
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-p...
http://rameznaam.com/2016/01/31/how-far-can-renewables-go-pr...
I'm not misinformed, you are looking for solutions for the current global energy production, I think we should increase it ten fold and that's only the beginning.
Solar power is great, but it will not flood the Sahara and the Simpson Desert, nor pump gigatons of C02 from the oceans or melt the oort asteroids into giant glass ball habitats for the billions of earth creatures that will live there one day. For that we need something a bit more energy dense. When the first commercial fusion reactor is sold, the vast majority of "renewable" installations will immediately become redundant.
The first commercial fusion reactor is (a) a long way off and (b) going to be tremendously expensive. Whereas solar and wind can be deployed today for reasonable prices, reducing our CO2 output.
I wouldn't be surprised if the first commercial fusion plant in the UK is built only after the 30 year design lifetime of my solar panels has passed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the first commercial fusion plant in the UK is built only after the 30 year design lifetime of my solar panels has passed.
Solar can do all of those things. The most useful thing to do with ort cloud objects is to get them closer to a star for cheap energy. Once you get the ball rolling it's easy to beam power out to the ort cloud.
PS: Remember there is no night in space. So that's 4 * (149,597,870,700) ^2 * 1.3kw for billions of years. After the stars die, then we can start using all that saved up hydrogen.
PS: Remember there is no night in space. So that's 4 * (149,597,870,700) ^2 * 1.3kw for billions of years. After the stars die, then we can start using all that saved up hydrogen.
Sure, but you have to concede that it is much more convenient having a small sun in your basement than having to deal with concentrating the energy from the giant ball in the sky. Especially if your halfway to Alpha Centauri. In which case the giant ball is little more than a bright star.
But, I'll be happy with your scenario too.
But, I'll be happy with your scenario too.
Where do we go after lithium iron phophate batteries as far as a galvanic chemical source for batteries?
Please help me the understand evidence that suggests we have somewhere on the periodic table to move to after Lithium batteries? (Lead Acid ----> NiCd ----> Lithium....now where do we go?)
How do we improve energy storage? Be very explicit about what data/evidence are driving your statements. Bold claims about energy storage increases are unusual given the energy realities of today.
How much natural gas peaking can solar/wind displace?
Please help me the understand evidence that suggests we have somewhere on the periodic table to move to after Lithium batteries? (Lead Acid ----> NiCd ----> Lithium....now where do we go?)
How do we improve energy storage? Be very explicit about what data/evidence are driving your statements. Bold claims about energy storage increases are unusual given the energy realities of today.
How much natural gas peaking can solar/wind displace?
Energy storage doesn't mean only batteries, we can store energy as heat, as kinetic energy for example by pumping air into under water tanks, and by quite a few other means.
As far as batteries go, the chemistry doesn't necessarily has to change that drastically the internal structure of batteries is always evolving and we are finding more ways to increase their efficiency.
And with advancements in nano technology new flow batteries are becoming more and more viable for long term energy storage Hydrogen–lithium batteries could offer 8-13 times the energy density of regular LiOn rechargeable batteries and modern flow batteries are just in their infancy.
Flow batteries are also very appealing to the automotive market because cars with batteries that run on nanoelectrofuels could be refueled just like petrol so once your battery runs out of charge you simply pump out the depleted solution and pump new one in.
As far as batteries go, the chemistry doesn't necessarily has to change that drastically the internal structure of batteries is always evolving and we are finding more ways to increase their efficiency.
And with advancements in nano technology new flow batteries are becoming more and more viable for long term energy storage Hydrogen–lithium batteries could offer 8-13 times the energy density of regular LiOn rechargeable batteries and modern flow batteries are just in their infancy.
Flow batteries are also very appealing to the automotive market because cars with batteries that run on nanoelectrofuels could be refueled just like petrol so once your battery runs out of charge you simply pump out the depleted solution and pump new one in.
One advantage of solar is the requirement for an electrical grid is lessened, when photovoltaics get cheap enough the requirement for a grid is eliminated.
The need for reliable energy or energy when the sun is not shining is critical important--according to the people of India. For example, according to this article in ClimateWire (a trade pub) http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060026477/
Dharnai, a community of about 3,200 people in eastern India's Bihar state, had been without electricity for three decades. So when activists with Greenpeace set up a solar-powered microgrid in July of 2014, the excitement was palpable. But, residents said, the problems started almost immediately.
When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, "We want real electricity, not fake electricity!"
By "real," they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By "fake," they meant solar.
Dharnai, a community of about 3,200 people in eastern India's Bihar state, had been without electricity for three decades. So when activists with Greenpeace set up a solar-powered microgrid in July of 2014, the excitement was palpable. But, residents said, the problems started almost immediately.
When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, "We want real electricity, not fake electricity!"
By "real," they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By "fake," they meant solar.
[deleted]
Greenpeace is a big scam. It's been banned in India under the current dispensation. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/greenpeace-india-claims-its-r...
>>http://dharnailive.org/
Not bad. They only generated ~2500 kWh electricity last week.
Giving anything for free is a thankless job. Almost anything given for free is almost certainly treated as worthless.
Not bad. They only generated ~2500 kWh electricity last week.
Giving anything for free is a thankless job. Almost anything given for free is almost certainly treated as worthless.
Your link is paywalled unfortunately?
India is quite capable of having unreliable power without solar. I agree that people should not be fobbed off with unreliable solutions, but that doesn't mean solar can't be a big part of the grid mix. It sounds like the activist microgrid was inadequate.
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-what-is-the-real...
"It is believed that, out of the 70 million tonne of diesel consumed in the country per year, about 20% or 14 million tonne is used in captive power generation."
India is quite capable of having unreliable power without solar. I agree that people should not be fobbed off with unreliable solutions, but that doesn't mean solar can't be a big part of the grid mix. It sounds like the activist microgrid was inadequate.
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-what-is-the-real...
"It is believed that, out of the 70 million tonne of diesel consumed in the country per year, about 20% or 14 million tonne is used in captive power generation."
But it is not cheaper than coal, which is what the headline says and was the impetus of my comment. I'm happy to see the costs going down, and maybe one day it will be competitively priced. But that day is not today.
Your own link has a link showing California is already running into these problems you say are not problems:
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-...
Batteries are obviously not the only solution - a more connected grid would push the problem into the future, but to claim this is not a relevant problem is ignoring something that is already manifesting.
Batteries are obviously not the only solution - a more connected grid would push the problem into the future, but to claim this is not a relevant problem is ignoring something that is already manifesting.
the requiremnt for baseload is not a read herring.
No, but its much less of an issue that its made out to be. It is an argument, but not a particularly strong one.
A much better argument is that we want and need many orders of magnitude more energy to do the things than need to be done. And renewables are not energy dense enough for that.
A much better argument is that we want and need many orders of magnitude more energy to do the things than need to be done. And renewables are not energy dense enough for that.
Rajasthan is mostly an arid desert with huge amount of area where nothing can grow. Solar power is an ideal fit for amount unused land available.
Given how much electricity is burned in hot countries for airconditioning, electricity that works during the day is no bad thing.
It is cost to implement a new renewable energy source (solar power) based power plant vs a non-renewable energy source (coal) based power plant. I would have been happy even if the cost to build a solar power plant was 10 times the cost of a coal based plant as the latter has a negative long term impact on health and environment. The very fact that it is just 1.5 times the lower end of coal tariff is something to be happy about.
India has National Solar Mission. It has differential pricing for solar vs other means govt subsidizes solar power for it to compete with coal. When the govt started this programme about 8 years back, cost was around INR17 per kwh. It has come down to a level where it can actually compete with coal during day times of high load. That is pretty significant.
Thanks for vetting this for all of us. We've inserted "some" before "coal" in the title above.
I think that you have to assume that they don't need batteries (it turns out that there are other sources of power), that the cost is actually included in the auctioned price or that they are making a safe bet that they can sell it at a loss based on predictions of future costs.
Why would bring up batteries? Solar for the moment isn't about all or nothing electricity, it is about cost and if it beats coal in the cost per kw/hr then that is electricity that doesn't need to be generated by coal.
Many Indians already have backup battery systems because the grid, even in big cities, is so unreliable. This may make the switch to solar less burdensome, at least from a cogmitive point of view.
Many Indians already have backup battery systems because the grid, even in big cities, is so unreliable. This may make the switch to solar less burdensome, at least cognitively, if not practically.
The real winners of the current movement towards decentralized tech (mobile phones, solar etc) will be BRICS and developing countries, if only they can keep their political systems consistent enough.
The beauty of decentralised systems like these is that they make central governtment less relevant. This is generally a good thing, but particularly so in place with less stable political systems.
Eat your heart out Tony Abbott!
Unfortunately, the Australian Government, which under the Labor Party was trying to phase out polluting industries via a Carbon Tax and then an ETS were voted out of power due to their own cromulence and internal dysfunction.
We then got one Anthony John Abbott as the new Prime Minister who was backed by Joseph Benedict Hockey, his Treasurer.
Joe Hockey attempted to shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and said the following:
"If I can be a little indulgent please, I drive to Canberra to go to Parliament, I drive myself and I must say I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive. I think they're just a blight on the landscape."
The first thing that the Abbott government did once they got into power was roll back the mining tax and stop the ETS. Tony Abbott said:
"Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world."
Abbott lasted just under two years before his even more dysfunctional government (which barely passed any legislation and whose leader was the most unpopular and incompetent Australian leader of recent history) came to an ignominious end and Malcolm Turnbull was reinstated as the leader of the LNP, and thus was elevated from backbencher to leader of Australia.
I am hopeful that Malcolm Turnbull can turn this around, but I think it's unlikely. Much of Australia's wealth is derived from coal exports, even though it never actually employed a large proportion of the Australian population (and employs even less now as there have been a lot of mine closures, especially in the Hunter area of NSW).
Sadly, we squandered the huge wealth that it generated and although the Labor party made a start towards transitioning to a clean energy economy, it has all been rolled back in only two years and the momentum they got going is unlikely to be reestablished any time soon.
Our leaders have let us down badly, and Abbott's risky bet on coal is going to cause Australia a lot of problems in the years ahead.
Unfortunately, the Australian Government, which under the Labor Party was trying to phase out polluting industries via a Carbon Tax and then an ETS were voted out of power due to their own cromulence and internal dysfunction.
We then got one Anthony John Abbott as the new Prime Minister who was backed by Joseph Benedict Hockey, his Treasurer.
Joe Hockey attempted to shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and said the following:
"If I can be a little indulgent please, I drive to Canberra to go to Parliament, I drive myself and I must say I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive. I think they're just a blight on the landscape."
The first thing that the Abbott government did once they got into power was roll back the mining tax and stop the ETS. Tony Abbott said:
"Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world."
Abbott lasted just under two years before his even more dysfunctional government (which barely passed any legislation and whose leader was the most unpopular and incompetent Australian leader of recent history) came to an ignominious end and Malcolm Turnbull was reinstated as the leader of the LNP, and thus was elevated from backbencher to leader of Australia.
I am hopeful that Malcolm Turnbull can turn this around, but I think it's unlikely. Much of Australia's wealth is derived from coal exports, even though it never actually employed a large proportion of the Australian population (and employs even less now as there have been a lot of mine closures, especially in the Hunter area of NSW).
Sadly, we squandered the huge wealth that it generated and although the Labor party made a start towards transitioning to a clean energy economy, it has all been rolled back in only two years and the momentum they got going is unlikely to be reestablished any time soon.
Our leaders have let us down badly, and Abbott's risky bet on coal is going to cause Australia a lot of problems in the years ahead.
Especially in the monsoon season.