On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that utility-grade solar panels have hit cost targets set for 2020, three years ahead of schedule.
Solar isn't just competitive with other sources of electricity, it's actually cheaper (even without any subsidies) than most. And the cheapest (gas turbine) is getting more expensive while solar is getting cheaper. Tipping point, here we come!
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/solar-now-costs-6-per-kilowatt-hour-beating-government-goal-by-3-years/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
su ann lim of possible interest.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you follow National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL but they have been talking about this.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bump I do now!
ReplyDeleteJohn Bump As do I. Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteIn my dreams, some day I manage to get a job there, so I watch their stuff. It's a fantastic place to tour.
ReplyDeleteCurrent Industry Pricing trends
ReplyDeletePolysilicon ($/kg): $15.56, 3.6% w/w, 2.2% YTD
156mm mono wafers ($/piece): $0.80, 1.0% w/w, -0.8% YTD
156mm multi wafers ($/piece): $0.67, -0.4% w/w, 7.7% YTD
c-Si, mono modules ($/watt): $0.57, 9.6 % w/w, -20.8% YTD
c-Si, multi modules($/watt): $0.38, 0.0% w/w, -18.9% YTD
Thin film modules ($/watt): $0.34, 0.0% w/w, -8.9% YTD
Commenters should note gas turbine combined cycle is the technology.
ReplyDeleteUntil it becomes feasible to time shift energy usage this is the right direction but falls horribly short of what is truly needed. Adding in the costs associated with time shifting energy makes it extremely more expensive.
ReplyDeleteAnd the cost of fossil carbon fuels will become more expensive as the ratio shifts from conventional to unconventional production sources, making alternatives more competitive. All existing conventional oil fields on the planet are in terminal depletion mode, with virtually no new conventional oil discoveries in the past few decades.
ReplyDeleteTimothy Hall Heh...well, if we're going to do a total cost factoring, how much does it cost to lose 40% of our coastal cities to rising oceans?
ReplyDeleteUltimately, we all know what the right thing is, and that's to stop burning fossil fuels. How much money is involved is largely an academic exercise because it doesn't alter the fact that we must do this.
Craig Froehle
ReplyDeleteGood conversation. If you don't mind entertain these thoughts for me:
If we could magic bullet the stated problem with a solution: how much would you allow the planet to cool to accomplish your goal? How much CO2 do you sequester immediately?
Do we even know with enough confidence what is needed?
Answering yes to any of these scares the crap out of me and should scare you too! I speaks to the level of hubris humans have.
On a side note: What do you ascribe 1 Billion lives being lifted out of poverty to? I'd like to see another Billion added to the list.
Timothy Hall No idea about specific numbers...I'm not a climate scientist. But that lack of education regarding the details doesn't prevent me from understanding the big-picture truths that (a) what we're doing now is devastatingly harmful in the long run, and (b) we should stop.
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't have to know his ideal weight and diet to understand that being morbidly obese is harmful.
Have their been some short-term benefits to FF consumption? Yes. Are they worth the long-term costs? Probably not, if the metric is human quality-of-life, and especially not if the metric is total quality-of-life (humanity isn't the only species that has a right to exist on Earth). Causing a mass extinction really can't be justified unless it's done to save the remaining species, and that's clearly not the case here.
It simply comes down to four choices.
ReplyDelete1. Do nothing/spend nothing - no negative consequences.
2. Do nothing/spend nothing - major negative consequences.
3. Do something/spend something - no negative consequences.
4. Do something/spend something - major negative consequences.
The Climate Change Deniers have chosen option 1, while the people who want to seek a different path believe in option 3. Options 2 and 4 could spell disaster for Humanity and are unacceptable. So the question is how lucky do you feel. My only comment is the food is better in Las Vegas. In any event, option 3 is likely to have an outcome that is measurably better than option 1 for the environment and the health of the global population, unless you are emotionally attached to fossil carbon energy.
Thanks for the engagement. I think it is a bit more nuanced than portrayed though:
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle
More premise I disagree with. If it only was so simple as loosing weight! Even then we disagree!
I can't even agree with you on your view of rights to existence on the planet. Species come and go for many reasons. What is this imagined sweet spot we should be at? Who determines that!?!? Is it right that we should succumb to the level of control necessary in our lives to make it happen? I hear you on the tragedy of the commons with this issue when applied to other things. It is not readily apparent to me.
Mac Baird
I see that the cost is exorbitant now and that knowledge is low.
To pigeon hole it to 4 options creates the possibility of major unintended consequences.
When have we found that government has done a great thing with no unintended consequences?
In a static world, I completely agree with everything you say. Alas, it's not static and we don't have near enough an acceptable understanding of what is going on to affect the situation.
Does it not bother you all the fraud committed to sell the narrative?
I am not convinced as to our understanding at all of what is "best" for the world at all. Hubris. Conceit.
Timothy Hall I would say it is somewhat conceited to blow off the overwhelming scientific consensus with the business as usual approach being pushed by the $30+ trillion fossil carbon energy industrial complex given the relatively short decade or so remaining for the depleting conventional oil producers to keep price affordable. If we do not begin the energy shift now, the global economy will not be able to cope with the speed of oil price shift required in about 10 years. The US is the only nation on the planet that is in denial that the Oil Age is about to end. The Conventional Oil Producers are holding a going out of business sale to protect their market share from 5 to 7 times more expensive unconventional oil in order to sell their remaining reserves before demand destruction kicks in, as it did in 2008. OPEC has announced that their reserves can independently meet global demand for 10 more years at most, just by controlling the number of pumps online. When they cannot, oil price will rapidly shoot through the $100 demand destruction price, causing a global recession, if not a depression. About 80% of the planet cannot afford $100+ oil. It is not just about Climate Change, but the depletion rate of cheap conventional oil and its impact on the Global Economy in just 10 years from now. The fraud you mention is being perpetrated by the Fossil Carbon Energy Industrial Complex that owns the GOP. Ask any oil professional to truthfully discuss the production costs and limits of unconventional oil versus current global oil demand.
ReplyDelete