Solar levelized cost of electricity is 29% lower than any fossil fuel alternative

[fromport]

A report from Ernst & Young shows that despite inflationary pressures, solar remains the cheapest source of new-build electricity.

Solar levelized cost of electricity is 29% lower than any fossil fuel alternative

A report from Ernst & Young shows that despite inflationary pressures, solar remains the cheapest source of new-build electricity.

pv-magazine-usa.com

 

[AntronX]

While it's nice that solar is cheapest new build power source it cannot fully replace dispatchable power like gas/hydro/nuke so those kind of comparisons are incomplete. Solar needs backup power and that cost should also be included but often is not.

 

[houseofancients]

While it's nice that solar is cheapest new build power source it cannot fully replace dispatchable power like gas/hydro/nuke so those kind of comparisons are incomplete. Solar needs backup power and that cost should also be included but it often is not.

Really ?
I think you have been fed some false information..
Australian gov spend 1/10 of a gas plant on a battery bank..
Seems to do just fine, and MUCH cheaper than said gas plant, even so fine they ordered 2 more

Tesla Megapack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tesla Megapack selected for big new 300 MWh energy storage project to help renewable energy in Australia

Tesla has secured another large battery contract in Australia as its Megapack was selected to power a giant new 300...

electrek.co

Tesla secures massive 1.6 GWh Megapack order for giant project

Tesla has secured a massive Megapack order for a new giant energy storage project that will likely become the largest...

electrek.co

So t believe the non sense you're being fed by politician or energy co's who have vested interest in keeping the status quo

 

[AntronX]

Now price that lifetime cost per MWh for that Tesla pack and add it to solar LCOE. In US marginal cost for gas and nuke power is around $35/MWh. Solar can't even touch that. Add batt cost to it and it goes off the charts.

 

[houseofancients]

Now price that lifetime cost per MWh for that Tesla pack and add it to solar LCOE. In US marginal cost for gas and nuke power is around $35/MWh. Solar can't even touch that. Add batt cost to it and it goes off the charts.

Because the us cost for gas is heavily subsidized.

Energy subsidies in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Again don't be fooled by vested interest

 

[AntronX]

Those numbers are bogus if you examine them closely. They call normal business equipment depreciation and operating expenses as subsidies lol. Also wiki is heavily left slanted when it comes to hot button political issues which FF "subsidies" are part of. Huge grain of salt required.

 

[Q-Dog]

My power company is currently building 2 huge solar fields. There may be another coming, all within 20 miles from my house.

Solar power is fast to install and cheaper to operate than any other generation method. The permitting process is shorter by several years, they have no fuel costs and don't need a huge staff to keep them going. One might think this should lower our power bills over time, but the reality is the PoCo has already signed contracts to sell all of the power from those solar fields to a couple of big commercial users. So we get to see our electric bills go up, while Mr Bezos and MickeyD get cheaper power. After all, what the world really needs now is cheaper fast food and cheaper chinese crap delivered to your house in one day.

And let's face it. Fossil fuels are not price stable, and big corporate CEOs don't like it when they can't buy a third or fourth house because they missed some profit target due to unpredictable energy costs. Our power bills include a charge for electricity and a charge for the cost of the fuel to make that electricity. It is unpredictable. Last year our fuel cost was higher than the electricity charge, by a lot. Why? Price of nat gas spiked when the war in Ukraine started, and a lot of corporations had to deal with higher power costs because of it. (people did too, but who cares about them) This year the fuel cost is down close to what it used to be. But, is something is going to cause the price of gas to go up again? Is the third house in jeopardy? Who knows. The fuel costs on MY power bill went down — so did my usage — but my electric bill is still about the same. Hmmmmm. Oh, right ... they added a couple of "hurricane cost recovery" charges onto our bills this year.

The sun is still free, so far.

 

[SparkyJJO]

The sun is still free, so far.

Don't worry, the government will charge you a photon tax.

 

[OffGridForGood]

I wonder how the levellized cost of electricity compare if we include carbon capture costs for the FF, to match the solar produced power.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I wonder how the levellized cost of electricity compare if we include carbon capture costs for the FF, to match the solar produced power.

Except that's an artificial cost that really doesn't need to be there for it to operate and function.

 

[houseofancients]

Except that's an artificial cost that really doesn't need to be there for it to operate and function.

yet, that cost will come down to the planet and our kids ( or am i behaving like a treehugger now ? ;-) )

 

[chrisski]

Really ?
I think you have been fed some false information..
Australian gov spend 1/10 of a gas plant on a battery bank..
Seems to do just fine, and MUCH cheaper than said gas plant, even so fine they ordered 2 more

If solar is cheaper, why is energy from a utility company created by fossil fuels cheaper than energy created by solar?

Why does a country like China who is really good at chasing a profit build new fossil fuel plants at a rate so much greater than renewable energies?

 

[Q-Dog]

Except that's an artificial cost that really doesn't need to be there for it to operate and function.

That's like saying catalytic converters are an artificial cost that doesn't need to be there for the car to operate. While technically true, the costs of cleaning up tailpipe emissions have been worth it.

I don't believe carbon capture is a viable long term solution to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it is a start, and we have to start somewhere. It is impossible to know how bad the problem is because the earth's atmosphere has NEVER seen CO2 levels like this while humans have existed. The earth will survive, but people may not. Maybe that is a good thing.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

 

[45North]

That's like saying catalytic converters are an artificial cost that doesn't need to be there for the car to operate. While technically true, the costs of cleaning up tailpipe emissions have been worth it.

I don't believe carbon capture is a viable long term solution to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it is a start, and we have to start somewhere. It is impossible to know how bad the problem is because the earth's atmosphere has NEVER seen CO2 levels like this while humans have existed. The earth will survive, but people may not. Maybe that is a good thing.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

True.
The whole point of adding carbon capture costs is to internalize the cost of pollution cleanup to give a financial incentive to cleaner alternatives.
But unfortunately the matter has become political since some people still don't accept the need and don't want to pay any extra.

 

[houseofancients]

If solar is cheaper, why is energy from a utility company created by fossil fuels cheaper than energy created by solar?

Why does a country like China who is really good at chasing a profit build new fossil fuel plants at a rate so much greater than renewable energies?

china is doing more investments and deployment of renewable energy that any other country in the world right now..
They simply cannot keep up with production to satisfy their needs...
Remember, china and india together make up for almost half of this worlds population and per capita they still use, by far, less energy that their European and certainly american counter parts

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/

a quote from the article :
"
China has been the world's largest and fastest-growing producer of renewable power for more than a decade, and its lead has widened with an acceleration of solar and wind power capacity in recent years.

The country will build as much new solar capacity this year as the total installed capacity in the U.S., according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.


Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China's total installed capacity for power generation.

In 2020, China committed to have 1,200 GW of renewables capacity by 2030, but is on track to meet that goal five years early.

China could have as much as 1,000 GW of solar power alone by the end of 2026, analysts say, out of 11,000 GW needed globally to meet Paris Agreement targets by 2030."

 

[SparkyJJO]

That's like saying catalytic converters are an artificial cost that doesn't need to be there for the car to operate. While technically true, the costs of cleaning up tailpipe emissions have been worth it.

I don't believe carbon capture is a viable long term solution to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it is a start, and we have to start somewhere. It is impossible to know how bad the problem is because the earth's atmosphere has NEVER seen CO2 levels like this while humans have existed. The earth will survive, but people may not. Maybe that is a good thing.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

NOx and such are pollutants.
CO2 is not a pollutant (despite the stupid EPA and others acting like it is). CO2 is plant food. And despite all the alarmists screaming that we need more tax dollars to "fix" the "problem" we haven't even come close to the coastlines disappearing or any of that.

Look, I'm all for good stewardship of our resources, taking care of the planet, recycling, etc. But to claim a highly important thing to the life cycle is a pollutant and try to regulate it to death acting like we're gonna die if we don't do these crazy stunts is, well, crazy.

Plant life loves it too, hah.

To say "we have to start somewhere" is based on a supposition that it has to be a problem in the first place.

I do know these politicians and a few select elite are getting rich off of all this, while they go around still using their gas stoves and flying their private jets...

 

[Q-Dog]

NOx and such are pollutants.
CO2 is not a pollutant (despite the stupid EPA and others acting like it is). CO2 is plant food. And despite all the alarmists screaming that we need more tax dollars to "fix" the "problem" we haven't even come close to the coastlines disappearing or any of that.

Look, I'm all for good stewardship of our resources, taking care of the planet, recycling, etc. But to claim a highly important thing to the life cycle is a pollutant and try to regulate it to death acting like we're gonna die if we don't do these crazy stunts is, well, crazy.

Plant life loves it too, hah.

To say "we have to start somewhere" is based on a supposition that it has to be a problem in the first place.

I do know these politicians and a few select elite are getting rich off of all this, while they go around still using their gas stoves and flying their private jets...

Anything can be a pollutant if you have too much of it. Lock yourself into an airtight room and see at what happens as the CO2 levels rise.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Anything can be a pollutant if you have too much of it. Lock yourself into an airtight room and see at what happens as the CO2 levels rise.

But when we're talking parts per MILLION differences. Not exactly the same thing. Yeah I know some things are poisonous in the PPM ranges, but CO2 is not one of them.

 

[Q-Dog]

But when we're talking parts per MILLION differences. Not exactly the same thing. Yeah I know some things are poisonous in the PPM ranges, but CO2 is not one of them.

How do you know there is no long term effect? Humans have never existed at the CO2 levels we are now seeing.

 

[Hedges]

Carbon capture can be implemented by saving money, not by spending it.

Why Does the Govt. Pay Farmers to Not Grow Crops?

Editor’s Note: Robert Frank, who recently guest-blogged for several weeks here at the Business Desk with answers to some of life’s economic ironies, once again answers questions posed by viewers. Question: Why does the government pay farmers not to grow crops? Robert Frank: Paying farmers not to...

www.pbs.org

A program that pays farmers not to farm isn't saving the planet

A decades-old program that pays farmers to leave land fallow is being heralded by the Biden administration as a climate solution, but environmentalists don’t see it that way.

www.politico.com

How do you know there is no long term effect? Humans have never existed at the CO2 levels we are now seeing.

I see nothing worrysome about the CO2 graph here. What period does the cycle have? What is driving it?

File:Vostok Petit data.svg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org