Unsubsidized Renewables Now Cheaper Than Subsidized Fossil F

[Hermit]

Just think of it, you need lots of rare earths to make solar panels, nor are windmills that low tech... those things are expensive to make and will get more so.

Right.

Oh, wait. Unsubsidised renewables are cheaper now than subsidised fossil fuels - therefore "those things" will become more expensive to make?

[macdoc]

The new photovoltaic technology uses abundant, less-expensive materials like copper and zinc ― “earth-abundant materials” ― instead of indium, gallium and other so-called “rare earth” elements. These substances not only are scarce, but are supplied largely by foreign countries, with China mining more than 90 percent of the rare earths needed for batteries in hybrid cars, magnets, electronics and other high-tech products. Atwater and James C. Stevens, Ph.D., described successful efforts to replace rare earth and other costly metals in photovoltaic devices with materials that are less-expensive and more sustainable.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/press ... nable.html

[rainbow]

Just think of it, you need lots of rare earths to make solar panels, nor are windmills that low tech... those things are expensive to make and will get more so.

The Rare Earths are mainly needed for the magnets that are required for the wind farm generators, and the motors used in electric cars.

The main source of Rare Earths in Monazite which contains Uranium, Thorium, Radon and Radium. Mining of Rare Earths has the side effect of releasing radioactive materials.


Not so clean, after all...

[macdoc]

So does mining coal

Balance seems to be tipping as well

http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/pentagon ... s-at-risk/

Some coming from Canada soon as well

http://www.canadastrategicmetals.com/en ... are-earths

[mistermack]

Even though it's true that the cost of some renewables is getting closer to the coal and gas prices, most renewables are still not in the same ball park, because you can't switch them on when you want them.
Obviously, hydro is the big exception, but wind can die for weeks at a time, and the sun only shines a limited number of hours per day. So if you want power supply to be continuous, you have to invest in double the generating hardware, at least.
Whereas with coal and gas etc, and nuclear, you can run them 24 hours a day.

Until they invent a cost-effective way of storing power, that's not going to change.

It makes sense in the UK to have some nuclear, some wind, and a tiny bit of domestic solar, just to diversify the generating methods, so that we are not so dependent on the goodwill of the Russians and Norwegians. it's strategic good sense, but not economic.

And paying for offshore wind is just ludicrously expensive. When you can do onshore at a fraction of the price.

[rainbow]

So does mining coal

Balance seems to be tipping as well

http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/pentagon ... s-at-risk/

Some coming from Canada soon as well

http://www.canadastrategicmetals.com/en ... are-earths

The "Rare Earths" are not rare at all as your link states. It is the mining and processing of the Rare Earths that is a huge environmental liability.
To circumvent this, we get the Chinese to produce the Rare Earths and poison their country. Meanwhile we happily drive our Hybrids powered by Wind Turbines, that require these Rare Earths.

...what bunch of hypocrites, we are.

[pErvinalia]

Just think of it, you need lots of rare earths to make solar panels, nor are windmills that low tech... those things are expensive to make and will get more so.

That's not his point, though.

And windmills ARE low tech, and PV isn't the only type of solar energy use.

[pErvinalia]

I'll make more sense later I guess? You're the dead walking.

I hate to point it out, but this post makes no sense!

[pErvinalia]

Obviously, hydro is the big exception, but wind can die for weeks at a time,

You've obviously never lived on the coast. There's a thing called a seabreeze. It blows all day and all night, only resting for brief periods to swap direction 180 degrees.

[macdoc]

Weeks at a time...!!!!??
Im not all that fond of wind but it IS far better than that.

Meanwhile solar is going gangbusters...the solar power is equivalent to 4 nuclear reactors or 8 coal plants. Still a long way to go to replace coal.

California More Than Doubles Solar Energy In 2013
Huffington Post ‎- 6 days ago
California installed more megawatts of solar energy in 2013 than it did in ... About 200,000 U.S. homes and businesses installed rooftop solar in ...

CA Installed More Solar In 2013 Than In The Last 30 Combined Years
cleantechnica.com/2014/.../ca-installed-solar-2013-last-30-combined-yea...‎
Jan 8, 2014 - 2013 was a banner year for clean energy and the U.S. solar industry was no exception. California, the nation's solar standout, more than ...

US Likely to Surpass Germany in Solar in 2013 930 MW Installed in
http://www.greentechmedia.com/.../US-Li ... lar-in...‎
Dec 10, 2013 - The U.S. installed 930 megawatts of photovoltaics (PV) in Q3, 2013, ... that the U.S. installs more solar capacity than world leader Germany, ...

and the US as a whole installed more in 2013 alone than in the last 20 years combined.

U.S. Installs 723 MW of Solar PV in Q1 2013, According to New U.S. ...
http://www.seia.org › News‎
Jun 11, 2013 - Q1 2013 report highlights continued growth of residential solar in U.S. ... “The U.S. now has more than 8,500 MW of cumulative installed solar ...

2013 is a 'record-shattering' year for solar power in America ...
venturebeat.com/2013/.../2013-is-a-record-shattering-year-for-solar-pow...‎
Dec 11, 2013 - For the first time in more than 15 years, America is on track to install more ... 2013 will go down as a record-shattering year for the U.S. solar ...

and leave it to practical Aussies to combine old tech and new...

Aussie Company Using Steam Engine Technology for Power Storage
Posted by Peter, on November 15, 2013

A group of Australian engineers has formed a company, Terrajule, to develop a novel energy storage solution.
The Terrajoule system combines concentrated solar thermal energy, steam engines and an integrated storage system using an insulated pressure vessel.
The concentrated solar thermal energy is used to produce steam. Since it is impractical to store steam for later use, the steam is condensed under pressure into water where its energy is stored. When needed, the pressure is released and the stored energy flashes the water back to steam which drives a reciprocating steam engine. The energy lost in this steam-water-steam phase change cycle is less than 2%.

According to the company, the result is storage at less than 20% of the cost of batteries, with no degradation, no cycle limits, no toxic or rare materials and a useful life of at least 25 years.

Terrajoule expects that, by 2015, it will be able to deliver power at $1.50 to $2.00 per watt which will be comparable to the price for a photovoltaic system of similar capacity. But this power could be delivered at any time – making the effective cost just a fraction of the cost of a photovoltaic system with battery storage.

Terrajoule power plants are from 100 kilowatts to 10 megawatts in capacity and are modular. Because of this and because all of the system components use well-established technologies, ramping up production requires no new factories, no new materials and no new manufacturing equipment or processes. This means that it can be quickly and massively scaled up to provide gigawatts of distributed power generation.

Terrajoule has built a demonstration plant in California and has just announced an $11.5 million round of funding, which will enable them to continue to develop and scale up their technology.

http://www.aussierenewables.com/?p=2935

[mistermack]

Obviously, hydro is the big exception, but wind can die for weeks at a time,

You've obviously never lived on the coast. There's a thing called a seabreeze. It blows all day and all night, only resting for brief periods to swap direction 180 degrees.

No, that's bollocks. There might be periods when it does that, but it's not going to happen 365 days a year. And the point is, if the wind dies at all, you need an alternative generation system, unless your population is happy to sit it out, and wait without electricity till the wind blows again.
ie, you need double the generating capacity, even if it's not in use very often.

Or perhaps you can name one of these places, where the wind ALWAYS blows, and they don't have other forms of electricity generation.

[pErvinalia]

Yep, you've never lived on the coast. It's a physical phenomenon that almost HAS to occur. Look it up for the physics of it. I can't be arsed wasting my time on a denialist.

[mistermack]

Yep, you've never lived on the coast. It's a physical phenomenon that almost HAS to occur. Look it up for the physics of it. I can't be arsed wasting my time on a denialist.

If you make the claim without any evidence, then it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that you just dreamed it up.
People who actually have to supply electricity have to deal with the real world, not a world of someone's wishful thinking.

The truth is still that wind power is not economic. Because it needs generating help from fossil fuel or nuclear. It can make an economic contribution, in certain circumstances.
It can save on the quantities of imported coal or gas. So it can make a difference to the cost of imports.
You have to subtract the value of imported hardware, and expertise, from the total savings though.
The main advantage is still the diversification of generating sources, so that the country isn't reliant on a single source.
Economically, it would make a big difference, if you have a thriving home industry of manufacturing and maintenance of wind turbines. If you have to import the lot, then you might just as well import the fossil fuel.

[macdoc]

If you make the claim without any evidence, then it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that you just dreamed it up.

snort - you should be one to talk about dreaming things up.

Most people have a basic understanding of how wind is generated and any place on a significant body of water has onshore and off shore winds generated by the differential between land and water.

A wind turbine lasts 30-40 years.....so you'd prefer to import the equivalent fossil fuel use for the same 30-40 years.....

I'm not a big fan of wind....but you are entirely out to lunch.

[mistermack]

If you make the claim without any evidence, then it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that you just dreamed it up.

snort - you should be one to talk about dreaming things up.

Most people have a basic understanding of how wind is generated and any place on a significant body of water has onshore and off shore winds generated by the differential between land and water.

A wind turbine lasts 30-40 years.....so you'd prefer to import the equivalent fossil fuel use for the same 30-40 years.....

I'm not a big fan of wind....but you are entirely out to lunch.

It's not me, it's the people who have to plan the finances of the country, and have to supply people with energy.
THEY have the experts, THEY do the sums, and wind turns out to be uneconomic every time. Otherwise, they would be going for it. I'm trying to explain to you, why that is, but you don't seem capable of grasping it.

Governments don't buy in gas and coal for fun. They'd love to replace it with wind, and improve the balance of payments accounts. But they don't want to put the prices up more than the public will stand. The fact that you can't grasp it doesn't change anything.