Comments on: Economics of alternative energy improve

A study predicts that falling prices means solar energy could provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity by 2025, while rising fossil fuel prices give hybrids a boost.

[TonyT11]

What's the current cost per watt for comparisons sake?

[mlamonica]

Prices range from less than five cents per kwh to over 20 cents / kwh in the U.S.

In other words, it varies greatly depending on where and how you get your electricity. States that use coal or hydro, in general, are the cheapest. You can see a graphic on the distribution here (on right): http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

[behemoth81]

Seriously. What's the projected grid parity price in 2015? Is it actually $3W? I think the current target for thin film et. al. is to get to under $2/W installed. Isn't that number in the same report that the plot was taken from?

[mlamonica]

Yes, here's an excerpt on grid parity from their report.
We project that the cost for crystalline silicon PV systems will drop from an average of $7 peak watt (19-32 cents kWh) today to approximately $3.00 (8-14 cents kWh) a decade from now. Thin-film PV systems and low-price, bulk-purchased crystalline
PV systems are projected to drop from around $5.50 per peak watt today (15-25 cents kWh) to $3.00 peak watt in 2015 (8-14 cents kWh) and less than $1.50 peak watt (4-7 cents kWh) in 2025. In our utility-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) calculations we show an average price of $3.50 per watt (around 18 cents per kWh) in 2007 declining
to around $1 peak watt (approximately 5 cents per kWh) in 2025.

[mrwater]

Nanosolar, Inc., is reportedly shipping thin-film panels to power companies at $1/W, which should translate to $2/W installed. A coal-fired power plant proposed for the Great Falls, MT, area is presently projected to cost $3/W (and rising). Presumably those numbers for solar are peak power.

[Manhattan2]

We are way ahead of this timeline at The Manhattan 2 Project. The solutions are out there. There is a more sensible way.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Economics of alternative energy improve"! Now we see what Commander_Spock was arguing about all along - "ECONOMICS". Duh!

Now, where on Earth are the "Real-Time Software Tools" to do the "Economic Analyses"!!!

[atici]

"In its report, it provided a plan for how U.S. utilities, prompted by regulators and policy makers, could lead a transition to 10 percent solar power in the U.S. in 2025."

Nonsense. And who is expected to burden this immense expense then? Of course, the taxpayers (through the "state-level mandates" mentioned in the article) !

IMHO wind and solar have don't have a snowball's chance in hell to make it cost competitive. Surely this is my personal opinion. However if this was really cost effective, then the private investment will move in and make it happen. But let the free market decide the fate of these alternatives (with no unfair incentives which ultimately is paid by the taxpayers).

[bugm3n0t]

Wind is already cost effective in many markets and solar will be very soon with thin film technology. Also, should we include the added health care costs for fossil fuels in these comparisons? How about government immunity for workers who develop cancer or other diseases from mining coal or uranium? Do you really believe that the markets are free when the largest lobbyists in the US work for the fossil fuel companies? No one yet knows what will be the best solutions to our energy future, but we do know that no one solution will be the answer.

[Commander_Spock]

Yup! As the banner read on aircraft carrier upon GW landed - "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

Hmmmm! " CGX Best Estimate for 4 Prospects Offshore Guyana: 2.7 Billion Barrels"

http://www.rigzone.com/NEWS/article.asp?a_id=54829


http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=7913

"Small Canadian Oil Exploration Company Major Prospects"

http://www.taipaninvestor.com/2007/12/10/small-canadian-oil-exploration-company-major-prospects/

Now, for the security of the South American "OIL" Basin/Region!

[suyts]

Holy crap!!!! Even the leading paragraph was wrong. The price of gasoline has very little to do with a power plant. They don't run on gasoline. 99.9% in this country don't run on oil. The only relationship power plants and gasoline have is the environmental green koolaid drinkers. The only reason coal prices are increasing in because of the regulatory demands placed on it. Coal is in abundance in this nation. It is cheap and easy to extract. The cost of natural gas is increasing because of the new demand for an alternative to the mandated lack of coal mining and use.
On a related note, we still can not store AC power. For those that don't know, utility companies use AC power because DC power won't travel very far.
Another note, we still can not mandate the wind blowing or sun shining. So, we have to have a backup plan to provide power. This mandates another power generation plant being built. We can't use existing coal or nuke plants as backups because one can't adjust the output of either very quickly. (Days for a coal plant, weeks for a nuke plant.) Enter natural gas, and the increase of the price of natural gas. This has been occurring since solar and wind generation has come online.
The increase in gasoline prices have occurred because of the mandated (legislated, judicially tolerated, and sometimes executive complicit ) shortage of our supply. We have enough oil to drill. We choose to import. We choose not to build refineries. We choose not to build nuke plants. We choose to rely on foreign entities for our energy. We also choose to believe in fanciful pipe dreams such as the wind always blowing how and when we want it and the sun always shining how and when we want it. Even on those hot summer nights when the wind doesn't blow. I propose that we choose to be energy independent. I propose that we let our energy technologies mature before we mandate human progress halt and revert. I propose that we don't intentionally starve 3rd world nations of power or food. We have the infrastructure in place today. To those that drank the koolaid, we knew this was going to happen and it will only get worse. What was your plan? Sit back and watch human suffering? I don't think we're going to let that happen.

[willdryden]

they were talking about construction. You know about big earth movers and all the diesel fueled machines used in BUILDING the plant?

[crj55sts]

i am not an electrical engineer by any means....but if we can store a/c power to keep our computers running during a black out or brown out...why can't we use that tech. to store a/c power?

[suyts]

Because we are not really storing AC power. In the case of computers, the power is converted to DC. Further, the UPSs used for computers is in an "always on" state. It needs a constant stream of power to retain the power in the battery. So, we aren't saving any power in our UPS systems, we are spending power to have the uninterrupted power.

[suyts]

to willdryden, I don't believe that was the context of the article in its entirety. While fuel costs for construction of a traditional power generation plant is a consideration, it is also a consideration for alternative power generation plants. Furthering the increase of costs for all power generation. I believe the point to the article was that costs for traditional fuels and alternative fuels have less of a gap. What I was trying to point out was that this is only true because we have chosen to increase the costs of our traditional fuels. While anybody who cares to look into such things know that there is no infrastructure in place to support these alternative quests and will take decades before they can be fully implemented. We have a choice with what to do in the meantime. We can, through inaction, create hardship and suffering not just here in the States but worldwide or we can collectively state that we don't wish to sit idle while this nation, its people, and the people of the world are harmed by our inane policies of forcing traditional fuel prices to a point where they are no longer viable. Just think of the possibilities. Without undue restrictions, we could drill and mine fuel that could eliminate the need for imports. This would free up fuels for other parts of the world and drive down the costs. First start with oil and refineries. Then we could construct more nuke and coal plants at a lower cost. (Without restrictions, coal generated electricity would cost less than 2 cents a kwh to generate, today.) With the decrease in cost of transport and energy and with the increase in the subsequent demand for steel, we could then probably fire up some of the steel mills we used to have in this nation. Wow, then employment would rise. Food would be plentiful and cheaper!!!! It seems some are hell bent to ensure that the later alternative won't happen.