Nice Bloomberg article here. Renewable of Wind and Solar are now cheaper than coal, oil, gas, nuclear. No big need for subsidies to make them competitive.
But, there's also no need, quite the contrary given the externality costs, for subsidizing fossil fuels!
Nice article with great graphics show the fall in price for wind and solar.
Showing posts with label Wind Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wind Power. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Thursday, April 14, 2016
ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal
ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal:
The WSJ's big forum on ECOnomics seems to have been a great learning and sharing session for divergent ideas on how to blend economic growth/development with environmental needs.
A special report in the WSJ on Wed, April 13, 2016 offers several takes and interviews covering the spectrum of associated topics.
A couple base statistics are that coal generated electricity has dropped from half of all US generation to less than 1/3 within about 10 years. The big gain is Nat Gas, but that too is changing. In 2015 solar was the #1 install base with 9.5 gw (37% of new), NatGas 8 gw (31%), wind 6.8 gw (26%). Only 4% new nuclear and fractions of other.
Related to the switch from coal to NatGas, this is only a stop-gap measure: moving from one really bad non-renewable, coal; to a relatively better non-renewable, NatGas. Michael Brune from the Sierra Club comments on the methane and other issues that brings NatGas closer to parody with coal (really ugly vs. relatively ugly).
Coal is really taking a hit, as Peabody goes bankrupt this week, bringing down all of the big coal companies. No victory laps here; the pain and suffering in the mining communities is going to be horrendous. (Also, bankruptcy doesn't mean the mines will all stop, just that the debt associated with the companies will replace the equity positions.)
Even against crashing oil/coal prices, solar & wind are winning major solid footing. Even with the likelihood of subsidies going away, are now starting to be very price competitive (especially if you consider externality costs). BUT when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine (night) we still need regular power generation. Or battery-type storage.
You have to marvel at the gain of renewables during the second year of record low fossil fuel costs. That is really, really impressive.
Check out all the articles on the ECOnomics conference and interviews at the special business & energy section of the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/news/types/journal-reports-energy
'via Blog this'
The WSJ's big forum on ECOnomics seems to have been a great learning and sharing session for divergent ideas on how to blend economic growth/development with environmental needs.
A special report in the WSJ on Wed, April 13, 2016 offers several takes and interviews covering the spectrum of associated topics.
A couple base statistics are that coal generated electricity has dropped from half of all US generation to less than 1/3 within about 10 years. The big gain is Nat Gas, but that too is changing. In 2015 solar was the #1 install base with 9.5 gw (37% of new), NatGas 8 gw (31%), wind 6.8 gw (26%). Only 4% new nuclear and fractions of other.
Related to the switch from coal to NatGas, this is only a stop-gap measure: moving from one really bad non-renewable, coal; to a relatively better non-renewable, NatGas. Michael Brune from the Sierra Club comments on the methane and other issues that brings NatGas closer to parody with coal (really ugly vs. relatively ugly).
Coal is really taking a hit, as Peabody goes bankrupt this week, bringing down all of the big coal companies. No victory laps here; the pain and suffering in the mining communities is going to be horrendous. (Also, bankruptcy doesn't mean the mines will all stop, just that the debt associated with the companies will replace the equity positions.)
Even against crashing oil/coal prices, solar & wind are winning major solid footing. Even with the likelihood of subsidies going away, are now starting to be very price competitive (especially if you consider externality costs). BUT when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine (night) we still need regular power generation. Or battery-type storage.
You have to marvel at the gain of renewables during the second year of record low fossil fuel costs. That is really, really impressive.
Check out all the articles on the ECOnomics conference and interviews at the special business & energy section of the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/news/types/journal-reports-energy
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 18, 2015
What just happened in solar is a bigger deal than oil exports
What just happened in solar is a bigger deal than oil exports:
Interesting how the BIG move in solar/wind in the USA is so tied to subsidies. At least for the next 5 years. But, soon, especially with the volume of growth encouraged by the subsidies, there will no longer be a need for subsidies.
The really big loser all around is (dirty) coal. Once the health and environmental costs of coal are factored in, coal moves from our cheapest source of electrical energy to one of our worst. As well, wind and solar are improving in performance rapidly.
And then there are the environmental factors of coal that start to get uglier and uglier once you start to count pollution, the health and safety issues and the contribution to greenhouse gases. Other types of energy like oil and natgas are increasingly throwing coal under the bus, too.
So, renewable electrical energy could be really booming over the next 5 years with the continued subsidies. Those subsidies are being phased out; but it all looks like an excellent plan forward toward a more renewable USA.
'via Blog this'
Interesting how the BIG move in solar/wind in the USA is so tied to subsidies. At least for the next 5 years. But, soon, especially with the volume of growth encouraged by the subsidies, there will no longer be a need for subsidies.
The really big loser all around is (dirty) coal. Once the health and environmental costs of coal are factored in, coal moves from our cheapest source of electrical energy to one of our worst. As well, wind and solar are improving in performance rapidly.
And then there are the environmental factors of coal that start to get uglier and uglier once you start to count pollution, the health and safety issues and the contribution to greenhouse gases. Other types of energy like oil and natgas are increasingly throwing coal under the bus, too.
So, renewable electrical energy could be really booming over the next 5 years with the continued subsidies. Those subsidies are being phased out; but it all looks like an excellent plan forward toward a more renewable USA.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business
Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business:
Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.
With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.
So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.
The one thing for sure, is that it won't be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can't afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.
The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.
Don't want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.
'via Blog this'
Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.
With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.
So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.
The one thing for sure, is that it won't be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can't afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.
The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.
Don't want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Solar and wind just passed another big turning point, Cheaper n Better
Solar and wind just passed another big turning point:
So solar and wind power generation is reaching a threshold where renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel-based power in Germany and UK. That is before counting the subsidies for renewables, and ignoring the massive externality costs of our historically favorite dirty black fuel.
Note the discussion of the virtuous cycle of renewable fuels. As base load power moves up from 5% renewables the costs of traditional power plants becomes more expensive, essentially they become more peak-power generators and less base-load power.
Solar has the added advantage of offing more distributed power generation, usually at the point of use. So solar starts to really cut down on the massive loss of power over distribution channels.
In the US, really cheap NatGas is a no-brainer decision for converting coal plants. It is so much cleaner in all respects. But new fossil fuel power plants will be harder and harder to justify to shareholders and to the PSC.
In the meanwhile, nuclear sits on the sidelines, leaving fission and fusion as a non option in the foreseeable future.
If momentum builds for homeowners and businesses to move to at-source power generation (say Solar City), the building momentum could be a real game-changer.
'via Blog this'
So solar and wind power generation is reaching a threshold where renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel-based power in Germany and UK. That is before counting the subsidies for renewables, and ignoring the massive externality costs of our historically favorite dirty black fuel.
Note the discussion of the virtuous cycle of renewable fuels. As base load power moves up from 5% renewables the costs of traditional power plants becomes more expensive, essentially they become more peak-power generators and less base-load power.
Solar has the added advantage of offing more distributed power generation, usually at the point of use. So solar starts to really cut down on the massive loss of power over distribution channels.
In the US, really cheap NatGas is a no-brainer decision for converting coal plants. It is so much cleaner in all respects. But new fossil fuel power plants will be harder and harder to justify to shareholders and to the PSC.
In the meanwhile, nuclear sits on the sidelines, leaving fission and fusion as a non option in the foreseeable future.
If momentum builds for homeowners and businesses to move to at-source power generation (say Solar City), the building momentum could be a real game-changer.
'via Blog this'
Monday, June 29, 2015
Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance
Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance:
It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.
Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.
One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)
Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.
'via Blog this'
It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.
Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.
One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)
Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 12, 2014
Energy Efficiency & Renewables... Good signs for both.
In one recent edition of the New York Times, there were two very positive articles on energy efficiency and improving the cost/kwh of renewables. The Monday, November 24, 2014, issue featured "Good News on Energy," by Ralph Cavanagh of theNatural Resources Defense Fund, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/opinion/good-news-on-energy.html? and "Solar and Wind energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels," by Diane Cardwell, http://nyti.ms/1yJq2r0.
From Cavanagh, peaked energy use occurred in the US in 2007 and has trended downward since with a small increase in 2013. And, economic growth is increasing more rapidly than the growth in energy usage because technology is making energy sources more efficient. The LED light bulb is a good example. Improvements over the last 40 years have done more to meet US energy needs than the combined contributions of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
Electricity consumption has decreased since 2000 despite the introduction of new consumer electronics. Moreover, oil consumption by homes, businesses and vehicles is down 12% since the peak in 2005. June, 2013, began a 12-month period in which the combined usage of renewables exceeded hydroelectric power. More than 12% of our energy supplied comes from renewables and that category is growing faster than the others.
In her article, Cardwell confirms that the cost of providing electricity from wind and solar has dropped significantly in the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas. Several utility companies in the Great Plains and Southwest where wind and sunlight are abundant have signed power purchase contracts, known as "power purchase agreements," for solar and wind at prices below that of natural gas.
According to Lazard, an investment banking firm, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is 5.6 cents/kwh with wind as low as 1.4 cents/kwh. Without federal subsidies that are up for renewal by Congress in 2016, solar costs are about 7.2 cents/kwh and wind would be 3.7 cents/kwh. Natural gas is at 6.1 cents/kwh on the low end and coal is at 6.6 cents.
Both renewables and fossils have limitations. For renewables, the wind has to blow and the sun has to shine as electrical storage technology needs a break through. For the fossils, there are regulations and costs due to carbon emissions pollution. One can expect this hybridization of fossils and renewables to continue for a considerable period of time.
Minor edits: 12/17/2014.
From Cavanagh, peaked energy use occurred in the US in 2007 and has trended downward since with a small increase in 2013. And, economic growth is increasing more rapidly than the growth in energy usage because technology is making energy sources more efficient. The LED light bulb is a good example. Improvements over the last 40 years have done more to meet US energy needs than the combined contributions of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
Electricity consumption has decreased since 2000 despite the introduction of new consumer electronics. Moreover, oil consumption by homes, businesses and vehicles is down 12% since the peak in 2005. June, 2013, began a 12-month period in which the combined usage of renewables exceeded hydroelectric power. More than 12% of our energy supplied comes from renewables and that category is growing faster than the others.
In her article, Cardwell confirms that the cost of providing electricity from wind and solar has dropped significantly in the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas. Several utility companies in the Great Plains and Southwest where wind and sunlight are abundant have signed power purchase contracts, known as "power purchase agreements," for solar and wind at prices below that of natural gas.
According to Lazard, an investment banking firm, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is 5.6 cents/kwh with wind as low as 1.4 cents/kwh. Without federal subsidies that are up for renewal by Congress in 2016, solar costs are about 7.2 cents/kwh and wind would be 3.7 cents/kwh. Natural gas is at 6.1 cents/kwh on the low end and coal is at 6.6 cents.
Both renewables and fossils have limitations. For renewables, the wind has to blow and the sun has to shine as electrical storage technology needs a break through. For the fossils, there are regulations and costs due to carbon emissions pollution. One can expect this hybridization of fossils and renewables to continue for a considerable period of time.
Minor edits: 12/17/2014.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
NextEra Energy Resources commissions its 10,000th megawatt of wind energy - 12/18/12
NextEra Energy Resources commissions its 10,000th megawatt of wind energy - 12/18/12:
NextEra (FPL by an older name) now produces enough Wind Power to run a city the size of Chicago, or it will.
Rather cool is to check out the company's Sustainability Report. http://www.nexteraenergy.com/news/index.shtml
This will give you an indication of what power generation companies should be talking about in terms of their production capacity and their carbon footprint.
For example:
"In 2011, 52 million tons of CO2 avoided
from zero-emitting generation and
customer energy efficiency programs."
And, compared to the industry, FPL -- I mean NextEra -- had:
"90% lower SO2 emissions,
80% lower NOx emissions, and
51% lower CO2 emissions."
This is compared to the industry, so the "industry, may or may not be pretty...
By NextEra is looking pretty pretty, by comparison.
It appears that this will put NextEra firmly in the leadership position of Wind Generation in the USA.
'via Blog this'
NextEra (FPL by an older name) now produces enough Wind Power to run a city the size of Chicago, or it will.
Rather cool is to check out the company's Sustainability Report. http://www.nexteraenergy.com/news/index.shtml
This will give you an indication of what power generation companies should be talking about in terms of their production capacity and their carbon footprint.
For example:
"In 2011, 52 million tons of CO2 avoided
from zero-emitting generation and
customer energy efficiency programs."
And, compared to the industry, FPL -- I mean NextEra -- had:
"90% lower SO2 emissions,
80% lower NOx emissions, and
51% lower CO2 emissions."
This is compared to the industry, so the "industry, may or may not be pretty...
By NextEra is looking pretty pretty, by comparison.
It appears that this will put NextEra firmly in the leadership position of Wind Generation in the USA.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)