Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

PV is cheap enough now that it does not new any feed-in tariffs any more

I would really really like to see the calculation for that.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

@Airbourne_Again I am happy to accept I should not have written “often claimed” just because of what AOC said, I should not exaggerate and keep a balanced tone so we can keep a decent debate going.

@Arne I have followed PV for years. I am about to install either 4 or 6 Kw of panels on a house in Italy where I agree, it does not need a feed in tariff as it is cheaper than ENEL. However, I am still 100% sure it does not make sense in the cloudy UK but delighted to be proved wrong.

In the end, as Bjorn Lomborg contends, when renewables make proper economic sense in a particular region then we have a cost free move over to cleaner energy. We mustn’t forget we still need to generate base load (or store energy with batteries) which is why after Germany installed a large amount of PV, prices went up and amazingly emissions rose as they shut down Nuclear and ramped up their coal plants to compensate – that has got to be a crazy policy.

United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I would really really like to see the calculation for that.

In November, 2018, Lazard found that not only are utility-scale solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels, “[i]n some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation.”

Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates a “global levelled cost of energy for onshore wind [of] $55 per megawatt-hour, down 18% from the first six months of 2017, while the equivalent for solar PV without tracking systems is $70 per MWh, also down 18%.” Bloomberg does not provide its global public LCOEs for fossil fuels, but it notes in India they are significantly more expensive: “BNEF is now showing benchmark LCOEs for onshore wind of just $39 per MWh, down 46% on a year ago, and for solar PV at $41, down 45%. By comparison, coal comes in at $68 per MWh, and combined-cycle gas at $93.”

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) says that “renewables are now cheapest energy source”, elaborating: “the Bank believes that renewable energy markets in many of the countries where it invests have reached a stage where the introduction of competitive auctions will lead both to a steep drop in electricity prices and an increase in investment.” 40 The World Bank (World Bank) President Jim Yong Kim agreed on 10 October 2018: “We are required by our by-laws to go with the lowest cost option, and renewables have now come below the cost of [fossil fuels].”

There is this great movie made of AOC about how she was elected. Even if you are not a Democrat, it is a nice movie. Can be found on Netflix.

EHRD, Netherlands

Those are claims, not numbers. You can tweak all this stuff by making different assumptions re eg plant depreciation.

With solar PV the actual depreciation is high because it falls apart after some years. But this is usually ignored or understated because it is fashionable.

Also the sun does not shine much of the time.

Nuclear has the same problem for example. The plant lifetime varies according to the assumptions you make about public acceptance of nuclear energy in the future. Currently, acceptance is very low; it is about as unfashionable as it can be. This will have to change, IMHO.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a “free” large south facing roof on industrial premises in the UK but the numbers I ran simply don’t stack up. They do stack up in Italy however where it is actually sunny most days + the sunshine is a different level of intensity to the UK.

Things are heading in the right direction but I am guessing the examples above are peak output on a windy/sunny day. You have to factor in storage or base load and then you end up with the example of Germany.

Things continue to move in the right direction though but which is why the EBRD also say “many countries” not “all countries”

United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Also the sun does not shine much of the time.

This argument and the related argument that the wind doesn’t blow all the time have been done to death. No one has ever claimed that solar and/or wind power should be the sole source of energy or that there should not be energy buffers in the system. There is no need for every solar panel or wind turbine to provide power at any given moment. Also over a larger area the likelihood that there will be no wind anywhere is less than the likelihood of power outages because of equipment failures.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
EHRD, Netherlands

There is a ‘climate war’ going on. On one side had you have for example the BBC that follows the warmist side decided by political pressure, on the other hand the scientists who believe that man cannot do much about climate (I did not say pollution), that it is going to cost us an enormous amount of money to achieve nothing.

Here is a link to a very good scientific piece by Channel 4 on Youtube:

EBKT

I’ve said before, but we do not understand the complexity, balancing mechanisms all that well. Also solar activity cycles , etc.

We’ve not been taking accurate first hand readings for very long at all (in geological terms). But are trying to get a handle on some of it. However do not forget a lot of people in research know there is relatively easy funding available for climate catastrophe chat.

Solar panels do have a problem with production costs and also keeping them clean once installed.

Whilst it’s nice to think we’re insulating our house and being super efficient, it’s not ideal when china is using enough greenhouse gases in insulation production to create a measurable hole in the ozone layer.

Batteries and electric storage is all well and good but south america is struggling with water because of the heavy use in producing it. Something in the region of half a million gallons required for about a ton of lithium.

AOC knows the world will end in 12 years, and thinks they can get rid of petrol cars and planes in 10 years. income for those unwilling to work. I’m not sure I’d take much she said seriously.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top