Because of my opposition to the coal industry I have been asked about what we're going to do to insure adequate electricity at an affordable price once all the megawatts of electricity produced by coal goes away. There are several ways:
1. To some, conservation sounds silly, but we waste enormous amounts of energy. Heating and cooling buildings makes up close to 40% of our energy use. By simply insulating our buildings better we can reduce energy demand a huge amount. Plus, if when we convert all our light bulbs to CFCs and unplug appliances when not in use we can save another large percentage. That's a big start.2. Cheap natural gas is being used now as a substitute for coal. While some may consider this a permanent solution, I consider it as a transitional fuel that will help us reduce air pollution and CO2 emissions while we ramp up and bring to scale solar and wind.3. As the article below points out, we are making great strides in bringing down the cost of solar (and wind too) and making it much more efficient. We WILL get the cost to be competitive on a direct basis without even taking into consideration the cost of climate disruption to society.
Read on...
Solar industry will boom globally and challenge cheap natural gas -- Citigroup
Special to E&EPublished: Thursday, February 28, 2013
Large consumer electronic brands are likely to enter the solar energy market and fuel a worldwide boom in panel installations that will surpass most expectations as the rooftop technology becomes cheaper than gas, a report by Citigroup says.
Although worldwide solar installations grew by an average of 59 percent per year from 2007 to 2012, much of that advance was due to subsidies and legislation mandating solar spending. That's about to change, according to the report.
<photo_cw_01.jpg>A cyclist on a cross-country camping jaunt pauses in a California state park to charge his laptop from a folding solar array. Photo courtesy of Flickr.
Solar has reached residential parity in many regions, and utility-scale parity will follow over the next few years. Some U.S. utilities are already choosing to build solar farms instead of gas plants to deliver peak loads based on pure economics.
"In Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia and the South-West of the U.S., residential-scale solar has already reached grid-parity with average residential electricity prices," Citigroup analysts Shar Pourreza, Jason Channell and Timothy Lam wrote in their report. "In other countries grid parity is not far away. We forecast that grid parity will be attained by Japan in 2014-2016, South Korea in 2016-2020 and by the U.K. in 2018-2021."
On the other hand, China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia will not attain grid parity until after 2020, despite good solar conditions in some regions, due to their low residential electricity prices, which are subsidized by the state, the report says.
As far as utilities are concerned, giant solar farms must be able to compete against wholesale power prices from combined-cycle gas turbine plants. That's currently impossible with U.S. shale gas selling at $3 per million British thermal units. But Citigroup says $3 per MMBtu doesn't reflect the true cost of production of shale gas. In addition, gas costs more in Europe and Asia (in some cases much more: $16 per MMBtu in Japan), so solar can be highly competitive there even at utility scale.
One issue will be that solar growth will lead to lower utilization rates at conventional generation plants, which will nevertheless need to remain online to cover power demand on less sunny days, at night and during the winter.
"Ultimately we believe that the system will move to a capacity payment mechanism to remunerate utilities for low utilization rates on plants that must remain open as backup generation," the analysts said. "Ultimately, while solar can reduce costs directly, the consumer will end up paying for these capacity payments."
Consumer electronic brands likely to move in
"We are likely to see large consumer electronic brands dominate the space, potentially alongside large industrial manufacturers," Citigroup said. "These companies would bring their existing brand strength, customer relationships, route to market, balance sheets, access to cheap capital and purchasing power to the party. If they were to build 5 [gigawatts] of capacity using the latest equipment, they would achieve economies of scale and lower costs by a technology advantage of two to three years."
Solar panel manufacturing is a relatively easy activity to gain entry to, with most companies using the same machines manufactured by the same few equipment providers, and with little to differentiate themselves apart from size of facility and location.
While new entrants could try to buy distressed assets from existing solar market players -- as has happened with German producer Q-Cells, taken over by South Korea's Hanwha -- such deals would come with older and higher-cost equipment or with production based in higher-cost locations like Europe or the United States.
"While consolidation of existing capacity is likely to happen to an extent, we suspect it is more likely that it will be new production facilities using the latest equipment, and with larger unit facilities to gain extra economies of scale," the report says.
In the end, seven or eight panel manufacturers with a capacity of 4 to 5 GW each will dominate the market, the report predicts, compared with the current situation where the bulk of the companies have a capacity of a few hundred megawatts each.
Subsidies fade, but demand rises
The International Energy Agency forecasts cumulative solar installations of 662 GW from 2012 to 2035, or an average of 29 GW per year. According to the Citigroup report, that's too conservative -- the analysts forecast growth of 34 GW per year. But even under the IEA scenario, solar would represent 11.2 percent of all new installed generation capacity and 13 percent of the investment in generation capacity.
Although the main solar markets are in Europe today, the continent's importance to the technology will diminish as subsidies are reduced in several countries. New solar installations will drop from 4 GW last year in Italy to 1.5 GW this year, and from 7.6 GW in Germany to 3 GW, the report forecasts.
Meanwhile, China will double its installations to 10 GW, Japan will go from 2.7 GW last year to 5 GW this year and the United States will go from 3.2 GW to 4 GW. The most important emerging markets will be in the Middle East, which will install 3.5 GW by 2016 from next to nothing now, and India, which will install 1.3 GW per year by 2016, according to the report.
"While historically core markets will provide support, this growth will come from new regions and markets, some already established, others yet to materialize," the analysis says. "China will become a larger part of the global market as the government supports demand by setting a sharply higher annual installation target of 10 GW."
Europe accounted for nearly 50 percent of 2012 demand, with most of it fueled by unsustainable subsidies. In a separate report, Deutsche Bank analyst Vish Shah said that this year Europe will account for only 20 percent of the overall demand. But these European installations will be much less dependent on subsidies.
"We expect 33 percent of demand within Europe to come from sustainable markets as we expect developers in Italy and other Southern European regions to develop projects without subsidies," Shah said. "More importantly, we expect demand from sustainable markets to account for 66 percent of overall demand in 2013 compared to 30 percent in 2012."
Solar is now cheaper than diesel-based electricity generation in many markets such as India and Africa, where a stable and sustainable energy supply at fixed costs such as solar is becoming a more attractive option for policymakers concerned about rising energy demand.
Carl Castrogiovanni
11:45 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013
Is so-called "grid parity" comprehensive of installation costs?
If so, then there is NO need to keep throwing the vast amounts taxpayer monies at solar in the form of various subsidies.
If it's not comprehensive of that total-cost-of-ownership, then the Citigroup report isn't realistic...
Michael Ioffe
7:58 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Cullen, Heidi 2010. The Weather of the Future.
“Whereas Manabe’s 1967 model was simply one big grid square meant
to cover (the) entire planet, today’s climate models have more than 1
million grid square that cover(s) the planet. Each grid square is about
70 miles by 70 miles, with twenty-six vertical layers in the atmosphere”
(p. 42).
It is not so important how much smaller the grid will be in the
future, it is more important what kind of data we will put in
every intersection of the grid. If we put temperature, humidity,
pressure, direction and speed of wind, and lots of other data
which influences weather conditions, we could receive tendency
for climate change.
The question is this: Which line of these computations supports
ideas that carbon dioxide or other GHG are responsible for
that?
You will never find this line, or any combination of lines, in
computation. It is up to the scientist’s dogma that GHG are
responsible for climate change.
WE MUST REEVALUATE THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
Charles E. Frank
10:01 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
So what you're saying is that the science of climate change is wrong?
Bob Levi
10:14 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Al Gore, who won an Academy Award for his film on climate change, and his investment company sold all of their alternative energy stocks last year. http://www.thestreet.com/story/11727215/1/al-gore-walks-away-from-green-energy.html
Did the main strean media pick up on that? I didn't see anything about it other than in a an email from a friend who follows those kinds of things.
Gary
10:22 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
There is no science in The Global Warming movement. It is a political movement that has morphed into a big business using religious dogma in the guise of psuedo-scientific jargon as a weapon against non-believers.
The scandal with the UN's IPCC and East Anglia University revealed how climate science has been corrupted all the way to the top of our most respected institutions. Global Warming is nothing but bullying for money and power.
You think I exaggerate? Look at what you call it now "climate change" instead of global warming. So if the weather changes from day to day, your theory is proven. That isn't science. That's a bad joke.
Unfortunately, we can no longer trust anyone on climate science today because it's been so politicized, and the money has grown so large. Until someone can produce a model which can match past climate patterns, and predict future patterns within a reasonable margin of error, we should ignore all their advice. Every prediction ever made by apocalyptic environmentalists has been wrong in the past, so we all should be very wary of the chicken-littles amongst us today who demand that we re-engineer society according to their arbitrary schemes every time they scream "the sky is falling".
BTW: You got it all wrong. The power of the future is (nuclear power + high density batteries). But that doesn't move your agenda forward does it?
Sully
1:21 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I'm sorry, Gary- maybe you missed that the East Anglia "conspiracy" was debunked more than once (more than twice too). There is so much legitimate research, it's astounding how those on the far right can continue to deny it. Since Rush and your other gods have said it's faked, it must be, right? Who's the sheep?
Bob Levi
10:32 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Well said, Gary.
I have three friends besides myself who have technical backgrounds. We all agree that most "studies" of global warming or climate change are politically charged and lack true scientific method. If a college professor needs to support himself or herself and some grad students with grants, the climate change money pump is the place to go. Can they have true objectivity if one of their goals is to get more funding? Much of the academic scientific community have prostituted themselve for the sake of tenure. That's MHO. Anyone want to refute it?
Bob Levi
5:49 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
I sent this link to a friend of mine who evaluates and writes about the lack of eveidence regarding climate change. He also is a graduate scientist, tracks environmental issues and once headed up the industurial air pollution control association.
I send him this link for comment and here's his reply:
"Interesting stuff…starts with the usual misinformation ( I laughed out loud about Spain’s solar grid) and then, ,as always, the piece fails to recognize the 800 lb gorilla in the solar/wind scam……storage and distribution limitations which apparently depend on Congress passing legislation to change the laws of physics."
Me
10:49 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
It is confusing why some people talk about solar power as if it is a bad thing. Is it cheap? Not terribly but the cost per watt has come down dramatically. Most of this drop can be attributed to the economies of scale created by an increase in the number of installations. It is the investment tax credit that will drive this renewable power to the point where it is at grid parity without future subsidies. Do you really think that oil would be as cheap as it is without subsidies?
Carl Castrogiovanni
7:51 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
What oil subsidies?
Me
9:55 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Historically, there have been plenty of subsidies (in the form of tax policy). The United States federal energy tax policy historically focused on the increased production of oil and natural gas with no focus on alternative energy or conservation. Two policies were the driving force that allowed this policy to become successful. The first was expending of intangible drilling costs (IDCs). This allowed companies to write off costs such as labor costs, material costs, supplies, and repairs associated with drilling a well which allowed companies to write off their start up costs to make a profit in their start up year. The second policy was a depletion allowance that allowed oil and gas producers to claim 27.5% of revenue as a deduction for the cost of exhaustion or depletion of the deposit. This allowed for reduced capital investment and encouraged businesses to develop their resource faster.
Today, solar receives an investment tax credit that helps to bring down the cost. Just as the oil industry was weaned off if its government support, solar will need to be weaned as well. In a reasonable amount of time, solar tax subsidies will no longer be necessary.
Bob Levi
7:59 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Some 30 years ago, I headed up the consulting practice for a major contract research organization. We had a number of government contractws to eveluate the potential for alternative energies. The main outcome from these studies is that alternative energies would become reality as prices declined and they became more efficient. Has either really happened?
Me
9:46 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@Bob, had you done some fundamental research before you launched into your diatribe against renewable energy you would have learned that the cost of solar panels has fallen from over $5.00/watt to about $0.65.watt. This is almost entirely attributable to economies of scale. Inverters are coming down in price as well. Within a year or two, it is expected that the installed price of solar will be in the range of $1.75/watt. At that price, solar is nearing grid parity. None of this would have happened without the solar investment tax credit.
McCloud
10:31 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Government allocation of wealth towards it's opinion of what renewable energy we should be using is alot like the 1970s Soviet Union attempt to make blue jeans and compete with Levis.
Me
12:57 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@McCloud - Allocation of wealth....seriously? You can come up with a better buzz word than that.
Bob Levi
10:11 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@Me. Did I ever say I was against renewable energy? Assuming everything you say is true about solar panels, then why hasn't the technology been adapted universally.
How about wind turbines? Aside from them being environmentally unsound, they suck the energy out of the atmosphere,. Would that have any affect on climate change.
The basic problem is that new technologies are enacted with a knee-jerk reaction. Look at ethanol from corn. What a fiasco. It takes more energy to produce a gallon from corn than the energy content of a gallon of ethanol. And look what happened to food prices. Besides the increase cost of animal feed resulting in higher meat prices, every food product that uses corn sweeteners, or corn starch or corn oil went up too. And cars get poorer mileage using E85.
Me
10:33 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@Bob, Apples and oranges? Mixed. Bath water and baby? Both thrown out. New technology??? Do you realize how long mankind has been using the sun for power? Is your rationale now shifting to say that solar power is in some way detrimental to the environment? Surely you learned in your capacity as a consultant that you should look at all aspects. If you are saying that solar and wind are bad for the environment then you must at least answer the question "compared to what?". Is a wind farm worse for the environment than a coal mine? Is a solar farm worse for the environment than a natural gas pipeline and power plant.
McCloud
10:51 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Genius, solar panels and wind were around at least 25 years before cellphones. Cellphones needed no government initiative. You do the math.
Sully
1:16 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Cell phones didn't have the oil and gas industry lobbying against them. Hey Gary, so maybe three percent of global scientists don't believe in climate change, but they know more than the other 97 percent? And Bob, really? You're an expert on the climate? The research supporting global warming has been sound and valid, not made up by the government. Even the Koch-funded study concluded climate change is real. When it's the oil and gas industry lobbying so hard (and their store-bought pundits on the right) against climate change, knowing it would lower their profits, you have to be a little suspicious.
McCloud
2:01 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Cellphones didn't have $100 billion in free money given to them in one year to fund reelection campaigns for Democrats after declaring bankruptcy. Scientists, along with myself, agree that the climate changes constantly. Why just less than six months ago the temp was 90 degrees. Did my car starting cause the temp to be 25 degrees today?
Me
2:07 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
$100 billion in free money to the solar industry? Do tell McCloud, where do you find such information?
McCloud
2:14 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
Me
2:22 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@McCloud - What sort of special scientist math are you using? I added up the "facts" that came from your blog reference (and we all know that blogs are always the most reliable sources of information) and could not come anywhere near your claim of $100 billion.
McCloud
2:37 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
That list only includes the losers up to this point.
Sully
3:43 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Gee Mac, are you a scientist? I thought you were an economist. Obviously since its snowing today, climate change can't be real. Do you think Chicago winters will have 90 degree days? That's kind of foolish, isn't it? You are no scientist Mac. You're a misinformed sheep who has a lot of anger built up in your head (oh yeah, another thing- republicans have invested in solar energy as well. I guess they got money too then.
-Heritage blog? Really? Boy, you really are gullible, aren't you?
-Yes, it's so unfair to tax oil companies because they deserve all of their millions in profits. Good thinking Mac.
Sully
3:45 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Well, Me, according to a republican congressman, riding bicycles is dangerous to the environment, so it just makes sense that solar energy would be too.
RB
2:04 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
$70 billion to fossil fuel subsidies and $12 billion to renewable fuel subsidies. Macko....you do the math.
Subsidies should be used for growth of sustainable but not as profitable exploration and development. Instead they go to established and very profitable oil companies. Makes not sense.
McCloud
3:13 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
You do the math, my car doesn't start when I put algae into it. It does work when gas made from oil is pumped into it. Any attempt to put the hurt on oil companies will have immediate effect on the, your words, middle class.
McCloud
3:35 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Once in awhile I enjoy looking under the liberal carpet of lies and what has been swept away.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/about_that_2007_national_intel.asp
Sully
3:49 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Oh boy, another trustworthy source of information. Mac, did you had a lobotomy sometime in your adult life? You sure don't use any part of your brain if you have one. What a pitiful waste.
McCloud
3:52 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Is that all you do is attempt to shoot the messenger? You are a waste of my time.
Sully
3:55 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Do you mean shoot the one who spreads the ridiculous misinformation? That's all you do, and you do it quite often. You waste everyone's time, Mac.
McCloud
3:56 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The information in the article is trustworthy, as I have a memory and remember this story. Madam Secretary, Obama, and Master Secretary of State all used the report to slander Bush. It worked, are you proud of your people?
Bob Levi
3:59 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Ah, wonderful snowy day. Don't some of you folks hava anything better to do that take cheap shots at each other?
I guess with 24/7 newscasts and talk radio, people don't know how to have civilized discourses any more. Too much noixe on this thread.
Charles E. Frank
4:18 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
As the one who posted the original article I find it amusing that some people like to cite the conspiracy theory about climate change such that the entire world scientific community has prostituted itself in order to keep the R & R money coming. How come they only do it for this one issue and not others? Why is this issue so unique? Personally, I prefer to believe the highly credible scientific community. Everything that has been predicted has occurred and sooner than anticipated. To reject the science is extremely dangerous.
McCloud
4:24 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
This issue is not unique, there are other "scientific" opinions like the food pyramid put out in the 1970's where corruption was the engine. It is extremely dangerous to divert resources towards "theories" when there are millions who need clean water, and protection against mosquitoes. The theory at this point is incapable of proof as to, the change in climate data, and if man is causing it. We already know of corrupted data from the main database.
Gary
9:30 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Not one thing they have predicted has come true, other than "climate change", which means every time the weather changes they jump up yell "We were right!". It's not a scientific theory. It's an old joke.
Warming stopped somewhere around the year 2000. We've been on a plateau since then. The climate alarmists didn't predict this. They can't explain it.
The scientific community has no credibility at all anymore when it comes to climate science. The belligerent bullying attitude emanating from that group should be enough to tell you that good science has stopped, and that "the debate is over crowd" has won the day. Science is the process of applying theories to real world events and then LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT PROVE THE THEORY WRONG. Any piece of evidence that proves the theory wrong, no matter how small or infrequent, disproves the theory.
Global Warmists do not use the scientific method. They use the medieval methods of the uneducated and superstitious by grasping onto a theory and spending all their time looking for evidence to PROVE IT RIGHT. They simply ignore any evidence that doesn't conform to their theory.
Global Warming, aka Climate Change, isn't science Charles. Any attempt to bully those who question this farce simply does more to prove the point.
Charles E. Frank
4:32 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
And you're literally willing to bet the farm on ignoring the issue and doubling down on fossil fuels?
McCloud
4:36 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Nice try, I could ask the same of you as well. Fossil fuels are all we have now, and getting political hay from 50 year old worthless technology is adding to our economic disaster. When someone has the right idea, the money will be there, without Obama or any other leader's help.
Gary
9:59 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I'll bet the farm that Apocalyptic Environmentalists will get it wrong every time. Why wouldn't I? They have a 100% track record of being wrong, all the way from Malthus to the Global Warmists.
One good reason to ignore the suggestions of the Apocalyptic Environmentalists is they tend to suggest solutions that kill huge numbers of people while failing to solve any problem at all. Let's look at two examples. One where we didn't take their advice, and one where we did.
1. The Coming Ice Age in the 1970's
I refer you to an article in Newsweek 1975 called The Cooling World.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23768668/Newsweek-1975-Global-Ice-Age
An overwhelming consensus of scientists were predicting a new ice age, and we had to act NOW or people would starve by the millions. One of the recommended solutions was to melt the polar ice caps with soot. Here are some quotes:
"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Sound familiar?
"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." Not just a consensus of scientists, but unanimity!
The went on to predict disaster and mayhem if we didn't pour soot on the Poles. Aren't you glad there were skeptics back then?
Gary
10:20 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Now let's look at how the good intentions of Apocalyptic Environmentalists ended up killing over 30 million people, most of them children in underdeveloped countries.
2. Silent Spring - The DDT Scare
DDT was a miracle pesticide, and was one of the main tools used to eradicate malaria bearing mosquitoes, saving millions of lives all over the developed world.
In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring and made the case that DDT would damage birds' eggs and result in the mass extinction of birds. Carson used faulty scientific methods and drew conclusions that would later be revealed as junk science, but the book was a hit and the scare tactic worked, and in 1972 DDT was banned in the US, and we used our muscle to ban it throughout the world.
Millions died from malaria as a result.
Since then real science has caught up, and in 2006 the World Health Organization recommended removing the total ban on DDT, and suggested that 1 million lives had been lost every year that might have been saved if DDT hadn't been banned.
Rachel Carson is partially responsible for the deaths of around 30 million people, mostly children. ... and she is considered a hero.
Real science improves lives, junk science... Global Warming science... Climate Change science .... lowers standards of living and can kill by the millions.
Don't show me a consensus, show me some real science.
Me
4:58 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Glacial melt - confirmed
Sea level rise - confirmed
Change in habitat or cold climate species - confirmed
Lack of sea ice - confirmed
Higher average global temperatures - confirmed
Gary's true identity and credentials - unconfirmed
Bob Levi
9:53 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
When I was being trained as a scientist (1950s), my college professors told me that the scientific method involved seeking the truth. It's a shame that in some cases today, like climate change and clinical drug testing, seeking the truth based on empirical scientifc evidence seems to have been pushed aside. Too many scientists now have their own agenda and a lot of it has to do with research funding and ego..