When will solar become economical against the grid?

[ScienceRocks]

When will Solar panels be able to compete with the grid? When will it cross the line where it may become a better deal.

I'd say 2017?

 

[Saigon]

Amazingly enough, the economics of energy production are not standardized across the globe.

Solar is already viable and practical in countries like Cyprus, Malta, Israel and Spain - less so in Finland, Scotland or much of Norway.

Likewise, the use of tidal, nuclear and wind energy is practical and efficient in some countries; whereas it never will be practical and efficient in others.

What we do know is that these four sources of energy combined will be the likely sources of electricity during the next 50 years, and it is unlikely there will be any coal used outside China and a handful of other countries within 10 years.

 

[Mr. H.]

Amazingly enough, the economics of energy production are not standardized across the globe.

Solar is already viable and practical in countries like Cyprus, Malta, Israel and Spain - less so in Finland, Scotland or much of Norway.

Likewise, the use of tidal, nuclear and wind energy is practical and efficient in some countries; whereas it never will be practical and efficient in others.

What we do know is that these four sources of energy combined will be the likely sources of electricity during the next 50 years, and it is unlikely there will be any coal used outside China and a handful of other countries within 10 years.

Even without direct government financial support?

 

[editec]

When will Solar panels be able to compete with the grid? When will it cross the line where it may become a better deal.

I'd say 2017?

Solar energy is typically also part of the grid, Matt.

In some states, and Maine is one of those, even homes that generate minuet amounts of solar generated electricity can sell their extra power back to the electricity companies. And that's great, too, because in those systems one doesn't need batteries to store that extra power

Hpowever, micro-economically speaking, it still doesn't make sense to invest in solar for most homes here in Maine. Plenty of people are still doing that, plus setting up wind power generation.

 

[Saigon]

Even without direct government financial support?

Do coal or nuclear ever receive government financial support?

As a utility, energy production in almost every developed nation receives various forms of subsidies or assistance; either by way of investment capital to fund the construction of damns or nuclear stations, as grants for research or feed-in subsidies to assist newer forms of energy production.

I'm not sure where you live, but it's faierly good odds that coal and nulear have received more financial support during the past 20 years from your government that renewables have.

 

[Mr. H.]

Even without direct government financial support?

Do coal or nuclear ever receive government financial support?

As a utility, energy production in almost every developed nation receives various forms of subsidies or assistance; either by way of investment capital to fund the construction of damns or nuclear stations, as grants for research or feed-in subsidies to assist newer forms of energy production.

I'm not sure where you live, but it's faierly good odds that coal and nulear have received more financial support during the past 20 years from your government that renewables have.

Illinois has more nuclear plants than any other state.

My guess is that the per KW financial assistance is far higher for alternatives/renewables than nuclear or hydrocarbon generated electricity.

IEA projections consistently show hyrocarbon electricity generation to be the major player even 50 years out.

 

[Saigon]

Mr H,

You are almost certainly right in the case of Illinois, but then we are also comparing a mature technology with a technology which is only now reaching its peak. Naturally, new technologies require more R&D and feed-in subsidies as they develop.

Tidal is expensive right now, but I don't think many people question that 20 years from now, some countries will be producing most of their electricity that way.

If someone comes up with a new replacement for the internal combustion engine tomorrow, that might need grants, too. Doesn't mean it is ultimately not the cheapest or best option.

 

[Ariux]

Solar might be practical in remote regions, especially those nearer the equator. But, in America, solar electricity being practical is no where in sight.

 

[Saigon]

Solar might be practical in remote regions, especially those nearer the equator. But, in America, solar electricity being practical is no where in sight.

Right.

Because there isn't enough sun in Arizona to produce electricity from solar.

 

[bripat9643]

Even without direct government financial support?

Do coal or nuclear ever receive government financial support?

As a utility, energy production in almost every developed nation receives various forms of subsidies or assistance; either by way of investment capital to fund the construction of damns or nuclear stations, as grants for research or feed-in subsidies to assist newer forms of energy production.

I'm not sure where you live, but it's faierly good odds that coal and nulear have received more financial support during the past 20 years from your government that renewables have.

Horseshit.

Funding newer sources of energy doesn't do a thing for older source of energy, you witless git. Nuclear has benefited from some government subsidies in the form of research, but not coal. Neither get any direct subsidies in the form of tax right offs or even tax credits as solar and wind power receive. If the later were economically viable, they wouldn't require government subsidies, but we both know that sales of solar panels would be close to zero if it weren't for government subsidies.

 

[bripat9643]

Mr H,

You are almost certainly right in the case of Illinois, but then we are also comparing a mature technology with a technology which is only now reaching its peak. Naturally, new technologies require more R&D and feed-in subsidies as they develop.

When did coal fired power generation require government R&D? The answer is "never."

Tidal is expensive right now, but I don't think many people question that 20 years from now, some countries will be producing most of their electricity that way.

A lot of people question it, especially the kind with engineering degrees.

If someone comes up with a new replacement for the internal combustion engine tomorrow, that might need grants, too. Doesn't mean it is ultimately not the cheapest or best option.

Something doesn't exist might be the best option? Next you'll be telling us that perpetual motion machines are the answer if only the government would fund the research!

 

[Saigon]

The myth:

Nuclear has benefited from some government subsidies in the form of research, but not coal. .

The reality:

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.

Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch

Do you have the cojones to admit your error?

Let's see.

 

[bripat9643]

The myth:

Nuclear has benefited from some government subsidies in the form of research, but not coal. .

The reality:

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.

Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch

Do you have the cojones to admit your error?

Let's see.

Sorry, but I can't find that claim anywhere on the EIA website. The only place we find it is on "SourceWatch.org," a left-wing propaganda site.

Your claim is obvious horseshit.

 

[Saigon]

Sorry, but I can't find that claim anywhere on the EIA website. The only place we find it is on "SourceWatch.org," a left-wing propaganda site.

Your claim is obvious horseshit.

Oh, obviously, yes. Despite the fact that the same information is available on a dozen other websites....such as Reuters and reports from Harvard.

In addition, mature energy sources such as coal and oil
continue to receive subsidies in some form the government, the
report pointed out.

US solar subsidies consistent with coal, oil: report | Reuters

And here in a reprinted study from Harvard...

Harvard researchers have discovered the true extent of subsidies to coal in the United States: $345 billion.

This implies a real cost of electricity production by coal-fired power plants of $0.178 per kwh – several times the accepted and oft-quoted cost of electricity, thereby significantly eroding the coal industry argument that coal is the cheap baseload power option.

US Coal Subsidy $345 billion: Harvard Study « Commercial Climate

 

[Saigon]

And here it is on the EIA website, for those who don't know how to use search engines.

Federal subsidies for coal increased 44 percent from $943 million to $1,358 million.
Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas increased 40 percent from $2,010 million to $2,820 million.
Federal subsidies for nuclear energy increased 46 percent from $1,714 million to $2,499 million.

Institute for Energy Research | EIA Releases New Subsidy Report: Subsidies for Renewables Increase 186 Percent

 

[bripat9643]

And here it is on the EIA website, for those who don't know how to use search engines.

Federal subsidies for coal increased 44 percent from $943 million to $1,358 million.
Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas increased 40 percent from $2,010 million to $2,820 million.
Federal subsidies for nuclear energy increased 46 percent from $1,714 million to $2,499 million.

Institute for Energy Research | EIA Releases New Subsidy Report: Subsidies for Renewables Increase 186 Percent

That doesn't add up to $560 billion, distick. Furthermore, it still doesn't come from the IEA. It comes from another leftwing propaganda site.

Strike two.

 

[Saigon]

Bripat -

That's ok, I hadn't expected to have the cojones to admit that you were wrong.

Let's just assume that the 20 - 30 newspapers, agencies and university studies who have made the claim that the coal industry receives massive subsidies are all just evil liars.

 

[Douger]

Mr H,

You are almost certainly right in the case of Illinois, but then we are also comparing a mature technology with a technology which is only now reaching its peak. Naturally, new technologies require more R&D and feed-in subsidies as they develop.

Tidal is expensive right now, but I don't think many people question that 20 years from now, some countries will be producing most of their electricity that way.

If someone comes up with a new replacement for the internal combustion engine tomorrow, that might need grants, too. Doesn't mean it is ultimately not the cheapest or best option.

It already exists. Your masters continue to suppress battery technologies.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369h-SEBXd8]WORLDS FASTEST street legal ELECTRIC CAR - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Skull Pilot]

Solar might be practical in remote regions, especially those nearer the equator. But, in America, solar electricity being practical is no where in sight.

Right.

Because there isn't enough sun in Arizona to produce electricity from solar.

Single point large scale solar is impractical.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/215070-large-scale-small-scale-solar.html#post5023665

 

[Saigon]

Skull pilot -

Why does it need to be single point?

Around 90% of homes on Cyprus and Malta have solar panels - do you imagine that has much of an impact on the total electricity demand in those countries?