Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020

[Manonthestreet]

If the object is to get more panels into use...thus spurring improvements why not smaller set ups to more customers instead of forcing whole house useage? I don't trust it because I have purchased some handheld solar chargers that don't come near to doing what they advertise and no they werent cheap ...

theres a world of difference between full systems and those handheld items

Ya don't say......still can't address the question eh

 

[Manonthestreet]

This is how libs lose customers....the superiority act always boosts sales.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

removing taxs would be fine except for the fact there would be no roads to drive on, as for regs it depends on which ones you want removed, I'm not ok with removing disposal regs since the cheapest way to dispose of toxic materials in to dump them outback

I was only responding to your comment that letting the free market decide fuel costs would cause it to skyrocket. They put costs controls and subsidies in place BECAUSE it is such a heavily taxed and regulated industry. It's likely a wash.

 

[karpenter]

And 20 million are taking more than their fair share

There It Is !!
WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !!

 

[martybegan]

You also have to take into account the additional penetrations needed for the electrical connections, and as these locations up north see more precipitation than south it adds to the complexity of the roof above and beyond the loading.

My point is with the reduced efficiencies found in more northern latitudes, is mandating it state-wide just virtue signaling?

So instead of 90 percent you only get 75%. That's better than nothing. Around here, we have a ton of Solar. Solar even puts out power during rain storms but it might be only 60%. But 60% is better than nothing. With the new Solar Panels, during a real sunny day right at Noon, it's nothing to get a 95% rating. Add batteries to that for the evenings and you have your lights, AC, and more 24/7 with a surplus. So you only get 70% where you are at with the new systems. That's better than nothing. And it's cost affective pretty quick if it's already built into the cost of building the house. All the new Commercial Buildings being built for the last 2 years all have Solar built into them. Your point doesn't have a point other than just throwing BS into the Ball game.

That reduction could be enough to extend the payoff period of the panels past their usable life. and 60% during the rain? Do you have backup for that?

It's more of the same, government forcing a one size fits all cost to people regardless of the desire to do it.

On the average, 8 hours a day, the sun don't shine. Even in a rain storm or overcast, the sun shines and you still get 60% solar power. On a sunny day, using the new solar panels, you can get up to 95% output. Now, couple that with lithium batteries or even old style Deep Cells and you have power for that 8 hours you don't have any power coming from your panels. Again, when you do the planning for construction and you build this in, the cost is much lower than if you add it later. We don't have any mandate here that requires new Commercial Builds to install solar power but they are doing it anyway because it's just plain the smart thing to do. So it doesn't matter if the Government says you have to do it or not, it's the smart thing to do. You can play the spoiled little kid if you want but the rest of us will do the smart thing.

I see mostly 10-25% on a cloudy day, not 60%. Where did you get your number from?

Solar Panels Do Work On Cloudy Days | CleanTechnica

In the northeast the sun rises at 7 AM and sets at 4 PM in the winter. Is that 8 hours of no sun?

Why do you have to use crap numbers to justify your position?

Why do you have to use government to force me to do the "smart thing?"

I use average numbers. You can find exceptions on everything there is if you look hard enough. You can justify any poor behavior that way. So you do it. Fine by me.

Um, the difference between 10%-25% and your claimed 60% has nothing to do with "averaging". The site I referenced is a solar panel proponent site, and they only claim 10%-25%.

Where did you find the 60% value you gave as a response?

And what was your basis for "only 8 hours of no sunlight"?

 

[martybegan]

You also have to take into account the additional penetrations needed for the electrical connections, and as these locations up north see more precipitation than south it adds to the complexity of the roof above and beyond the loading.

My point is with the reduced efficiencies found in more northern latitudes, is mandating it state-wide just virtue signaling?

So instead of 90 percent you only get 75%. That's better than nothing. Around here, we have a ton of Solar. Solar even puts out power during rain storms but it might be only 60%. But 60% is better than nothing. With the new Solar Panels, during a real sunny day right at Noon, it's nothing to get a 95% rating. Add batteries to that for the evenings and you have your lights, AC, and more 24/7 with a surplus. So you only get 70% where you are at with the new systems. That's better than nothing. And it's cost affective pretty quick if it's already built into the cost of building the house. All the new Commercial Buildings being built for the last 2 years all have Solar built into them. Your point doesn't have a point other than just throwing BS into the Ball game.

That reduction could be enough to extend the payoff period of the panels past their usable life. and 60% during the rain? Do you have backup for that?

It's more of the same, government forcing a one size fits all cost to people regardless of the desire to do it.

what we have now is one size fits all with electric,,,as well as toilets

did you complain then??

I want an electric connection to my house. it doesn't have to be forced on me.

and may places are forcing the bullshit low flow toilets that sometimes require 2-3 flushes to get rid of the waste.

The better option is the dual mode toilets, but some places even the 2nd larger flush mode is too limited.

Eat smaller barritos

That isn't a response. The whole purpose of the low flow was to reduce water usage, but they often end up increasing the usage.

Just like the new design for gas cans is designed to reduce off-gassing, but result in more spillage due to how stupid they are designed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

On the average, 8 hours a day, the sun don't shine. Even in a rain storm or overcast, the sun shines and you still get 60% solar power. On a sunny day, using the new solar panels, you can get up to 95% output. Now, couple that with lithium batteries or even old style Deep Cells and you have power for that 8 hours you don't have any power coming from your panels. Again, when you do the planning for construction and you build this in, the cost is much lower than if you add it later. We don't have any mandate here that requires new Commercial Builds to install solar power but they are doing it anyway because it's just plain the smart thing to do. So it doesn't matter if the Government says you have to do it or not, it's the smart thing to do. You can play the spoiled little kid if you want but the rest of us will do the smart thing.

Lol
Without fossil fuels the northern plains are a wasteland... uninhabitable.

We have barely found the tip of the iceberg up here on the available fossil fuel energies.
That’s just the way it is, we actually have four seasons of here a lot of the country does not

Without fossil fuels the north western would be uninhabited? Are you trying to cheer me up?

No, the Climate change isn't all Man Made. But we contribute to it. We have a choice. We can work to lessen the affects of it and it will pass faster to better times or we can work to worsen it and extend it's bad times and maybe wreck things forever as we know it. Only man has that choice. Fossil Fuel Use is part of that choice.

Things like adding scrubbers to the coal burning factories that makes them as clean as Natural Gas. Cutting back on petro use in cars, trucks, trains and planes by using alternative methods that are more green friendly without giving them up. If we had allowed things to keep going like they were, the Earth would be unlivable today. You are too young to remember when Chesapeake Bay had a thick film on it with dead fish floating on top of the film. And that is our Nations Capital. You are too young to remember the warning sirens for many industrial cities to get your small children inside because the air was so bad it could kill your children. You are too young to remember the Black Snow. Welcome to the 1950s and 1960s. And we did all this in 60 short years starting when the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1890s. Yes, the Industrial Revolution is listed as sooner but it wasn't until the 1890s that it hit it's real stride. Remember this, England hit it's industrial Revolution in the late 1790s. They ended the European Mini Ice Age with it. You know, the one that stopped the Vikings Cold (get the pun there?).

We have a choice to hurt or help.

Lol
That’s why I say it depends on where you’re at, an all of the above policy is best.

We have a different policy here than say Maryland. Our polcies are closer to where you live because our conditions are closer to where you live. But our population is much higher and our industrial base is much higher therefore we can't be the same as where you are. To give you an idea, we have more people in one Metro Area than you have in your entire state. And we are considered tiny for the United States. But we also have the western slope that mirrors most of what you see where you are at including natural resources. We are so diverse that we have to have two different polices for the same state to make it work. I live on the Lucky side of the state where life is just a bit better in some ways and worse in others. I think it averages out. They don't tell me when I need to do something, where I need to do, where I can't go, etc.. They don't tell me that I can't carry my sidearm down the street as long as I am not menacing with it. We are pretty free around here and we like it. Meanwhile, the Denver Metro Area has different laws and standards because it needs them. And I can see why. For instance, in air quality, they had no choice but to clean that smog up fast. The Smog got so bad that it killed small children until they started going after industry and cars and trucks. Today, you can actually see across the city from the Mountains. Meanwhile, we don't have the mandatory inspections they have there on our vehicles because we don't need the air cleaned up. We exceed the standards without the inspections. Things like this is why you and I are at odds. You seem to think that everywhere should adhere to where you live. But I think the rules have to change with each and every local to make each and every local work.

Na, things that work in urban America do not work here in Rural America. That is just the way it is... live with it

I have never tried to impress the Urban laws on you. But you have tried to impress the rural laws on the urban areas. And you have failed. We all live with it, cupcake.

 

[easyt65]

it means end of states gas-stations : KSA, "Russia", all Gulf states , etc. how our world without states gas-stations will be look like?

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020,
The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23% since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.Globally, onshore wind schemes are now costing an average of $0.06 per kilowatt hour (kWh), although some schemes are coming in at $0.04 per KwH, while the cost of solar PV is down to $0.10 per KwH. In comparison, the cost of electricity generation based on fossil fuels typically falls in a range of $0.05 to $0.17 per KwH.

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims

Who is still holding their breath waiting for those Tesla electric cars to be delivered?

 

[martybegan]

Here is the reality.

Efficiency is a key component of cost, but the alt-energy proponents love to ignore that factor. They are so in love the the concept of renewable energy that they are willing to overlook the science.

The most criminal example of ignoring efficiency is the federal mandate to put ethanol in our gas, which decreased mileage by at least 3% and as much as 10%. So, instead of getting 20 miles per gallon, you only get between 19.3 and 18. At $2.50 per gallon, it actually costs us as much as another $6.00 to get the same level of efficiency, and that's with 90% fossil fuel helping that weak-ass 10% corn fuel bogging down the engine.

We are at least 50 years away from technology that will make alternative energy as efficient as fossil fuels.

That's why pro-alt-energy people are using government to FORCE it on us. They know it will not be as efficient as fossil fuels and they have FAILED to convince enough people that (1) human activities are causing climate change, and (2) that the consequences of the human affect on climate are so dire that we must abandon fossil fuels completely and immediately (or give up our capitalist economy, which is the real goal).

Sorry, alt-energy lovers. Unless we have some dramatic advancements in energy technology, fossil fuels will be the main source of energy for the remainder of your lifetime.

just like with other new tech you have to put it in play to get the true advancements that are needed, cell phones would not be where they are if they didnt get the old expensive ones on the market

and ethanol is a cluster fck

Those technologies overtook others because they offered concrete advantages over what they replaced. When cars replaced horses it wasn't because of cars being subsidized by the government or horses being penalized, it was because even if a car was a greater initial investment, it's cost of operating was much less than a horses, and a car would last far longer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The supply of hydrogen is virtually unlimited, and is already in limited commercial use to power vehicles. Advanced catalysts are used to separate H2O, in limited testing, at temperatures as low as 400 degrees using solar energy - without the heat losses associated with boiling.

I love that idea if that is true. That could very well be the future of energy, as we have an unlimited supply of water. That will require a huge marketing campaign and complete infrastructure renovation to make it viable. If those efficiencies are correct, the biggest roadblocks to hydrogen success are the replacement of current systems and infrastructure and misinformed public concerns for safety (which is a marketing problem). People hear hydrogen and automatically thing -- Hindenburg.

 

[Pete7469]

How do you fly an airplane with solar energy?

Asking for a friend.

Does it go faster the closer you get to the sun?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So instead of 90 percent you only get 75%. That's better than nothing. Around here, we have a ton of Solar. Solar even puts out power during rain storms but it might be only 60%. But 60% is better than nothing. With the new Solar Panels, during a real sunny day right at Noon, it's nothing to get a 95% rating. Add batteries to that for the evenings and you have your lights, AC, and more 24/7 with a surplus. So you only get 70% where you are at with the new systems. That's better than nothing. And it's cost affective pretty quick if it's already built into the cost of building the house. All the new Commercial Buildings being built for the last 2 years all have Solar built into them. Your point doesn't have a point other than just throwing BS into the Ball game.

That reduction could be enough to extend the payoff period of the panels past their usable life. and 60% during the rain? Do you have backup for that?

It's more of the same, government forcing a one size fits all cost to people regardless of the desire to do it.

On the average, 8 hours a day, the sun don't shine. Even in a rain storm or overcast, the sun shines and you still get 60% solar power. On a sunny day, using the new solar panels, you can get up to 95% output. Now, couple that with lithium batteries or even old style Deep Cells and you have power for that 8 hours you don't have any power coming from your panels. Again, when you do the planning for construction and you build this in, the cost is much lower than if you add it later. We don't have any mandate here that requires new Commercial Builds to install solar power but they are doing it anyway because it's just plain the smart thing to do. So it doesn't matter if the Government says you have to do it or not, it's the smart thing to do. You can play the spoiled little kid if you want but the rest of us will do the smart thing.

I see mostly 10-25% on a cloudy day, not 60%. Where did you get your number from?

Solar Panels Do Work On Cloudy Days | CleanTechnica

In the northeast the sun rises at 7 AM and sets at 4 PM in the winter. Is that 8 hours of no sun?

Why do you have to use crap numbers to justify your position?

Why do you have to use government to force me to do the "smart thing?"

I use average numbers. You can find exceptions on everything there is if you look hard enough. You can justify any poor behavior that way. So you do it. Fine by me.

Um, the difference between 10%-25% and your claimed 60% has nothing to do with "averaging". The site I referenced is a solar panel proponent site, and they only claim 10%-25%.

Where did you find the 60% value you gave as a response?

And what was your basis for "only 8 hours of no sunlight"?

Regardless of the figures, your own article supports the claim that it's worth it even in an overcast area. You can keep chewing on this bone all you want but I choose not to play your silly assed games. Solar Power is here to stay and it works everywhere except 9 months of the year in the Artic. So go play in the street. I don't have time to play, little johnny.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Billions in U.S. solar projects shelved after Trump panel tariff | Reuters

Trump Administration Unveils Its Plan to Relax Car Pollution Rules

The official policy of the Trump Admin is an enthusiastic blowjob for the oil industry.

Nothing to see. Move along.

 

[martybegan]

That reduction could be enough to extend the payoff period of the panels past their usable life. and 60% during the rain? Do you have backup for that?

It's more of the same, government forcing a one size fits all cost to people regardless of the desire to do it.

On the average, 8 hours a day, the sun don't shine. Even in a rain storm or overcast, the sun shines and you still get 60% solar power. On a sunny day, using the new solar panels, you can get up to 95% output. Now, couple that with lithium batteries or even old style Deep Cells and you have power for that 8 hours you don't have any power coming from your panels. Again, when you do the planning for construction and you build this in, the cost is much lower than if you add it later. We don't have any mandate here that requires new Commercial Builds to install solar power but they are doing it anyway because it's just plain the smart thing to do. So it doesn't matter if the Government says you have to do it or not, it's the smart thing to do. You can play the spoiled little kid if you want but the rest of us will do the smart thing.

I see mostly 10-25% on a cloudy day, not 60%. Where did you get your number from?

Solar Panels Do Work On Cloudy Days | CleanTechnica

In the northeast the sun rises at 7 AM and sets at 4 PM in the winter. Is that 8 hours of no sun?

Why do you have to use crap numbers to justify your position?

Why do you have to use government to force me to do the "smart thing?"

I use average numbers. You can find exceptions on everything there is if you look hard enough. You can justify any poor behavior that way. So you do it. Fine by me.

Um, the difference between 10%-25% and your claimed 60% has nothing to do with "averaging". The site I referenced is a solar panel proponent site, and they only claim 10%-25%.

Where did you find the 60% value you gave as a response?

And what was your basis for "only 8 hours of no sunlight"?

Regardless of the figures, your own article supports the claim that it's worth it even in an overcast area. You can keep chewing on this bone all you want but I choose not to play your silly assed games. Solar Power is here to stay and it works everywhere except 9 months of the year in the Artic. So go play in the street. I don't have time to play, little johnny.

According to the pro-solar site. to me it's not the clear.

Again, where did you get the 60% number?

If you made it up, why don't you just fess up?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The supply of hydrogen is virtually unlimited, and is already in limited commercial use to power vehicles. Advanced catalysts are used to separate H2O, in limited testing, at temperatures as low as 400 degrees using solar energy - without the heat losses associated with boiling.

I love that idea if that is true. That could very well be the future of energy, as we have an unlimited supply of water. That will require a huge marketing campaign and complete infrastructure renovation to make it viable. If those efficiencies are correct, the biggest roadblocks to hydrogen success are the replacement of current systems and infrastructure and misinformed public concerns for safety (which is a marketing problem). People hear hydrogen and automatically thing -- Hindenburg.

The problems using Hydrogen far outweigh the good. First of all, it costs more to make it than you get by using it as compared to other forms of energy. Unless crude hits 200 bucks a barrel Hydrogen is a non starter. If it ever hits that high, Shale and Coal will take over as the major crude source in the United States and it will fall back to about 80 bucks a barrel. Crude is here to stay for a very long time yet to come.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How do you fly an airplane with solar energy?

Asking for a friend.

Does it go faster the closer you get to the sun?

Ask Icarus.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

it means end of states gas-stations : KSA, "Russia", all Gulf states , etc. how our world without states gas-stations will be look like?

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020,
The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23% since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.Globally, onshore wind schemes are now costing an average of $0.06 per kilowatt hour (kWh), although some schemes are coming in at $0.04 per KwH, while the cost of solar PV is down to $0.10 per KwH. In comparison, the cost of electricity generation based on fossil fuels typically falls in a range of $0.05 to $0.17 per KwH.

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims

Who is still holding their breath waiting for those Tesla electric cars to be delivered?

They are being delivered. Just not at the rate Tesla needs them to be. The closing down of the GM Factories just might be a Godsend for Tesla. They just might inherit a full function auto factory with trained workers which could put their production up where it needs to be on the cheap.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

High efficiency vehicles that utilize renewable energy fuel.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Pete7469]

How do you fly an airplane with solar energy?

Asking for a friend.

Does it go faster the closer you get to the sun?

Ask Icarus.

That's who Col Angus is asking for.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The supply of hydrogen is virtually unlimited, and is already in limited commercial use to power vehicles. Advanced catalysts are used to separate H2O, in limited testing, at temperatures as low as 400 degrees using solar energy - without the heat losses associated with boiling.

I love that idea if that is true. That could very well be the future of energy, as we have an unlimited supply of water. That will require a huge marketing campaign and complete infrastructure renovation to make it viable. If those efficiencies are correct, the biggest roadblocks to hydrogen success are the replacement of current systems and infrastructure and misinformed public concerns for safety (which is a marketing problem). People hear hydrogen and automatically thing -- Hindenburg.

How hydrogen could shake up Canada's energy sector | CBC News

Bill Gates: An Energy Miracle

And much, much more.