Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA

[elektra]

How do we make Solar cheaper than fossil fuels? Tax CO2, from abu afuc's report;

"Retail fuel prices kept at a level similar to the STEPS, applying CO2 taxes across the
regions in the IEA’s World Energy Model."

Solar is only cheaper through government policies, as stated in the link abu afuc linked to.

 

[elektra]

solar is only cheaper through government policies giving clean energy public money as abu afuc's report states

"This puts a premium on governments increasing the supply of bankable clean energy
projects. The public sector has an important role to play, as do development and green
banks as well as infrastructure and clean energy funds, but much depends above all on the
government undertaking infrastructure planning and putting in place appropriate market
designs, regulatory frameworks and fiscal incentives. As they pursue these tasks, there are
three major issues in particular to consider in the context of the SDS. "

 

[elektra]

Solar is only cheaper with subsidies as stated in abu afuc's report. The investment tax credit is a solar tax credit that the solar corporations sells to another corporation like Exxon, for millions of dollars. Solar corporations make millions selling the tax credit while Exxon gets a to use the tax credit.

"Two common business models are the ITC
paired with a PPA (more frequent in western US states) and the sale of electricity in the
wholesale market by developers who benefit from ITC and renewable energy certificates."

 

[elektra]

ALL of the links I have posted say it is (only) "NOW" that it has now produced cheapest for plants WITHOUT Subsidy Even IF some places still have subsidies which can push it down yet/"even more."`

Your link to the report your entire OP is based on disagrees with your opinion. The report is very clear that Solar is subsidized and will continue to be subsidized and should get larger subsidies.

If you think otherwise, quote from the report that supports your OPINION!

"several business models have gained significant market share, though the
majority of projects generally take some merchant risk and benefit from the investment tax
credit (ITC), which reduces federal tax liability. "

Over and over I have now quoted the report abu afuc gives, each quote shows solar is subsidized.

 

[abu afak]

Your link to the report your entire OP is based on disagrees with your opinion. The report is very clear that Solar is subsidized and will continue to be subsidized and should get larger subsidies.

If you think otherwise, quote from the report that supports your OPINION!

"several business models have gained significant market share, though the
majority of projects generally take some merchant risk and benefit from the investment tax
credit (ITC), which reduces federal tax liability. "

Over and over I have now quoted the report abu afuc gives, each quote shows solar is subsidized.

My claim does not just rely on one report. (IEA)
I gave many sources. (WSJ I just posted/quoted twice does Not)
This is now a well known and expected outcome from the strongly dropping in cost of solar for more than a decade.
The OBVIOUS outcome, and may get cheaper yet due to efficiencies of panels.

You OTOH, rely on deflections, mischaracterizations, and Lies after 3 Dozen posts refusing to even address the claim.
Only my holding you up for abuse has FORCED your stupid #ss you into engaging in.. however DISHONESTLY.

All the while/thread elektra using childish Multi-posting (4 in a row) to try and BURY/shout down what you can't debate.
You Skanky little turd.

`

 

[abu afak]

Solar is only cheaper with subsidies as stated in abu afuc's report.The investment tax credit is a solar tax credit that the solar corporations sells to another corporation like Exxon, for millions of dollars. Solar corporations make millions selling the tax credit while Exxon gets a to use the tax credit.

"Two common business models are the ITC
paired with a PPA (more frequent in western US states) and the sale of electricity in the
wholesale market by developers who benefit from ITC and renewable energy certificates."

LIE, just refuted it twice.

The whole point of the OP and subsequent posts/links is that Solar is now the cheapest withOut subsidy.
You're just repeating a knowing Lie.

WSJ (not IEA) excerpt already posted and Linked on the last page and this one!

"..The levelized cost of solar photovoltaic systems has fallen to about $45 per megawatt-hour this year from $381 in 2010, according to IHS Markit. That makes it the CHEAPEST form of electricity on a Global basis, and Doesn’t take into account tax breaks or other subsidies that governments may provide, which would push costs Down More. Coal-fired generation is around $55 per megawatt-hour, down from $62 in 2010.".."



`

 

[elektra]

My claim does not just rely on one report. (IEA)

There is only one report linked to in the comment that is your OP.

In the first 100 comments there is no other link given. I quit looking after 100.

Your OP relied on one report and that report is clear, Solar is subsidized. I wont call you a liar because I believe you are just very stupid and lazy. There is a reason I made you link, the reason is simple, every single report does state that solar is subsidized.

 

[elektra]

Solar is subsidized according to the report given by abu afuc which this entire thread is based on.

Solar is not cheaper, it is more expensive, and according to the report, solar needs covid funding to expand.

 

[Concerned American]

Good. Since solar provides the least expensive electricity, there is no point in continuing subsidies for it. People will be willing to invest their own money in the modality.

Let's see, Solar--R&D, Cost of panels and related controls, batteries, battery construction and disposal costs, environmental damage due to rare earth mineral mining. Hydroelectric--one-time construction costs, one-time turbine costs, the cost of watching snow melt and water flow. I think the IEA has their head lodged where the sun doesn't shine--and that is not good for energy production.

 

[elektra]

solar is very expensive, subsidized, not the least expensive, the OP's link clearly states that Solar requires government money, funding, and policies otherwise nobody would touch solar.

 

[abu afak]

Solar is subsidized according to the report given by abu afuc which this entire thread is based on.

Solar is not cheaper, it is more expensive, and according to the report, solar needs covid funding to expand.

LIE, just refuted it twice.

The whole point of the OP and subsequent posts/links is that Solar is now the cheapest withOut subsidy for plants, etc.
Subsidy just makes it cheaper yet.
You're just repeating a knowing Lie.

WSJ (not IEA) excerpt already posted and Linked on the last page and this one!

"..The levelized cost of solar photovoltaic systems has fallen to about $45 per megawatt-hour this year from $381 in 2010, according to IHS Markit. That makes it the CHEAPEST form of electricity on a Global basis, and Doesn’t take into account tax breaks or other subsidies that governments may provide, which would push costs Down More. Coal-fired generation is around $55 per megawatt-hour, down from $62 in 2010.".."
- - - - - - -
'
So it has produced/AND IS PRODUCING NOW the cheapest even without subsidy, and subsidy could lower it even more.

`

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Read above and back a few pages.
Most of the last few pages are ME TRYING to get elektra TO ADDRESS THE TOPIC.
Then Ding comes in and only addresses me.
Yet you attack me for nontopical?

Can't you read you ***** RW IDIOT?
YOU quoted me reciting some of the ON TOPIC Links I have posted in the thread while elektra has refused.

Your reading is either BLIND or so partisan as to be useless.
You really are a raging Idiot.

and the OP isn't about houses per se, and houses in Every location, but mainly Solar Plants where advisable. NO not North of the artic circle or in a rain forest you @sshole.
`

I h=guess you are simply too immature to handle n OP. Good enough.

Solar plants? Do you mean like the solar farm they have planned for the southern part of my county which keeps running into further and further operations because of all the farm land it will occupy, how expensive it will be, and how it is almost guaranteed not to meet the power needs of the industries and communities in the area?

 

[abu afak]

I h=guess you are simply too immature to handle n OP. Good enough.

Solar plants? Do you mean like the solar farm they have planned for the southern part of my county which keeps running into further and further operations because of all the farm land it will occupy, how expensive it will be, and how it is almost guaranteed not to meet the power needs of the industries and communities in the area?

First an apology is in order as you accused ME of not going with topical debate when I had been begging even screaming for it on that very page.
Unmistakably Documenting elektra's 30+ posts not addressing the topic.
A page on which Ding did nothing but troll me with the most degrading insults: off base tho they were.
Yet you blamed me?
You are a Dishonest partisan.

And now your debate by anecdote.
We don't give a **** about your backyard politics.
There's plenty of empty desert/sunny areas that would be well suited in many locales.
Florida's FPL has been lowering rates due to solar.

`

 

[Concerned American]

LIE, just refuted it twice.

The whole point of the OP and subsequent posts/links is that Solar is now the cheapest withOut subsidy for plants, etc.
Subsidy just makes it cheaper yet.
You're just repeating a knowing Lie.

WSJ (not IEA) excerpt already posted and Linked on the last page and this one!

"..The levelized cost of solar photovoltaic systems has fallen to about $45 per megawatt-hour this year from $381 in 2010, according to IHS Markit. That makes it the CHEAPEST form of electricity on a Global basis, and Doesn’t take into account tax breaks or other subsidies that governments may provide, which would push costs Down More. Coal-fired generation is around $55 per megawatt-hour, down from $62 in 2010.".."
- - - - - - -
'
So it has produced/AND IS PRODUCING NOW the cheapest even without subsidy, and subsidy could lower it even more.

`

If it doesn't take into account tax breaks and other subsidies, it doesn't address the real cost of solar. If you don't think that the solar industry is highly subsidized I might remind you of the Obama era, Solyndra debacle. This addresses available subsidies pretty well. Solar Rebates and Incentives | EnergySage

 

[sparky]

It wouldn't be News IF we were talking subsidized cost YOU IDIOT!

Yet it is

~S~

 

[abu afak]

Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?'​

The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?

""Solar, in particular, has cheapened at a blistering pace. Just 10 years ago, it was the most expensive option for building a new energy development. Since then, that cost has dropped by 90%, according to data from the Levelized Cost of Energy Report and as highlighted recently by Our World in Data. Utility-scale solar arrays are Now the Least costly option to build and operate."

`

 

[Concerned American]

Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?​

The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?

""Solar, in particular, has cheapened at a blistering pace. Just 10 years ago, it was the most expensive option for building a new energy development. Since then, that cost has dropped by 90%, according to data from the Levelized Cost of Energy Report and as highlighted recently by Our World in Data. Utility-scale solar arrays are Now the Least costly option to build and operate."

`

So I guess hydroelectric is not renewable? It seems they conveniently left it out of your graph. Hmmmm.

 

[abu afak]

So I guess hydroelectric is not renewable? It seems they conveniently left it out of your graph. Hmmmm.

Hydroelectric where?
The Ohio? Mississippi?
We already have all we can tolerate/is efficient in the West/Northwest.
We need many rivers as navigation.
More inefficient small dams have been taken down than put up. (Salmon runs, etc)

Solar is infinitely more abundant for now and forever. (and down to single dwelling level)
And I guess you are ADMITTING aside from that Hydro, Solar wins.
Right?

We are talking about competition against mainly other large sources like Fossil Fuels.
`

 

[Concerned American]

Solar is infinitely more abundant for now and forever.

Between the 45th parallels maybe, north or south of those not so much. The related costs of battery construction and replacement, and related environmental and mining costs are an effect that will have bearing now and in the future.

I guess you are ADMITTING aside from that Hydro, Solar wins.
Right?

WRONG. Tidal action and geothermal are two more technologies that are FAR superior world wide than solar. Solar efficiency as currently used is ridiculously low.

 

[abu afak]

Between the 45th parallels maybe, north or south of those not so much. The related costs of battery construction and replacement, and related environmental and mining costs are an effect that will have bearing now and in the future.

WRONG. Tidal action and geothermal are two more technologies that are FAR superior world wide than solar. Solar efficiency as currently used is ridiculously low.

If you're conceding the everything between 45th parallels you already LOST.
Make it the 50th with slightly/ever more panel efficiency and it's a wipe out.
LOL.
And let us know when you have a plan, scale, and a cost for those on a Natl/Intl level so you can prove it. I'd be glad to endorse superior tech if/when.
I can't wait for Geothermal nationwide. Maybe we'll hit oil?
`