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

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

This is the unsubsidized prices of various methods of energy production;

View attachment 443743

I love that they add the cost of carbon capture, the dumbest idea ever, to make coal and natural gas look more expensive than solar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After that, they will obviously outperform the continuing and volatile, cost of fossil fuel

Volatile cost is better than volatile output.

 

[justoffal]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

That entire document.... the research and the numbers.... have long since been debunked and proven to be complete bullshit. It's amazing how they fail to take into account the cost of re-upping the hardware in addition to the 5-year cycle of degeneration in the hardware itself leading to a full replacement in 20 years. Just in time to pay it off so you can start all over again.

But hey there's nothing wrong with a free lunch as long as it cost $10 or less right?

Jo

 

[abu afak]

That entire document.... the research and the numbers.... have long since been debunked and proven to be complete bullshit. It's amazing how they fail to take into account the cost of re-upping the hardware in addition to the 5-year cycle of degeneration in the hardware itself leading to a full replacement in 20 years. Just in time to pay it off so you can start all over again.

But hey there's nothing wrong with a free lunch as long as it cost $10 or less right?

Jo

Well then, it should be easy for your to produce a LINK for said 'debunkment,' especially in light of the fact it is a fairly new development due to the circumstances I included. (and the fact that the tech gets better every year.} Nonetheless you say it was "Long ago debunked" despite an article explaining fairly New conditions!

Put some meat on the bone ***hole.

`

 

[ding]

That entire document.... the research and the numbers.... have long since been debunked and proven to be complete bullshit. It's amazing how they fail to take into account the cost of re-upping the hardware in addition to the 5-year cycle of degeneration in the hardware itself leading to a full replacement in 20 years. Just in time to pay it off so you can start all over again.

But hey there's nothing wrong with a free lunch as long as it cost $10 or less right?

Jo

Well then, it should be easy for your to produce a LINK for said 'debunkment,' especially in light of the fact it is a fairly new development due to the circumstances I included. (and the fact that the tech gets better every year.} Nonetheless you say it was "Long ago debunked" despite an article explaining fairly New conditions!

Put some meat on the bone ***hole.

`

Why do you want the planet to be colder again?

Do you live in some shit hole third world country without air conditioning or something?

 

[Orangecat]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’,

That's a lie. Lightning is the cheapest. Solar needs converters.

 

[there4eyeM]

Tesla indicated energy abounds around us. The electro-static potentials in the atmosphere could theoretically be tapped.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Wonder how many professed 'Green New Deal' hating wingers have solar panels on their roofs?

 

[Orangecat]

Wonder how many professed 'Green New Deal' hating wingers have solar panels on their roofs?

Tens of thousands, most likely. People don't hate solar power, they hate big government over-regulation and overreach into their personal decisions.

 

[jc456]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

Not only this, but our 2017 Chev. Bolt has never needed to buy gas or have tune ups/oil changes. It has paid for itself, and with out solar panels we haven never needed to use charging stations.

which your double negative means you did. Doh!!!!

 

[jc456]

Wonder how many professed 'Green New Deal' hating wingers have solar panels on their roofs?

come out of the basement and learn what solar is. you obviously have no idea.

 

[Rye Catcher]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

We produce more electricity than we use. The one time deduction on our federal income tax is a cost benefit if one thinks about the production of clean power placed on the grid. I plan to buy a new all electric car this fall, as more and more charging stations are being built - privately BTW - we can travel without fear of running out of energy.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

Not only this, but our 2017 Chev. Bolt has never needed to buy gas or have tune ups/oil changes. It has paid for itself, and with out solar panels we haven never needed to use charging stations.

which your double negative means you did. Doh!!!!

I saw the error in my sentence, too late to make the correction. Being a captious jerk and a syntax nazi allows you to pound your chest, like a Trumpanzee.

 

[surada]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

Wrong......twice.


There's an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.

It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.

So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn't why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?

Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think (forbes.com)

 

[surada]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

Wrong......twice.


There's an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.

It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.

So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn't why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?

Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think (forbes.com)

The result was that the blue collar middle class could buy cars.

 

[jc456]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

Not only this, but our 2017 Chev. Bolt has never needed to buy gas or have tune ups/oil changes. It has paid for itself, and with out solar panels we haven never needed to use charging stations.

which your double negative means you did. Doh!!!!

I saw the error in my sentence, too late to make the correction. Being a captious jerk and a syntax nazi allows you to pound your chest, like a Trumpanzee.

I only read what is printed. I never imply your thoughts or intentions. So how did you charge your old Bolt, or did you mean Volt?

 

[Polishprince]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

That story is bullshit. Ford rose the wage rate for assembly line workers to earn loyalty from them and reduce turnover. In addition, it gave him more leverage to rule over their lives, which he liked to do as well. I don't think there were any critics of Ford's wages, the outfit was a sole proprietorship for years, he could do what he wanted to do and did it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

Wrong......twice.


There's an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.

It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.

So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn't why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?

Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think (forbes.com)

The result was that the blue collar middle class could buy cars.

The result was that the blue collar middle class could buy cars.

Baloney.

In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000.

 

[Rye Catcher]

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

In the entire article, there's only a single sentence about the cost of solar electricity ... 2¢/kW-hr ... with massive subsidies ... I don't believe that ...

FAKE NEWS ...

LOL, maybe you are brainwashed? It's so sad that people like you are the progeny of those who stood on a road and yelled, "get a horse" as the first cars drive by.

Our roof panels have reduced our cost for electricity to an average of $1.00 for every 60 day bill. Annually we receive a small check.

When cars were first built, they didn't require subsidies. That's the point. If solar electricity is so cheap, if your view, why should the taxpayers have to pay you to take it?

Henry Ford paid his workers $1 an hour which was outrageous for the time.. His critics raised holy hell demanding to know why.. His answer: So they can buy cars.

An example that few CEO's in major corporations today even consider. Profits go to the CEO's as the average workers are paid 278 times less than them.

CEOs see pay grow 1,000% in the last 40 years, now make 278 times the average worker

In comparative terms, CEOs now make on average 278 times the average worker's salary, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

www.cnbc.com

And the lame duck Congress wrote a tax reform bill which eliminated the top two tax brackets, giving them a largess while the national debt continues to grow.