South Africa Saved $69 Million From Solar, Wind Energy In 2014

[ScienceRocks]

South Africa Saved $69 Million From Solar, Wind Energy In 2014
February 17th, 2015 by Mridul Chadha
South Africa Saved 69 Million From Solar Wind Energy In 2014
The Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Programme has started delivering financial benefits to the South African power sector and the economy on the whole, a recent study has shown.

A study by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) states that the 1.6 GW of wind and solar power capacity commissioned by the end of 2014 helped save more than $450 million. With the payments to these renewable energy projects through feed-in tariffs at around $390 million the net ‘profit’ to the economy from these project is over $60 million.

Saving money for south Africa!

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

And the US saved bazillions and gazillions, huh Mathew? Right? Right Matthew? Tell me junior, all these projects you and other useful idiots have wet dreams over, if they're so economically feasible, why aren't investors beating each other up to write venture capital checks? Why does every fucking one of these pie-in-the-sky scams have billions in taxpayer money for startup? When you start putting your own money where your big know-nothing mouth is, then you can tell us how "ignorant" the investment demographic of our polity is. Until then, STFU.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now, Sweetie Pie, the people investing in power are doing exactly that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Wind is already beating dirty coal on unsubsidized price, and solar is within half a cent of dirty coal, and the price is still declining for the panels. Economics will now drive the switch to renewables, and the grid scale batteries will seal the coffin for the fossil fuel generation of electricity.