Quote:
Originally Posted by riverfish1
Hey Felix:
Let's remove all subsidies from solar. I can install a plant on a large rooftop (say a large Best Buy or a super walmart), such that the cost per kWh for the first 25 years (including maintenance charges, etc) is less than 14 cents. This is less than the cost of electricity in many places - electricity that is federally subsidized.
And then when you consider the fact that there is plenty of evidence that solar panels will last for 40+ years, the economcis get even better.
Of course then when you add subsidies into the equation, it gets even better.
This needs source. Almost everything I've read puts the estimate at 15c/kWh at the low end.
Even if you're right it's 14c/kWh and is competitive with oil/gas, it's not sufficient.
Given the lower dependability (and the resulting need to build excess capacity), solar power needs significant cost advantages to make economic sense.
Indeed, this is where subsidies come in. The subsidies make an otherwise losing/breakeven (in best case scenarios, using your numbers) proposition a profit making venture. What form the subsidies actually take is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverfish1
No. There is already tons and tons of private funding for solar. Almost every single large solar plant you see in the news is privately funded. The electricity produced is sold to the offtaker at a prenegotiated price, but the plants themselves are privately owned.
Many of the same companies and farms would not exist if not for subsidies and government mandates. It's not a direct subsidy but it's still a subsidy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverfish1
you're ignoring the mitigating effects that solar has on the stress of the grid during peak consumption times though.
What you're not registering is there still needs to be backups for when those solar panels and wind turbines are operating under sub-optimal conditions. Effectively, out of necessity, much of solar capacity will be redundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverfish1
However, renewables can eliminate the need for backup power plants that run at 10% most of the time (which is extremely inefficient for a power plant) but have to ramp up to higher production during peak consumption.
No, they actually can't, not as long as they are at the mercy of mother nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverfish1
Also - peak consumption times are closer to 2-5PM in the summer. It's when people are starting to get home but most businesses are still running full steam AND its hot. By 7 PM, power consumption has shifted from commercial to residential.
Fair enough.
It's very important to note my problem is not with renewable energies in general. My problem is with renewable energies that cannot be relied upon. Geothermal, fusion and tidal are less mature technologies but they are far more likely to become viable alternatives in the long term whereas solar and wind will almost certainly end up money sinks due to their natural limitations.