The 20 year contracts which your only basis for rejecting is grizy's handwaiving about escalation clauses.

As far as $0.03/kwh I never said unsubsidized (or untariffed) and the low estimate we're talking about record lows) from the NREL LCOE is $0.03/kwh.

Why would the US necessarily be the least expensive place for solar? If it's not, then the LCOE somewhere else is lower. And not just cost, but production is higher. You mentiomed insolation of 6 kwh/m2/day in AZ, but why don't you do the math when it's over 7 as it is in parts of SA and Mexico and even over 8 in some. And AZ isn't the highest in the US. It's about 7.5 in Dagett, CA.

Same song different verse. Me: cite primary data sources; you: anecdata, marketing pieces

I used capacity factors produced by the EIA (US Energy Information Administration note: not a trade group like you like to cite), took the highest and most recent capacity factor for solar PV and added more than 10% to the figure to give you the benefit of the doubt!

Show me the accelleration clause. Show me anything about installation costs or insolation in Mexico or Saudi Arabia. Cite something.

The argument has literally been:

Here's a report of 20 year contracts in SA and Mexico for $0.02.

That's unpossible. These are the cost numbers for Arizona.

The Truth Behind Solar Subsidies

The cost of solar infrastructure and installations has fallen largely due to government subsidies. In fact, some say solar energy could not survive at all without massive government subsidies. In terms of production, solar energy has received ten times the subsidies all other forms of energy. Subsidies for solar directly affect the production of electricity, directly affecting cost and pricing. Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar energy ranged from 10¢ to 88¢ per kWh, while subsidies for coal, natural gas, and nuclear were from 0.05¢ to 0.2¢.

These subsidies incentivize solar panels, but end up increasing the cost of the electricity they generate. This cost is transferred directly to the ratepayers via utility bills. Moreover, customers involved in net metering are often paid inflated prices for excess power produced. Ratepayers end up funding the production of already heavily subsidized solar installations, a phenomenon which actually makes the adoption of renewable energy costlier.

http://www.powerelectronics.com/alte...t-solar-energy

Solar is not yet economically viable without financial socialism propping it up. When the PUC stopped the subsidies (welfare) they stampeded out of Nevada.

A multiple array of energy supply is needed to support reliability. Coal has a place much like a diesel generator sits outside of nearly every commercial building in the US. Recently here in Arizona cloud cover and decreased winds dropped 90MW of load in just a few minutes. Where does that 90MW come from? Do we just shut down hospitals, schools and business?

We need to be honest with the ratepayers. Publish the cost of the power you are making them buy.

Saw a recent report saying ratepayers in Australia are paying .27kwh for 'green power'. The current price for market natural gas power is about .017kwh here in the US.

That is a big spread.

The truth behind solar subsidies is that they are great and from 2010 to 2016 they have helped take a teeny tiny clean energy industry where costs were several times as high as dirty energy to a still relatively small industry where costs have become less than dirty energy in many cases and costs are still rapidly decreasing.

Residential solar left Nevada because of restrictions on interconnection. The federal tax credit didn't go anywhere. The utility and state rebates in CA ran out a while ago for most areas and solar continued to grow. The federal tax credit will soon be phasing out and that will not kill the industry despite the tariffs.

I'm sure newsavman will jump in to address quality of this comparison.

I know facts aren't your bag, but do you need me to roll tape here?

You said .03/kwh in AZ....which is why I used .03/kwh as a basis to explain the simple math behind why you are so lol wrong. Also there is the issue of where to get reliable data; here's a hint: Mexico and The Kingdom aren't it.

Further, solar insolation is not significantly higher in MX vs AZ, if anything AZ has as good or better insolation than most of MX.

And if you'd bother to read or comprehend the math, like actual physics bro, behind what I was saying you'd know why it's impossible for any marginal gain in solar insolation in Saudi Arabia vs AZ (if there is an appreciable amount) to offset a full 33% reduction in gross revenues.

Dude every year since 1989 Saudi Arabia has reported 'proven' reserves of essentially 260 billion barrels despite the fact they have exported or consumed 100 billion barrels in that time. Taking them at their word on basically anything of consequence is the most loltacular thing ever.

I guess whoever, you know, runs the utilities in Australia isn't aware of the according to microbet indisputable fact that they could be generating solar energy for .02-.03/kwh.

There just aren't enough lulz....aren't you supposedly a professional in the industry?

From Berkley Lab.

I should probably email them and let them know I have it on good authority W-AC isn't particularly meaningful. I'm sure they'll issue a retraction after reading all your persuasive arguments itt.

Per Berkley (page 11) report I linked in prior post median insolation in the Southwest US is 5.6 kw/m^2; 80th percentile is 5.8 kw/m^2.

I am shocked, shocked we have another instance where I'm right and you're demonstrably incorrect on fundamental facts. Again.

Lesson here is use primary sources kids.

Also spoiler alert: Berkely too thinks the price of a kwh of energy produced from utility scale solar in the Southwest is higher, much higher, than $.03/kwh.

Capacity rating is not the same thing as installation cost. I've already explained why installation costs should be rated in DC as opposed to performance which depends on site location. You can google it all you want, but construction costs are quoted in DC. The NREL paper got that right and wrote the DC price while putting the AC in parenthesis.

And what's "Berkely" or "Berkley"?

Suspected as much. We're talking about whether the lowest wholesale costs in the world for solar are 2 or 3 cents and you are calculating those lowest wholesale costs (in the US for some reason as if labor and the tariffs have no impact) at what? 4 cents? But when a post about 27 cents comes in about retail rates for 'green power' including who knows what and when and compares that to what? price on the electricity market? (You reactionaries post about how bad it is when market prices have become negative because of solar on a few occasions.) Then that all sounds ok to you. So, you're just a reactionary troll.

And here you have it ladies and gentleman microbet, internet expert, is confident in directly contradicting a report from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; an institution whose alumni hold no less than 12 Nobel Prizes; an institution which has made numerous scientific discoveries not the least of which was literally discovering Plutonium; and specifically the report in question was authored by holders of a Masters in Energy in Resources from UC Berkeley, a PhD in Energy in Resources from UC Berkeley, and a Masters in Atmospheric Science from UC Davis.

Microbet is confident in directly refuting their findings with a simple naked assertion! Facts, logic, arguments, peer review....who need 'em?? We have microbet!

But hey, you caught me in another typo....good work!!

We're done here.

P.S. I'd like to formally petition the mods that microbet stripped of his current undertitle of Solar Powered and I submit Immune to Facts and Logic to replace it. Do I have a second?

I'm not an internet expert. I'm an electrical contractor with a solar company and have been for ten years. I've quoted and been involved in about a thousand solar intallations from 2kw to 500kw and when I talk about price per watt for installation with people in the industry it's always in DC and everyone knows that. I've installed solar for one 2p2er, helped another and probably have my 3rd coming up soon.

You and grizy may be right about Mexico and SA being somewhat of an exaggeration, but you"re wrong about this and you've shown that you're trolling and not dispassionately seeking the truth.

And not just quoted, but paid. I've installed for Sungevity, SolarCity*, and many other companies as a sub and have been paid per watt DC (with adjustments for things like roof material) under their contract terms.

*SC I was actually a sub of a sub.

Ultraaaaaaaaaaaaaakilllllllllllllllllllll

All old science that people have known for years.

Kinda dismissive of 16000 cases of thyroid cancer at Chernobyl and he says "no increase of any cancer" while the slide behind him says "no increase of any other cancer."

But, build a nuclear reactor. Solar will still beat it and with storage. That's what those tree hugging Chinese are doing. They are putting up more solar than Germany by far right now, but they're still building nuclear plants as well. It will be the last generation of nuclear.

Interesting video, gives me some things to consider. He kinda glossed over the waste issue, "It's the only waste that's contained" stops short of of the mark.

Also the "heavy metals" in solar panels are in thin film panels which are far less common (and I believe will become even less so) than crystaline panels.

At the beginning of 2017 China had about twice as much solar as Germany. During 2017 alone China added about 150% as much solar capacity as Germany or the US had total by 2017.

Thin film panels still produces a LOT more heavy metal trash than nuclear and the waste is a lot less contained than waste produced by nuclear power.

I already told you that it's the less common technology. It's losing in the market and it will probably disappear or be limited to some niche products.

Thin film panels were heavily promoted in part because they were supposed to produce less toxic (including heavy metal) waste and are more recyclable than crystalline panels so I am really not sure what your point is.

And your chart shows thin film is still being added.