Solar PV Closing In On Parity with Grid Electricity
My most recent book, Bullish on Renewable Energy, offers 14 reasons that clean energy is rapidly replacing fossil fuels on the basis of pure market economics alone. One of my favorite chapters entitled “Cheap Solar” gets at the consequences of the ever-tumbling price of solar electricity.
Here’s an article that explains how this is happening far faster than experts predicted–even recently.
Craig,
This is another example of what you get when you construct an analysis to prove a preconceived proposition.
“Early results suggest that nearly 150 million Americans––33% more than a simple parity analysis reveals––will live in a city where a solar investment––without subsidies––pays back over 25 years by 2021.”
Even this statement, (probably the most accurate ) like the rest of the “study”, lacks detail and is based on a series of unqualified assumptions.
Don’t get me wrong, I like and support many of their initiatives, the authors of the study, but the Institute for Local Self-Reliance or ILSR is an advocacy group. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but questions of objectivity do arise.
Well meaning advocacy groups often publish surveys, studies, research etc to support their advocacy. These studies tend (often intentionally) to select information, or ask questions designed to support predetermined propositions.
Here’s a couple of recent examples :
A recent USA Today/Rock the Vote survey of millennials shows 80 percent support for transitioning to “mostly clean” or renewable energy by 2030.
What a great result !
The pollsters produced the desired result, however the overwhelming majority of those interviewed had no idea of how this would happen, or even if it were possible.
When informed that Wind and Solar produce less than 2% of the nations energy requirements (burning wood produces more), and what would they be prepared to give up to increase this percentage, the response was very negative.
The same poll conducted in the UK of people aged 16 to 26, produced a similar result. More than 90% responded in favour of renewable energy, but when asked if the would pay more to help with the transition, 78% said they would consider that unfair, and believed the “government” should pay.
Conclusions for headlines are often determined by selective use of facts, or questions.
It is possible for individuals to adapt their lifestyle to an intermittent form of power generation, but few would chose the inconvenience.
The results of subsidies and tariffs in even such an ideal location as the State of Nevada has proved, the solar industry is heavily reliant on some form of government/consumer subsidy to be economically viable.
This is not just an American phenomenon, all over the world, from Spain to Australia, solar industries experience economic collapse once subsidies are withdrawn.
Perhaps I’m feeling exceptionally lazy tonight but again, I think I’ve done everything I can with my 7000+ blog posts, four books, and hundreds of speaking engagements on this subject to make my point.
You want to contest my conclusions; I get that. But I need to move on with my life.
If you want to meet me at the ARPA-E conference, I’ll buy the first round of beers.
Thanks for the invitation, and I’m always happy to add beer (even American beer) into any discussion.
Unfortunately, I my schedule doesn’t allow me to attend the ARPA-E conference, much as I would enjoy it.
I agree that our mass-produced beer is pretty unexceptional, but some of the microbreweries that have emerged over the last few decades are terrific, IMO.
Suppose we priced “conventional” energy supplies to account for all the embedded and/or deferred costs? Would not the “alternatives” become much more viable?
What are the health costs of burning coal? What are the deferred costs of continuing to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere? What are the costs to fisheries, etc of continued acidification of waterways? What are the true remediation costs of mining, transporting, consuming and (especially) fully and permanently disposing of nuclear?
If all those costs (and the many others) were attached to every KwHr. that we get from the utilities, conservation and alternatives might well start to look much cheaper.
But instead, we bump them off onto future generations.
I’m sure they’ll be grateful…
Mass produced beer is like large scale utility electricity. (Huh? I hear you ask…) It attempts to be “all things to all people” and ends up being a compromise that really pleases none.
The truly mass produced could be much cheaper, if we ignored all the “side effects” – air pollution for burning coal, intestinal “gas” with home brewed beer. And I suppose there will always be a part of the population who measure everything by price, but public pressure can make massive changes.
When I was 10, the “n” word (to describe people of colour) was not at all uncommon. My own grandfather lived in Florida with a nice house and a “coloured” maid. He grew up in antebellum Virginia, was proud that the slaves had been freed during his lifetime and was always very respectful towards the “hired help”.
But the journey from playing with the children of slaves to the saluting President Obama was a massive change for one lifetime. My own journey from the Freedom Marches has been significant, as has my journey from the “mrs. cleaver” stereotype to Mrs. Clinton today. It all happened in my lifetime and required some fairly massive paradigm shifts on the part of us old white guys.
So you can fairly criticize us when we show that we haven’t completed the journey, but don’t we deserve some “credit” for how far we’ve come?
And I think the same is true for our attitude towards “Greening”. I think of future archaeologists doing a “dig” through one of our “landfills” (polite term for “dump”).
Most North American “middens” are less than 150 years old. But imagine all those skinny layers during the years of settlement, WWI, Depression, WWII,…
And then, suddenly in the ’60’s, it’s the “Age of Waste”. That’s what a lot of us grew up with, and what we accepted as the norm.
Again, our Blue Boxes, and compost pails are new to us but we’re trying to adapt.
The new challenge is the potential “intermittent” supply of power from renewables. We’ll cope, we’ll adapt, we’ll figure out ways to deal with it.
The “weirdos” or “early adopters” (same group, different descriptors ) will show it can be done, then the rest will follow and do it. It’s a familiar pattern and not a bad one.
Hence, large breweries and large-scale power producers are both ultimately doomed! (Bet you were wondering how I would bring this series of digressions back to the original topic, weren’t you…)