Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

climatechangenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 256 posts

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#81

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

levemi wrote: post #23

Whatever the realities of the cost of solar, I tend to worry about a future in which we cover vast swaths of areas with solar panels and the impact such a thing will have on the environment. I don't know if anyone has done good studies on it. A bunch other sustainable forms of energy have environmental problems. Wind generators cause harm to birds, geothermal electricity sources like in Hawai'i raise the temperature…

> Whatever the realities of the cost of solar, I tend to worry about a future in which we cover vast swaths of areas with solar panels and the impact such a thing will have on the environment.

Compared to the downsides of coal and gas and the risks of nuclear? I really don't think you should worry.

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#83

Post by TheLogothete »

pjc50 wrote: post #76
TheLogothete wrote: post #16

So his quote is "I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant" He thinks a NEW plant would give you costlier energy. Secondly, aren't the solar projects subsidized in a BIG way? I have seen many smart people say that solar is a sham. They say it's just an opportunist's play. Entrepreneurs want to get on the government's tit and the politicians are happy to portray themselves as environmen…

I don't think India subsidises solar power.

A quick google search says you are wrong. Can you back your thinking with some facts?

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#84

Post by crdoconnor »

Aeolun wrote: post #42
teekert wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly are not. Here in the Netherlands we are mostly coal and gas based for electricity yet we want to (unrealistically) ban sales of fossil fuel powered cars. We also raised import taxes on Chinese solar panels, raising the price of solar installations significantly here. It's all for show.

Why would we raise prices on ANY solar panels? That seems self-defeating to me. It doesn't really matter where they come from. Any solar panels are good solar panels.

The excuse was that the Chinese were dumping and local solar industry in the US/EU needed protection. The likely actual reason was that fossil fuel companies demanded it and Obama/EU thought he/they could sell it to the public.

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#85

Post by Gibbon1 »

sambe wrote: post #45

This was in my inbox this morning: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-inno... Suggesting that costs are not falling fast enough to overcome value deflation. Seems quite US-focussed though. The numbers in the two articles don't seem directly comparable.

> Value Deflation.

When enough of the worlds billionaires and other powerful riffraff get spooked by climate change, you'll see carbon taxes imposed. And countries like China and India will simply phase out burning coal.

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#86

Post by nickysielicki »

megablast wrote: post #80
nickysielicki wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> federal subsidies have provided wind and solar developers with as much as $24 billion from 2008 to 2014, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. -- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/say-goodby... Absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine if we spent $4BN annually on nuclear energy and public outreach on how it isn't dangerous? Yet another case where leftists would rather feel good than do good.

We did. We do.

> We did. We do.

What a completely useless response. Why even bother commenting? Four words?

Since you can't be bothered to come up with a source, see pages 3-10 of the following document from the Congressional Budget Office. [1]

Renewables get the large majority of the cash, and nuclear isn't even close.

[1]: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#88

Post by Gibbon1 »

jes5199 wrote: post #50
mgnacl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Maybe I shouldn't lump wind together with solar.

Wind is getting cheaper and more reliable, too. I think I read that it's because we're building bigger wind turbines.

Wind actually provides power at night. Currently at night wind has to compete against cheap base load power which tends to be subsidized. If coal and nuclear plants are phased out the economics of wind is very attractive.

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#89

Post by shirro »

murukesh_s wrote: post #8

“I sincerely believe that what the West is doing in this respect is anti-development and anti the fight against climate change,” he said, accusing rich countries of charging too much for clean technology." I really don't believe any country is sincere towards climate change. Every country puts their economy before others. So expecting another economy to help you is a foolish assumption.

Sincerity varies. There can be economic advantages in moving towards renewables if you do it right as you develop new companies and technologies. One thing is for sure though, every oligarchy puts their mates before others.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/coalition-wants-to-build-1-2...

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#90

Post by saurik »

emp_zealoth wrote: post #49
tim333 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that a couple of sentences after "accusing rich countries of charging too much" he's complaining about the WTO ruling "India was illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers." Either the evil foreigners are too expensive or too cheap requiring protection for local producers. Or both at the same time maybe.

Or maybe India does not want to bleed billions away with barely anything to show for it (Yes, they get the infrastructure, but the tech is proprietary and foreign and potentially an endless drain) Instead they try to develop inhouse production that they own and have to cover the initial capital costs. There was a theory in ~19th century that Portugal/Spain trading wine for machinery from Great Britain mean it was equ…

You are thinking of Ricardo's Comparative Advantage; and it is a little more complex than that they got machines: they traded for cloth, which was made with machines that the British then spent the time to improve and learn from, giving them eventual advantages in numerous other fields.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/free-trade-us-unemployment_b_...

Post reply on HN