131–140 of 176 posts
Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". $83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision without adversely affecting overall energy production that much. Indeed, that's pretty much what Germ…
Germany main source of energy is still, by far, coal (lignite to be precise), and it's not going down yet. The expansion of renewable energy, which is very real, is being done at the expense of nuclear energy. I wish they would be doing it the other way around: closing coal power plants before the nuclear ones. But Germany has lignite, and doesn't have much of a nuclear industry, so economically it makes much more se…
If it's not going down already, I imagine it will be going down within the next couple of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc. " Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight? Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it fu…
I admire your optimism :-) but I'm not 100% sure that is true. If there wasn't a political drive behind this, wouldn't it have been easier to burn coal for the next 100 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxes are part of the cost of electricity, and it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the cost of production. Wind power being down to within 10% of the cost of coal, that's absolutely competitive territory. Additionally, the article notes that in some countries the costs are even higher for coal and natural gas, and in those countries, solar is certainly within competitive costs. You might not like that govern…
> You might not like that governments are taxing some forms of electricity more heavily, but it's a valid way of encouraging the industry to migrate to cleaner options. It's not just a "valid way". This is the way taxes are intended to work! Taxes are not just a way for the state to collect money (maybe in the past centuries). They are also the main way to frame the economy. Here in Germany, the term for "tax" is "St…
Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…
This kind of thing does leave renewables open to attack based on the "subsidy bad" line of thinking. The whole point of the incentives is to pay a fair price for a superior product that does not cause pollution and health damage. It is unreasonable to require a superior source of energy to actually be cheaper. In that sense nuclear/solar/wind are worth purseing even if they cost more than coal. The fact that renewabl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive They already did in the UK and Germany as the article points out. The political weight of utilities and the oil/natgas industry is significantly higher in the US which is probably why the US hasn't followed in Germany/UK's footsteps. Too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by K…
> "too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc. " Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight? Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it fu…
So you think that instead of introducing counter distortions to protect the environment we should just keep the distortions that are damaging it that we already have?
Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc. " Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight? Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it fu…
> Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further. So you think that instead of introducing counter distortions to protect the environment we should just keep the distortions that are damaging it that we already have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of thing does leave renewables open to attack based on the "subsidy bad" line of thinking. The whole point of the incentives is to pay a fair price for a superior product that does not cause pollution and health damage. It is unreasonable to require a superior source of energy to actually be cheaper. In that sense nuclear/solar/wind are worth purseing even if they cost more than coal. The fact that renewabl…
Lost you. Large fossil fuel power stations are undeniably more efficient (cheaper) than the alternatives. Renewables are not competitive at all, yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further. So you think that instead of introducing counter distortions to protect the environment we should just keep the distortions that are damaging it that we already have?
We need to carefully balance tax breaks for renewable energy solutions so that they do not stifle innovation. The key is to make buying renewable energy enough to entice consumers; both families and business; while at the same time not slowing the progress of innovation because the handouts are too profitable to give up.
Means, if tax breaks are not uniform (state by state for instance) then they server to impede new markets.
Law of unintended consequences.