Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does • Hacker News Board

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#91

Post by crdoconnor » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:17 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #79

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…

>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 Germany has done.

>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 discounts and incentives.

I won't speculate as to why you didn't note that fossil fuel subsidies are also included.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#92

Post by downandout » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:19 AM UTC

tallanvor wrote: post #89

downandout wrote: post #79

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…

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…

I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are.

Bloomberg LLP, the company behind this report, is run by Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire radical environmentalist. Therefore it isn't necessarily surprising to see such misleading tactics used in a report produced by them, but it is disappointing because Bloomberg masquerades as a news organization.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#93

Post by CyberDildonics » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:21 AM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #84

downandout wrote: post #79

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 reminds me of that comment attributed to Bill Gates: "64k memory ought to be enough for everybody" The trend is very clear: solar and wind are dropping in prices. It's now only a matter of when, not if.

Except that he didn't say that at all and has given extremely detailed accounts of the current thinking at the time in history (they were already looking towards the upcoming limitations and bottlenecks they would face in expanding RAM sizes).

Although it is true that solar and wind are dropping in prices recently I don't think an urban legend misquote has any relevance.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#94

Post by vog » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:22 AM UTC

tallanvor wrote: post #89

downandout wrote: post #79

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…

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 "Steuern" which means something like "controlling/steering/directing/governing". This is exactly the official purpose of taxes, and includes collecting as well as spending taxes.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#95

Post by JupiterMoon » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:23 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #79

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…

What about the cost of cleaning up the emissions from the coal? Who pays for this?

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#96

Post by brrt » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:36 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #90

terryf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did miss two things - distribution networks and industrial customers. Those are the two problems that nobody seems to be solving yet. Basically, high-voltage electricity is distributed with networks that are dumb and old. The generation and usage is very carefully balanced with heavy users and large producers, because the network does not have storage capacity. It also has very little tolerance for power imbalanc…

>The problem with upgrading distribution network is of course the MASSIVE amounts capex needed to replace it. No. This is primarily a political issue not a question of lack of resources, and the capex and difficulty required is, while high, typically overestimated by a large degree. The main problem is that the networks are usually owned by monopoly utilities with interests in power generation. How much do you think…

> The main problem is that the networks are usually owned by monopoly utilities with interests in power generation. How much do you think they want to upgrade if the net result is more competition? Hell, they'd probably pay not to have to upgrade.

This... is exactly what is happening :-). Utilities and network operators are trying out ways to give incentives to customers who can respond with negative load (i.e. turning the power down). It makes economic sense because the alternative is increasing production at immense speeds, which is quite costly and inefficient (often using diesel generators, and a lot of them). Aluminium smelters like the examples you give (and quite a few other businesses) are doing precisely this.

Also note that an aluminium smelter works by electrolysis, not by pyrolysis (which is what GP seems to suggest?), which is why they use so much electricity and why they can in fact turn it on and off at a whim.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#97

Post by venomsnake » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:38 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

> 6. First world demand for renewables will continue to drive down costs, allowing third world countries to piggyback off the cost savings. Remember how Africa leapfrogged with cell phones instead of land lines? Imagine battery packs and solar roofs in every home instead of traditional utilities. It's already feasible with current economics.

Wired internet kicks wireless' ass everytime. So having land infrastructure is critical. That leapfrogging could bite them in the ass, if they have to gig now to lay down cables.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#98

Post by icebraining » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:40 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #92

tallanvor wrote: post #89

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…

I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are. Bloomberg LLP, the company behind this report, is run by Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire radical environmentalist. Therefore it…

I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are.

How do you define "real" terms? Sure it's not the price that would emerge if those taxes/incentives didn't exist, but market prices are always adjusted to the current particularities, it's never an absolute value. For example, if it was technically and legally possible to identify all the health and property damages caused by coal pollution and force the coal producers to compensate affected people, the market price of coal would have to be higher than what you call "real" cost, but would that be any less real?

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#99

Post by downandout » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:45 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #91

downandout wrote: post #79

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…

>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…

>$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

The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive. Taxes and incentives being included are the only reason that the numbers quoted in this extremely misleading report are even remotely close to each other (although an 11% difference in a multi-trillion dollar industry is hardly insignificant).

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#100

Post by gambiting » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:46 AM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #84

downandout wrote: post #79

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 reminds me of that comment attributed to Bill Gates: "64k memory ought to be enough for everybody" The trend is very clear: solar and wind are dropping in prices. It's now only a matter of when, not if.

They can drop to zero, they are still not going to replace regular power plants because you can't guarantee baseline power with them. You could drop all power generated with them into pumping water to huge reservoirs, so they can generate baseline power around the clock, but it's not feasible in a lot of places, and you are losing a lot of energy just to move the water up and down.