Cost of reaching for solar power will soar

No problem, Nauseous tells us that no matter how much it costs to go green, it'll be much cheaper than a 'cooked' planet.

"While the technological pathway to a low-carbon society is clear -- more solar panels, more windmills, more battery-powered cars, more trolleys and trains and so forth -- the costs of massive conversion will be hefty."

The cost of doing nothing is hefty also, ask good ol' Jerry Brown why in his first term at the helm, he killed the Sun Desert nuclear facility in lieu of "energy efficient appliances". Energy efficient appliances never will be a baseload generation source.

"California's average retail electric rate of 13.24 cents per kilowatt-hour is already the ninth highest in the California's average retail electric rate of 13.24 cents per kilowatt-hour is already the ninth highest in the nation, 50 percent above average. And when those "renewable portfolios" come online, power bills will ratchet rapidly upward.

Yeah great, this "group" throws out numbers like 6 billion plus, but what does it mean with reference to all the ratepayers in California and how much does it affect the already 13.24 cents per KWh being paid in the State now? This is what the million solar roofs project is supposed to address. Home owners and business owners putting solar PV on their roofs and using the power where it is needed and generated during peak use hours. No EIRs, land lease agreements, environmental damage or new power corridors need to be built. Jerry needs to put his prayer in his "left" hand and crap in the right, to see which one fills up first.

Read more: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/opinion/...

This is beautiful: new research from the University of Texas at Austin indicates that it is possible to double the number of electrons harvested from one photon of sunlight using an organic plastic semiconductor material.
&#8232 ; The team has demonstrated that capturing these "hot" electrons could increase the efficiency of solar-to-electric power conversion to 44 percent; and theoretically, the rate could go as high as 66 percent.

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-feature...

Solarman wrote:

"California's average retail electric rate of 13.24 cents per kilowatt-hour is already the ninth highest in the California's average retail electric rate of 13.24 cents per kilowatt-hour is already the ninth highest in the nation, 50 percent above average. And when those "renewable portfolios" come online, power bills will ratchet rapidly upward.

And they may even catch us up one day.
Current cost of electricity per kWh here:
0.142319€/kWh =$0.19

Comparisons of electricity pricing are meaningless without reference to local energy sources. California has a relatively high rate for two reasons. One is that it cannot use dirty coal shipped in from out of state due to the trapping of smog between the mountains and common place inversion layers. The second is that even natural gas has to be imported from Alberta with pipeline capacity small enough to keep the price always teetering between supply and demand. Nuclear is often rejected because of the seismic zones. So no 'easy answer'.

The only local energy resources are sun, wind, and geothermal. But those take time to develop in order to displace the high cost options.

2008 energy mix is

Natural Gas: 45.74%
Coal: 18.21%
Nuclear: 14.44%
Hydro: 11%
Renewables: 10.6%

Needless to say, the dominance of natural gas and coal is what is driving higher prices. The local renewables or nuclear power will have to be expanded at least twice over to drive a serious decline in electricity prices.

LessFactMoreHype, alias:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:

Comparisons of electricity pricing are meaningless without reference to local energy sources.

Now make an attempt to apply the rules to the price of gasoline, which is equally more expensive in Europe?
-
When you've done that, why not have a stab at explaining your theory of CO2 as a thermal pollutant, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

High rates? California's electric rates are barely above the US average, and are well below those of many other populous states. Even carbon-crazy Texas pays nearly as much.

http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-pri...

Earthling-1 wrote:

LessFactMoreHype, alias:
<quoted text>Now make an attempt to apply the rules to the price of gasoline, which is equally more expensive in Europe?

Why would I take a non-sequitur as a challenge??

LessFactMoreHype, alias:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:

Why would I take a non-sequitur as a challenge??

You used to find almost anything a challenge, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, but you now avoid and evade perfectly reasonable challenges when caught with your trousers down.
Don't you recall arguing at length about things like the spelling of 40?
The colour of the Sun?
The exact location of New Moore Island?
Ice calving?
PoP forecasts?
Enercon's non existent offshore wind generators?
Equatorial season/seasons?
Vikings in a warmer Greenland?
"Deforestations" as a consequence of AGW?
Insects and plants qualifying as species?
Scientific laws as science?
Predictions aren't just for astrologers?
Ethanol as a very workable and effective solution?
America has more than two political parties?
Fruiting plants especially chosen by bees for, "polination?
-
But you refuse to discuss your theory of CO2 as a thermal pollutant?

Northie wrote:

High rates? California's electric rates are barely above the US average, and are well below those of many other populous states. Even carbon-crazy Texas pays nearly as much.
http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-pri...

Did you even bother to examine your own link. There were only six states that had higher costs than California. California was nearly three cents more per kwh than the average. Now add in the fact that solar is the most expensive of all the renewables and the most affected by weather. Remeber to include the fact those subsities. Or not if the goverment has to cut budgets across the board. The fact that solar is the most expensive form of electrical power at .22 per kwh which makes wind at .08 per kwh a bargan and even cheaper than natural gas.

Which all add up to the fact that as California pushes for more solar the cost of electricity will go up and the number of busninesses leaving will go up as well. At least the good news it that california's carbon footprint will shrink. After all when everyone is leaving and taking jobs with them it cannot help but shrink.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/compa...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you even bother to examine your own link. There were only six states that had higher costs than California. California was nearly three cents more per kwh than the average. Now add in the fact that solar is the most expensive of all the renewables and the most affected by weather. Remeber to include the fact those subsities. Or not if the goverment has to cut budgets across the board. The fact that solar is the most expensive form of electrical power at .22 per kwh which makes wind at .08 per kwh a bargan and even cheaper than natural gas.
Which all add up to the fact that as California pushes for more solar the cost of electricity will go up and the number of busninesses leaving will go up as well. At least the good news it that california's carbon footprint will shrink. After all when everyone is leaving and taking jobs with them it cannot help but shrink.
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/compa...

That is so funny. You question solar's viability, but take the Nuke industries facts at face value.

Nuclear power is under 3 1/2 cents a kWh obviously that does not include the cost of waste disposal. I wonder what the cost per kWh will be for the Fukashima plant. They are done producing energy, but the costs will go on for hundreds of years. Not to mention a giant no go area in a very small country.

Coal is at around 4 cents per kWh because they externalize so much of the cost of coal. It does not include health costs to downwind communities, and often does not include the cost of disposal of coal ash which is known to contain toxic chemicals. Not to mention the human cost of coal mining and the environmental cost of mountain top removal.

Natural gas may be a viable option if they can improve their fracking techniques. The cost of natural gas would raise substantially if it is produced at the expense of groundwater supplies.

Solar power is more expensive, but the cost of solar is going down while the cost of most all the alternatives are going up. Solar panels produced ten years ago maxed out at around 80 watts now for roughly the same cost you can get a panel producing more that 200 watts. If this trend continues solar will become much more competitive. Of course if you live in the Northern states it may be less viable, but in the Southwest it is definitely viable.

budd wrote:

<quoted text>
That is so funny. You question solar's viability, but take the Nuke industries facts at face value.
Nuclear power is under 3 1/2 cents a kWh obviously that does not include the cost of waste disposal. I wonder what the cost per kWh will be for the Fukashima plant. They are done producing energy, but the costs will go on for hundreds of years. Not to mention a giant no go area in a very small country.
Coal is at around 4 cents per kWh because they externalize so much of the cost of coal. It does not include health costs to downwind communities, and often does not include the cost of disposal of coal ash which is known to contain toxic chemicals. Not to mention the human cost of coal mining and the environmental cost of mountain top removal.
Natural gas may be a viable option if they can improve their fracking techniques. The cost of natural gas would raise substantially if it is produced at the expense of groundwater supplies.
Solar power is more expensive, but the cost of solar is going down while the cost of most all the alternatives are going up. Solar panels produced ten years ago maxed out at around 80 watts now for roughly the same cost you can get a panel producing more that 200 watts. If this trend continues solar will become much more competitive. Of course if you live in the Northern states it may be less viable, but in the Southwest it is definitely viable.

My area has a local university that has been working on solar for 50 years. Many of the locals experiment with solar panels as each new version is created.

We have abundant sunshine here and a need for AC in the summer. Anything that reduces the dependency on the electric co. is welcome.

Just attended an open to the public conference on new and improved solar panels. The main problem with solar has been the life of the panels. Even today's panels do not show a 'life' long enough to justify the cost.

We have a solar farm just south of here and are watching to see if it will survive the sun and for how long.

Lower cost and longer life are still on the 'must have' list for solar panel production.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Even today's panels do not show a 'life' long enough to justify the cost.

What do you call a "long life" ?? Panels made 30 years are still producing electricity today.

budd wrote:

<quoted text>
That is so funny. You question solar's viability, but take the Nuke industries facts at face value.
Nuclear power is under 3 1/2 cents a kWh obviously that does not include the cost of waste disposal. I wonder what the cost per kWh will be for the Fukashima plant. They are done producing energy, but the costs will go on for hundreds of years. Not to mention a giant no go area in a very small country.
Coal is at around 4 cents per kWh because they externalize so much of the cost of coal. It does not include health costs to downwind communities, and often does not include the cost of disposal of coal ash which is known to contain toxic chemicals. Not to mention the human cost of coal mining and the environmental cost of mountain top removal.
Natural gas may be a viable option if they can improve their fracking techniques. The cost of natural gas would raise substantially if it is produced at the expense of groundwater supplies.
Solar power is more expensive, but the cost of solar is going down while the cost of most all the alternatives are going up. Solar panels produced ten years ago maxed out at around 80 watts now for roughly the same cost you can get a panel producing more that 200 watts. If this trend continues solar will become much more competitive. Of course if you live in the Northern states it may be less viable, but in the Southwest it is definitely viable.

Care top prove the cost of solar is going down. So far for the last three years the cost of solar has depending on the numbers either remained the same or gone up. At least wind can say it has gone down according to those same nuclear numbers your upset about. Of course they didn't include thet also externalized the cost. Considering what is leaking out of the abandond wind turbines alone is just as bad if not worse than anything you care to say about coal. And lets not forget what the wonderful toxic waste involved in making those solar panels. Those make what is in coal ash look downright wonderful and makes nuclear waste look pretty good.

If your going to complain about the wonderful byproducts of coal and nuclear then also remeber that every source of power has some little health issue. Maybe you should look that up before you whine about coal and nuclear and crow about wind and solar. Then remeber that solar is strictly a fair weather source. It will not generate power at night or during bad weather and can be put out of production with a little bit of snow.

AMY__ wrote:

<quoted text>What do you call a "long life" ?? Panels made 30 years are still producing electricity today.

But how much compared with new? A thirty year old rusted out clunker may still be running but not getting half the mpg it did thirty years ago.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you even bother to examine your own link. There were only six states that had higher costs than California. California was nearly three cents more per kwh than the average...

Count again. Eight states have more costly power than California; some much, much higher. Meanwhile, California's green energy laws have saved the place billions.

The cost of solar PV modules has steadily dropped by 7% per year with no end in sight. In two years, San Diego will be the first city in the nation to achieve solar grid parity, with other California cities soon following.

Animate this:

http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/ma...

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Count again. Eight states have more costly power than California; some much, much higher. Meanwhile, California's green energy laws have saved the place billions.
The cost of solar PV modules has steadily dropped by 7% per year with no end in sight. In two years, San Diego will be the first city in the nation to achieve solar grid parity, with other California cities soon following.
Animate this:
http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/ma...

Eight states is sixteen percent of the country has higher pwer costs. Or put another way 82% have cheaper electricity.

And a animation is not proof. It is nothing more than someone's art work. It would be like seeing the Road Runner standing on thin air and claim that anyone can walk on air in definance of gravity.

Lets try it again. This time I want to see actual numbers and not animation. Not someone's wishful thinking which this was, a prediction based on someone wants to see happen. Just like you would like to see Earthling agree with you about man made global warming. ANd just about as likely to happen.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/18/3908...

http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-pri...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Eight states is sixteen percent of the country has higher pwer costs. Or put another way 82% have cheaper electricity.

Which means only that they have more access to cheaper energy. California depends too much on fossil fuels which are NOT local and thus high priced. Especially if they have to be the cleaner, more expensive sources to prevent the classical smogs.