
Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does - joyce
http://fortune.com/2015/10/06/wind-cheap-coal-gas/
======
toomuchtodo
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. Thorium. Fast breeder. Pebble bed. I don't
care which you pick, no one is going to pour 10 years and $1-4 billion into a
plant that won't be cost competitive when it turns up (maybe some governments,
but you can't fix that; it'll just get mothballed).

3\. Utility scale batteries are going to be needed to make up for solar and
wind's capacity factor (availability). Tesla is going to clean up with its
Gigafactory. Well done Elon. I hope Mars treats you well.

4\. Any pollutants or negative externalities of both solar panel and battery
production can be much better contained and managed than the output of a coal
plant.

5\. Cheaper renewables means even cheaper power available for the transition
to electric vehicles.

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_.

Did I cover everything? Anything missing?

~~~
terryf
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 imbalance, the frequency cutoffs in
the old equipment running most of the network are rather severe (in high-
voltage networks, frequency increases with more power being fed into the
system).

There are already extremely severe network problems in Germany for example
where quite a bit of power comes from solar and wind. (I worked as an embedded
sw engineer doing software that controlled solar inverters for a while)

The problem with upgrading distribution network is of course the MASSIVE
amounts capex needed to replace it.

The other problem is industrial consumers - an aluminium smelter requires a
certain amount of power coming in 24/7 or the ovens will freeze and if they
do, restart is basically impossible. There are many other factories with
similar problems. Given the trend towards just-in-time production and
shipping, the chain of events that leads to massive disruption in the global
trade can start from a fairly small shutdown with large snowball effects.

I'm not trying to put down green power generation, just saying that getting
the price down to reasonable level is just one part of the puzzle.

~~~
crdoconnor
>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 they want to upgrade
if the net result is more competition? Hell, they'd probably pay _not_ to have
to upgrade.

>There are already extremely severe network problems in Germany for example
where quite a bit of power comes from solar and wind.

"Severe" would suggest blackouts or at least brownouts like California had in
2001.

>The other problem is industrial consumers - an aluminium smelter requires a
certain amount of power coming in 24/7 or the ovens will freeze and if they
do, restart is basically impossible.

If you must do something impossible, do it at least... twice :) ??

[http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-aluminum-
firm-...](http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-aluminum-firm-rescues-
grid-twice/150/407/82143/)

"Over the past 12 months, German aluminum giant Trimet has ramped down
production twice on request from German grid operators."

Yes, they didn't shut it off entirely, but this demonstrates that smelters who
can vary their electricity usage are actually part of the solution, not the
problem.

(provided Germany didn't overpay them to ramp down that is... which they may
well have)

~~~
brrt
> 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.

~~~
raverbashing
Yes, by electrolysis. Of molten minerals. This also consumes energy

"Alumina is dissolved in molten cryolite, typically at 960 °C"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting)

------
downandout
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 discounts and incentives. This makes the real
difference in production costs even bigger than what this report implies.

If we as a society decide we want clean energy, that's fine, but it is
important that people make these decisions based upon actual facts. Clean
energy in 2015 is still _significantly_ more expensive than energy produced
using fossil fuels (and of course this report leaves nuclear out entirely,
which is far cheaper than coal).

~~~
puranjay
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.

~~~
CyberDildonics
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.

~~~
puranjay
Which is why I said that it is "attributed" to Bill Gates. I know he didn't
say it

~~~
dalke
In the future you might want say 'misattributed' or 'wrongly attributed' for
this case.

The term 'attributed to X' can mean "is widely but wrongly attributed to X",
but can also mean "I heard it somewhere and it sounds true so I'll go with my
gut feeling instead of verifying it" or "I hear there are doubts, so while I
have no opinion, I'll keep my bases covered."

Personally, rather than be stuck in that mire, I would suggest quoting Prof.
Frink from Simpsons:

> 'I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10000
> times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe
> will own them.'

This in turn came from the quote widely but wrongly attributed to Thomas J.
Watson of IBM:

> 'I think there is a world market for maybe five computers'

Quoting from
[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson)
:

> Often dated to 1943. Thorough research of Watson's writings and statements
> have produced no example of him saying this. It appears to be a corruption
> of a remark by Howard Aiken that four or five computers could meet all of
> the United Kingdom's computing needs. See Ralph Keyes (2006), The Quote
> Verifier.

Of these, only the Frink version has an accurate attribution. I think the
other two come with some malice. By repeating the urban legend as if it's
relevant, I think you are forwarding that malice, even if unintentionally.

------
etrautmann
The frustrating part about this is that fossil fuels have had the scales
tipped in their favor via 1) subsities, and 2) not accounting for
externalities in the price. The economic costs of particular emissions, CO2,
mercury, and other pollutants are very real, and astronomical, but a classic
tragedy of the commons.

If we factor those into the price, renewables like solar and wind would be
much more competitive.

~~~
existencebox
You make a valid point, but I'd be curious to what extent this applies on both
sides. I know I certainly hear a lot of buzz about the subsidies provided for
"green energy", installing panels, that sort of thing. I was also under the
impression that we haven't fully moved away from using certain rare earth
metals/other compounds in the panels/large electric generators, which likely
have a heavy cost externality in mining.

Really wish there was some repository of what the "true costs" of the things
we use are, this has got me thinking about even more mundane goods when you
consider the whole supply chain.

~~~
Retric
Fossil fuels get on the order of 100+ billion per year in direct and indirect
subsidies in the US _as a conservative estimate_. By far the largest subsides
for 'Green Energy' go to corn ethanol which is mostly political football.
After that there really more rounding errors than anything else.

PS: Nuclear seems to be popular on a lot of tech sites, but it needs massive
subsides to come close to break even.

~~~
Qwertious
I'm not saying you're wrong (and I think you're right), but do you have a
source for the "fossil fuels get $100billion+ in subsidies" and "Nuclear needs
massive subsidies to come close to break even"?

~~~
ju-st
For nuclear:

> A new 3,260 MW Hinkley Point C nuclear power station was given planning
> consent on 19 March 2013.[10] A guaranteed "strike price" of £92.50 per
> megawatt-hour (to be indexed for inflation over 45 years) was announced on
> 21 October 2013. The new power station would see Hinkley's contribution to
> the country's power supply rise to 7%.[9] At the time of the planning
> consent, the price for electric energy on the wholesale market was around
> £45 per megawatt-hour while the new power plant was expected to need
> earnings of £90 per megawatt-hour in order to break even.[11]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_Station)

~~~
fulafel
Up north the latest nuclear plant guarantees price for its owners at 50
EUR/MWh (37 GBP) or less: [http://www.energypost.eu/rosatom-signs-contract-
build-nuclea...](http://www.energypost.eu/rosatom-signs-contract-build-
nuclear-plant-fennovoima-finland/)

~~~
Retric
"Its cost estimate has gone up from €3 billion to €8.5 billion." So, these
estimates are not exactly worth much.

~~~
fulafel
You are misreading the article, that cost overrun is from a previous nuke
project (supplied by Areva, started in 2005 and not yet finished).

Regarding what the price guarantees are worth (and it's not an estimate, it's
in contract), there are some interesting scenarios for sure if they can't hold
up their promises. For example the joint company is being bankrolled with a
large slice from Rosatom, one wonders what happens to their capital in case of
a bankruptcy!

------
jweir
I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices.

"while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America."

This makes no sense – the price of NG is very local.

I just ran an analysis of NYISO Zone J (New York City's) average hourly price
for the last year – and it comes out at an average of $40.87 per MWh(peak and
off peak). This would include all sources of generation.

The prices in the article would have everyone generating electricity loosing
massive amounts of money – which they aren't.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mOm7bMQYJof7WDfqXmbA...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mOm7bMQYJof7WDfqXmbAgHu59uiSeBLSStzKhoqq7eU/edit?usp=sharing)

You can find raw pricing data from the various US energy markets below –
you'll have to dig a bit. This is price though, not cost.

[http://www.nyiso.com/](http://www.nyiso.com/)
[http://www.pjm.com/](http://www.pjm.com/)
[http://www.ercot.com/](http://www.ercot.com/)
[http://www.miso.com/](http://www.miso.com/)
[http://www.caiso.com/](http://www.caiso.com/)

~~~
oska
> _I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices._

Here [1] is the official press release. However, I don't think the full report
is available as a free download.

[1] [http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-
cost-c...](http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost-
competitiveness-versus-fossil-fuels/)

------
maxharris
The article uses euphemisms and double-talk:

 _As more countries and states enact market systems that put a price on carbon
emissions, clean energy technologies will actually become cheaper than fossil
fuel technologies_

Translated into plain English:

 _As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased
taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels._

What does the author have to gain by obfuscating something so obvious?

What is the impact on people when their energy costs are raised? (Hint: energy
- vast amounts of it - goes into everything, from growing food to producing
artificial heart valves.)

~~~
trhway
>Translated into plain English:

>As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased
taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels.

well, as it stands currently the whole society pays the tax for the fossil
fuels use - that tax is the expenses and damages caused by the environment
damage and climate change, oil wars, backward countries and people having huge
political power due to being rich from oil, etc... It is only fair to shift at
least some of the tax burden to the actual producers and consumers of the
fossil fuels.

>What is the impact on people when their energy costs are raised?

what are you talking about? 100w solar panel costs less than $100, double that
for installation and wires&converter. So $200 loan at 6% for 20 years is
$1.5/month or $0.05/day. In CA the panel will produce 1kwh/day. I.e.
$0.05/kwh. And no more kissing of Saudi princes' lower backs :)

~~~
osmala
For society you need reliability, you just don't stop freezers just because
sun goes down, or there is period of storms or night. You would need atleast
14 times the hour capacity just to smooth the daily curve. [In winter there is
less sunlight hours and maximum sun light is mid-day.] The cost is more than
0.1$ per watt hour of capacity, just for battery, and not for any power
electronics going with it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery)

So this alone would increase your cost estimates by 150$

And for society you probably want a weeks worth of electricity stored in some
form or other to deal with weather differences, and not summer winter
difference. So minimal goal would be 24*7. Or just more than 150 hours.

Or that another 1500$ of cost not included in your estimations. Now a big
thing to realize, in electricity markets where networks are required to take
in solar and wind from other players, its not the producer of electricity that
bears the cost of that large storage its the utility that buys the electricity
from market.

Right now it works somewhere along the lines. Lets make 40% efficient fossil
fuel plants instead of 60% efficient slowly starting fossil fuel plants, so
that we can turn them on and off for covering the difference between
intermitted sources and consumption. So in reality renewable plants end up
just becoming fuel saving devices for fossil fuel plants while reducing fuel
efficiency of said plants when they actually are turned on . In long run I
believe nuclear is way to go if we want to stop global warming. The
intermittency problem goes away with it and you can run a grid with 100%
nuclear with very little storage because production isn't intermittent, and
with modern plants you can vary electricity production between 50 and 100%

Global warming is accumulating effect, the emissions are just rate of change,
and not the temperature difference, and we need to aim pretty close to zero
emissions to stop it. [Yes nature takes some of it off from circulation but a
lot less than people think because naysayers compare our emissions to winter,
summer cycle of plants that cancels itself in yearly basis.]

~~~
trhway
it isn't a car, so the range of technological options is much wider, ie. there
is no need for high capacity small batteries. One can hydrolyze the water
during low loads and store the resulting hydrogen (hydrolysis equipment and
stationary storage is relatively simple and cheap). A generator with gas
turbine to burn the hydrogen would cost on the scale like $400/kw - a small
addition to the $2K/kw capital cost for solar panels install. The week of
reserve storage - 200kwh to be generated - with even low 40% efficiency of
turbine generation - would require storing 250m3 of hydrogen to provide a week
reserve per 1kw of basic capacity. Lets say that storage is generous $1/m3.

As result, under $3K/kw we'd have a week of reserve and the ability to short-
term double power during peaks using the gas turbines. And using the same loan
calculations it is $0.075/kwh.

------
JulianMorrison
Wind may be cheap, but here in the UK a hostile government and NIMBYs have
made it hard to open new wind-farms.

------
humbleMouse
Scaling of these solutions is what we need to worry about. Scaling wind and
solar to actually provide energy on the scale we humans consume it is a
totally different question that "how much does this cost per mega watt hour".

~~~
frgewut
I'm actually more excited about the small scale generation. Solar is the only
viable method for generating electricity in 1 watt to several KW. Wind also
comes in handy here. I'm wondering what news technologies this will allow.

------
hugh4
Using real money accounting or funny money accounting?

~~~
MaysonL
Using real money, taking into account much of the complexity of real world
accounting: i.e. considering lower current interest rates, and many places
where many of fossil fuel's externalities have to be paid for by the users of
the fuel.

