
Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought - mblakele
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
======
crdoconnor
When looking at these graphs, it pays to take a peek at who exactly is behind
them. Modeling the costs and benefits of different forms of energy (especially
environmental costs) is extremely easy to fudge. There are all sorts of
assumptions you have to plug in to the model where you could covertly insert a
policy bias. If the 'measurer' had an agenda, it wouldn't be hard for them to
push the figures one way or another and still keep the model looking clean-ish
from the outset.

Bearing that in mind, it's worth pointing out that Exxon-Mobil is a major
donor to the brookings institute - they're also part of the group ALEC that
has been leading a massive attack on rooftop solar in the last 18 months.

One of those attacks, for instance, has been to increase the price by slapping
up to 35% tariffs on Chinese panels through (mostly false) accusations of
dumping. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this were counted in the cost
model, but subsidies were discounted.

Another thing they've been doing recently is to try to 'greenwash' natural gas
- to make it look like the cleaner alternative to coal to capitalize on the
fracking boom. One of the assumptions I can virtually guarantee that they've
made here, for instance, is that global warming effect of methane leakage
(which is very significant) has been entirely discounted.

~~~
testrun
Can you give a citation of how much methane leakage occurs?

~~~
crdoconnor
Exactly how much? No, because unlike CO2, methane leakage is not being
continuously measured.

The fracking industry is not interested in measuring (duh) and the government
is not forcing them to do so.

Here's a study that tries to hazard an estimate in leakage from one source
though:

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-
wells-pennsylvania-leaking-methane)

------
hristov
The research is provided by the Brookings institution which is more public
relations agency than a research institution. The only thing you can take away
from this "research" is that someone paid to get this result.

------
lotsofmangos
For solar and wind to make sense it is all about the storage in the short term
and global interconnects in the long term, rather than the current system of
trying to balance against a baseload.

And nuclear is great in many ways, but you cannot have a global energy
solution that you couldn't happily give to your enemies, whatever the price
per watt is.

~~~
crdoconnor
Until the nuclear energy liability cap gets pushed into at LEAST the hundreds
of billions range rather than the paltry $375 million per plant it is now, I'm
not gonna believe all of the claims that it's completely safe either.

If the risk of disaster/need for cleanup truly is infinitesimal as the
industry and its cheerleaders keep saying, why is the taxpayer still
shouldering basically all of the insurance costs?

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I think it's because insurance models stop working once the probability of an
accident gets extremely small and the possible damages of any accident get
extremely large. An insurance claim of hundereds of billions would wipe out
any and all insurance companies instantly.

Insurance companies have to make statistics based rational decisions, but
society as a whole is always forced to make decisions that cannot be
statistically proven to be rational in an economic sense.

There is no way to take out insurance against some virus strain escaping a lab
and killing 90% of the world's population. There is no way to insure against
the effects of a worldwide bank run. There is simply a point where insurance
stops working and politics has to kick in.

~~~
crdoconnor
This is the reason there has to be a cap for nuclear power to exist, but not
the reason the cap has to be so small. $375 mil is _nothing_ in the context of
cleanup costs.

On the whole I would find the advocates of nuclear energy safety a lot more
convincing if they put their entire fortunes on the line. I would like to see
guaranteed financial ruin for any of the executives involved in a potential
Fukushima and shareholders totally wiped out.

That still wouldn't put much of a dent in cleanup costs, but it would prevent
moral hazard somewhat.

This subsidy also never shows up on any models comparing solar, coal and
nuclear. Similarly neither does global warming induced environmental
catastrophe.

BECAUSE you simply can't put a $ price on the likelihood of these events
occurring or their cost they (the OP modelers) just ignore the tail risk.

Anybody who remembers the events of the financial crisis should find that
pattern disturbingly familiar.

But, doing so is useful if you're shilling for natural gas/nuclear energy -
just as assuming away financial tail risk was useful for executives at AIG.

------
Klapaucius
The issue of intermittency is in my opinion vastly undercommunicated in public
debate about renewable energy, at least in Europe. A diagram like this [1] can
be used to illustrate the issue. Although this diagram is from a hypothetical
UK modeling exercise for 2020, the broader point it makes is valid. On the
diagram we see how daily electricity demand follow a predictable daily curve,
and the different sources of electricity that are used to meet that demand. We
see that electricity from nuclear and coal provide the most stable component,
whereas power from wind (green) varies hugely in time. Gas power, which can be
turned on and off quickly, is used to fill the gaps in demand. At times, there
is almost enough wind that no generation from fossil fuels is necessary, but
at other times most of the electricity has to come from burning gas (I've seen
similar scenario graphs where wind occasionally fills more than 100% of the
demand, but still gas power will be needed for a large component of the energy
mix when integrating over time).

The point is that without some incredible advance in energy storage capability
on a scale that is not on the radar today, we are stuck with an energy system
where a significant component needs to be non-solar and non-wind. From a
climate perspective, the best options would then be nuclear electricity or
electricity from fossil fuel plans equipped with CCS technology (which is now
belatedly emerging).

(Disclaimer: I work with CCS-related technology development).

[1] [http://www.timera-energy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/Hour...](http://www.timera-energy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/Hourly-Renewables-Penetration.jpg)

(link to page from which picture is taken: [http://www.timera-energy.com/uk-
power/getting-to-grips-with-...](http://www.timera-energy.com/uk-
power/getting-to-grips-with-intermittency/)

~~~
seanflyon
It is worth noting that demand is highest during the day and higher still on
bright sunny days. This means that solar can provide a significant portion of
our power before intermittency becomes a problem. Your point is still correct
that without massive grid storage we will still need some other (not solar or
wind) power source.

------
ghouse
Wind and solar power are commonly thought to be very expensive -- more
expensive than conventional thermal fuel sources for generating electricity.

And that's true in areas where there is little sun, or little wind. Though, in
windy areas (the US great plains) or sunny areas (Atacama Desert in Chile,
much of Africa, Australia (outside the coasts), and Southwestern US), these
are the least expensive source of new capacity and that's reflected in the
free market -- what is getting built.

Until governments quit subsidizing _all_ source of energy at _all) points in
the value chain, the market can't really respond efficiently.

------
spingsprong
"Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so
conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the
levelised cost of renewables."

Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is
lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not
ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power
stations to be built and kept in standby.

~~~
tomjen3
One a really stormy day I want to be able to hide under my electric blanket,
with a cup of tea, in front of the tv/computer.

That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very
effective when it is overcast and rainy.

Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them
instead?

~~~
crdoconnor
Solar panels still generate power when it is overcast. Not as much as on sunny
days, obviously, but a lot more than most people give them credit for.

On stormy days, also, wind generators will be generating a lot more power than
usual. They are more than likely capable of heating your blanket.

Although less efficient, power on days when intermittency is high can also be
transferred from pumped water storage and from hundreds of miles away where it
might be sunny _and_ windy.

~~~
Guthur
Depends on how stormy, Many wind turbines have a max wind speed rating, above
which they will be shutdown in some way.

~~~
crdoconnor
Are there figures on the actual effects of this? How often it happens/the
level by which electricity output is reduced?

~~~
Guthur
I would imagine it is highly dependent on the model of wind turbine. The
window of operation like varies widely.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61400](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61400)

I would imagine that high wind rating turbines are more expensive.

~~~
crdoconnor
>I would imagine it is highly dependent on the model of wind turbine.

This is why I asked for figures on the overall effect - covering all models.
I'm not seeing anything so far to convince me that its effect is more than
negligible.

------
codexjourneys
I'm not sure why wind and solar power are always mentioned together, other
than they both are forms of "alt energy."

From a U.S. perspective, solar power is less productive in the eastern half of
the U.S., so I'm not sure why we haven't just concentrated on blanketing
stretches of desert in the U.S. West with solar farms. This is the highest-
reward area, not attaching solar panels to someone's roof in Wisconsin. I
think that focusing on high-yield areas with lots of sunlight might be one way
to make costs fall. Done right, it might fairly well take care of much of our
energy needs.

Source:
[http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html](http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html)

Conversely, I don't think wind power can come close to taking care of large
percentages of our energy needs. It's subsidized, so it happens, but it's not
The Answer (imho).

~~~
dredmorbius
Solar and wind are the two most abundant, additionally scalable, and
efficiently utilizeable forms of renewable/sustainable energy available.

Solar is the most abundant, but on a density/device basis is somewhat less
cost-effective than wind, which is _preferable_ locations (not all) provides a
high return for investment. Overall, wind energy is less abundant than solar
(it's effectively a byproduct of solar insolation).

Other renewables: geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal, and wave power generally
have issues with scalability, costs, or both. Geo, hydro, and biomass actually
do already contribute significantly to energy budgets, and costs are fairly
good, but their growth potential is limited. Tidal and wave power are limited
and require large capital and operational expenses to be effectively utilized.

Nuclear's a wildcard, though I'm generally skeptical.

There are a number of sources which give detailed breakouts of renewable
energy potential or possible scenarios.

David MacKay's _Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air_ , and Jacobson &
Delucchi's "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power"
give a pretty good overview.

Turns out that with solar + wind and some form(s) of storage, you can approach
a pretty good overall budget.

------
tomohawk
I have enough photovoltaic solar on my roof to provide all the electricity I
need over the course of a year. I remain grid connected because the power from
the roof rarely matches the demand during any given hour. Intermittency is a
real issue that any realistic grid will need to take into account. Rather than
the political posturing driven approach we seem to have today, what we really
need is sober, clear eyed engineering and financing to solve this.

It was heartening to read about the VC funded fusion projects the other day.

------
GoodGuy
You can be 100% assured that if anybody wants to talk to you about "the costs
of solar power" then it is a rep of the Neandertalers-Industry in full
smokescreen operation mode.

These discussions are a great example for how propaganda works.

It does not make sense to calculate the "costs" of freedom, independence and
the health of your family.

Also the real costs of unresolved nuclear waste problems, huge wars for
securing oil supply and the contamination of our ground water by primitive
fracking techniques are... titanic.

We need more young people in the US to take over the general political and
economic discussion. Old and greedy neandertalers are destroying the living
environment of young people, not ok, must change.

Homo sapiens, sapiens (!), take over please...

~~~
ende
ad hominid attack?

