Solar energy pricing is at an all-time low, according to a new report released by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Driven by lower installed costs, improved project performance, and a race to build projects ahead of a reduction in a key federal incentive, utility-scale solar project developers have been negotiating power sales agreements with utilities at prices averaging just 5¢/kWh. These prices reflect receipt of the 30% federal investment tax credit, which is scheduled to decline to 10% after 2016, and would be higher if not for that incentive. By comparison, average wholesale electricity prices across the United States ranged from 3 to 6 cents/kWh in 2014, depending on the region.
More key findings and detail in the article. The full report in the form of a PowerPoint presentation and Excel spreadsheet can be downloaded at utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov/.
By comparison, Berkely Lab released a report on August 10, 2015 revealed Study finds price of wind energy in US at an all-time low, averaging under 2.5 cent/kWh.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @11:22PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 06 2015, @11:35PM
The government already dicks around with all other energy prices. Why aren't you complaining about that?
And coal power, especially, socializes all the expenses whilst privatizing all the profits. They don't pay to clean up the mess they're making, either in mining operations or atmospheric CO2; we all just suffer for their profit.
Last...the 5¢ / kWh is with a 30% Federal credit. The adjusted price with a 10% credit would be about 6¢ / kWh, and 6.1¢ / kWh with no credit -- keeping it within the "3¢ - 6¢ / kWh" range for everything else. Hardly constitutes monumental dicking around, at least in my book -- though, of course, it's a damned effective way to kickstart a brand new industry that, thanks to that initial investment, is primed to kick the asses of the old-n-busted dirty and expensive industry we're stuck with today.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:15AM
Not sure you can predict the delivered cost of solar power when the 30% investment credit drops to 10%.
After all, the reduction in solar power pricing is not solely do to the tax credit, as you surmise.
There are economy of scale and improved technology and more experienced construction companies in the field looking for work.
Never the less, I could see the tax credit being justifiably extended. The social good of reducing coal usage is probably worth what ever the government foregoes in tax collection. Or perhaps the credit should now be shifted to utility-scale power storage projects tied to solar or wind farms.
The kickstarter effect seems to have worked. Why not try it again?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:17AM
Coal fired power plants also spew more mercury into the environment than anyone is willing to think about:
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp [nrdc.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:00PM
I asked Wolfram Alpha and it said 33 short tons of mercury would have a volume of 2.212 kiloliters. A typical railway tank car can hold 131 kiloliters--it would be less than 2% full. Your linked page says:
but the US Supreme Court decided in June that it didn't like that idea.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=volume+of+33+tons+of+mercury&dataset= [wolframalpha.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT-111_tank_car [wikipedia.org]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-court-strikes-down-epa-limits-on-mercury-emissions-1435590069 [wsj.com] (paywalled)
https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/29/3673866/supreme-court-epa-mercury-pollution/ [thinkprogress.org]
http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/powerplants.html [epa.gov]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 08 2015, @12:37PM
Well, you can go swimming in that partially full railway tank car and tell me how you feel a few days later - hatters didn't die right away...
Also, have you noticed how many streams in the US are off limits to fishing for human consumption, do you know the reasons behind that?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:40AM
Last...the 5¢ / kWh is with a 30% Federal credit.
Does it really count as a tax credit, if you build it and immediately demolish it? Of course not. They have to sell the power, even if they're just giving it away at below cost of operation (probably to themselves, I might add, a high degree of inbred business activity can make this quite lucrative beyond the superficial tax savings). I think the activity mentioned in the story indicates that there's considerable profit to be had in the building of solar power, but not in actual generation of electricity.
it's a damned effective way to kickstart a brand new industry
Just like the various regulatory and reserve requirement changes kickstarted REITs and credit default swaps?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:29AM
The AC says:
So these aren't real prices at all? Sure, if the government is going to dick around with prices, and then change their dicking about, prices will change. This isn't news, it's just governments dicking about.
They are real prices.
The prices take into account the total condition of the market place, and encompass everything that is known about the costs involved. It includes profits required to get any one to bid on the project, shipping costs, bribes to local officials, buy out of property owners, road construction, and yes, taxes.
Some things may be more expensive in the future, taxes, perhaps. Some things may be less expensive, labor and construction costs, because familiarity reduces risk, which allows project bidders to sharpen their pencils even finer.
In short you can seldom ever say the prices aren't real prices, because they almost always are what you have to pay.
The fact that there is a tax reduction is societies way of saying "we will forgive some of the tax costs we normally impose on construction projects because this is important for our future." Its that simple.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:53AM
Coincidentally, the Arab scum are stepping up their buying [theintercept.com] of American politicians.
Good thing Russia at least is ready and willing to fuck some raghead shit up. I can hardly wait until they park their TOPOL-M's and S-400's in Syria.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by BigotDetectorGoesBing! on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:14AM
> Good thing Russia at least is ready and willing to fuck some raghead shit up.
Bing!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:52AM
You should mix it up a bit and say, "Bing Bung Bong!"
That way you could out bigots in fluent Vietnamese.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:23PM
They are real prices.
And one can be subsidized enough to sell gold-plated Rolls Royces for a pound apiece. Just because there is a "real price" doesn't mean that the price has anything to do with the cost of the good supplied. That's quite relevant because once the tremendous subsidy goes away so does the cheap prices.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 07 2015, @07:34PM
I'm happy enough that the government didn't pass a law that installed solar could not cost more than 5 cents per kwh. That would be much more typical of government meddling. *cough*Rent Control*cough*.
As pointed out elsewhere, you can not assume that the cheap prices will totally disappear at the end of next year when the subsidy is reduced.
You will have component manufacturers who have largely recovered their capital investment in plants, installation companies that have a trained work force, and an already cherry-picked market. Manufacturers may lower their prices instead of watching their plants go idle. Installers will stop charging the high government supported prices, and lower their install fees. And Less wealthy customers will be haggling prices more than the rich ones.
Prices expand to consume all subsidies. But prices can and do retract when subsidies are removed.
The same argument was raised about removal of oil/gas prices. [propublica.org] Yet those arguments proved false.
This article is about utility scale solar installations. That isn't exactly a huge market. However, utilities know that if all those installers switch to the home installation market it will hurt their business a lot more than paying 6 or 7 cents per KWh installed with a smaller subsidy. You already see some signs of this happening [usnews.com] and utilities jumping into the home rooftop market.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 08 2015, @04:34PM
As pointed out elsewhere, you can not assume that the cheap prices will totally disappear at the end of next year when the subsidy is reduced.
But you can predict it though the actual drop will probably happen some months to a few years after the subsidies decline. Depends how long it takes the oversupply to go away.
You will have component manufacturers who have largely recovered their capital investment in plants, installation companies that have a trained work force, and an already cherry-picked market. Manufacturers may lower their prices instead of watching their plants go idle. Installers will stop charging the high government supported prices, and lower their install fees. And Less wealthy customers will be haggling prices more than the rich ones.
That only makes sense if they lose more money by shutting stuff down than they do by keeping it running. It's especially true if they haven't recovered their capital investments in plants and the like. I think bankruptcy will be an end state for a lot of this stuff.
Prices expand to consume all subsidies. But prices can and do retract when subsidies are removed.
The same argument was raised about removal of oil/gas prices. Yet those arguments proved false.
The article you cited claims that the subsidies in question were $4 billion per year. That's less than a dollar per barrel of oil consumed in the US (somewhere around 7 billion barrels of oil in various products, not just vehicle fuel). Glancing at Wikipedia, they claim [wikipedia.org] that energy consumption in the form of oil is roughly 12 times larger than energy consumption from renewable energy. IMHO a $4 billion per year oil subsidy would be equivalent then to roughly a $300-350 million a year subsidy in all renewable energy production outside of hydroelectric.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:37AM
The "real price" is the price that you actually pay.
There is no Immaculate Market - everything depends on something else.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Hartree on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:35AM
"Berkely Lab released a report on August 10, 2105"
Dammit, they've got a time machine and they didn't tell us about it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Francis on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:30AM
Actually that was my typo-generating beam. Because they failed to pay me $1 meeeleeon dollars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:25AM
Just remember, CERN is not your friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:17PM
2105 - The Year of Rooftop Solar.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:48AM
One of the problems with every alt energy scheme is the fuzzy math that surrounds it to the point you just write it off because reality is impossible to sort out from politics and spin. You hear too many tales of windmills with the rotors locked down when the government subsidies aren't flowing, implying the additional maintenance cost of running the thing exceeds the revenue it generates. And large solar projects seem to go bust about as often as they go online, again implying it ain't all sunshine and skittles shitting out of unicorns. Meanwhile about the only risk to a fossil fuel plant turning a profit is the government.
Or take ethanol. Mixing it 10% into gas ended up reducing many vehicles about 10% and is totally toxic to small engines. Huh? On what planet did that sound like a good idea? You could put an inert material in and accomplish that but why would you want to? Doubly so when the additive often costs more than gas itself. But now it is a can't question fact of life because Iowa corn farmers.
How much does solar or wind actually cost? Who the hell really knows. It is a certainty that the only places who derive large percentages from it, large enough they can't hide the costs anymore, pay much more for electricity than the U.S. average.
What should U.S. energy policy be? Fund pure research and then stay the hell out of the marketplace to the greatest extent possible, allowing the invisible hand to sort out when deployment makes economic sense. Sooner or later something we now call alt energy will be more economical and start claiming market share. And then the greens will hate it, of that we can know with high confidence.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:16AM
You hear too many tales of windmills with the rotors locked down when the government subsidies aren't flowing,
Yes, well said. Let us hear less of these tales. If we do hear such tales, we should ask for a citation, because otherwise they are just tales. Did I tell you about the relative of Nessie that lives in Lake Okanagon?
How much does solar wind actually cost? Who the hell really knows.
I am pretty sure the sun is putting out solar wind whether we use it or not, so the cost is effectively zero. So some of us do know?
Fund pure research and then stay the hell out of the marketplace to the greatest extent possible, allowing the invisible hand to sort out when deployment makes economic sense.
Ha! Ha ha! Ha, ha, haaaa! Yeah, that's the ticket! Like we do with petroleum! Ha, ha ha!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:33PM
With the government credit my Father-in Law was able to afford a large enough solar panel array to power his entire house and then some. It should pay for itself in about 10 years and has a warranty for 20 years or so. In the meantime he will be enjoying extremely low electric bills for the foreseeable future. He will still have to pay for off hours, like nighttime, but the day time where they buy from him still helps. He was also able to get it setup, so he uses his own electricity first and then shares it. The alternative which the Electric Company loves, is they buy all your electricity and then you buy electricity back from them. They buy it at a low cost and then you pay for the delivery and mark up. So, yeah, you can still kind of get screwed, if you don't do it right.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday October 07 2015, @07:16PM
Tell him he is welcome.
The problem here is that you fail to see that he is a parasite, taking from everyone else who pays taxes, in exactly the same way as every welfare queen. Without that government subsidy that you handwave away there is no chance he would have bought that big hunk of high maintenance egoboo. But we are all supposed to ignore that elephant in the room, that some poor bastard's paycheck is being deducted so a green can feel smug and superior to the poor bastard he stole from. That sort of bad economics can't scale, it is going to remain a playground for a few wealthy greens.
Come back and tell us all how economical solar is when somebody buys one out of pocket and actually expects to still break even after expensing the cost of money for the expected service life, That means it still makes economic sense if you either pay a note with financing charges over the service life or you take into account the average rate of interest of an upfront purchase. And all with no special subsidy or tax treatment beyond the normal for capital expense, real estate improvements, etc. It means all repair and routine adjustment is either fully accounted for or built into the purchase price without government assistance. Include fair market value of labor of the owner if more than a hour or two a year since if it is a time sink and not expensed it is a hobby, not a practical investment.
I'm not saying nobody should play around with a home solar install before it is economically viable, only that it is a hobby and should not be held up as a model for others until it actually makes economic sense. Hobbyists need no reason other than finding it interesting, most hobbies aren't profitable and hobbyists do often advance the state of the art so more power to em. So long as they are playing with their own money and not mine; then I care.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 07 2015, @07:32PM
While I agree that the government wastes large amounts of tax dollars. I just can't see that this is one of those areas. Assuming, that there is actually a Global Warming trend caused by man, Solar Power may be the ticket to fixing a lot of problems. Would you rather, the government stick it's head in the sand? Would you rather they Only fund this in research institutions? What about more Power company Tax Write Offs? Personally, I Am a skeptic when it comes to Global Warming, but that doesn't mean I lack all reasoning. If enough people keep crying wolf, well, perhaps, I shouldn't go into the forest with a large piece of steak wrapped around my neck. Perhaps, they could actually be right, even, if they are doing as bad of a job as the other side in proving what's actually going on.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 08 2015, @12:57AM
Assuming, that there is actually a Global Warming trend caused by man...
Assuming bigfoot is real.....
Assuming the Flying Spaghetti Monster is coming to get us...
Ok, cheap shot.
The real question is who decides? You seem to think the government is best suited to decide if, when and how we are to remake the energy sector in our economy. You think this with absolutely no evidence of any government anywhere being better at making these sort of decisions compared to the invisible hand of the market.
Maybe solar is the way. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe we need to be going all in on finally dragging fusion across the finish line. Or maybe biofuels would be better. That is where the rubber hits the road, making a really big decision that will impact pretty much every person. And it leads to the next question of WHO makes it? Or you can decide to let them all compete on as level a field as we can make it and find out which one wins. Does it really matter which energy source wins?
Would you rather they Only fund this in research institutions?
In a perfect world the federal government wouldn't be very involved in basic R&D outside of some military work since nobody disputes that national defense is in their wheelhouse. We have some really yuge energy conglomerates, all of which intend to be smack in the middle of any new energy industry, why should we tax people to help them avoid an R&D budget? But if we are spending money on a National Science Foundation and a whole alphabet soup of related agencies then I see no problem with funding research into newer, better, cleaner energy sources.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:04PM
Earth, United States of America, midwest region. Bush jr. thought it would be a great idea to kick some foreign oil dependence by adding alcohol made from corn. Senators from the corn belt (a.k.a. midwest) seemed to agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:23PM
Besides channeling money to Iowa farmers, ethanol is also used to reduce smog. A catalytic converter can easily get rid of the aldehydes produced by its incomplete burning. Ethanol itself has low toxicity (remember MTBE)?
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/ethanol/ethanol.htm [ca.gov]
http://www.sentex.net/~crfa/emissionsimpact.html [sentex.net]
It isn't only corn that's made into ethanol.
http://sugarcane.org/global-policies/policies-in-the-united-states/sugar-in-the-united-states [sugarcane.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:31AM
So supply of solar and wind power is overtaking demand. Therefore, prices are down. Maybe renewables are just not reliable enough to command market rates.