SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A transformation is happening in global energy markets that's worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.
This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The chart below shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.
...
"Renewables are robustly entering the era of undercutting" fossil fuel prices, BNEF chairman Michael Liebreich said in a note to clients this week.
Will we see a sharp pivot in energy production, or a gradual tailing off of fossil fuels as renewables take hold?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 19 2016, @11:23PM
The point is that they are generating ROI out of chaos and personal expense of the "more technically competent people" they use.
Plenty of people are up for that. There's a lot of benefits (beyond just money) to go with that "chaos and personal expense". And I'll note as I did at the beginning that we have an approach which is very effective at the sort of rapid changes that you were saying would take half a century or more.
Electricity production and distribution is a peculiar industry with a number of road blocks to change, but it does from time to time experience rapid changes (initial nuclear power adoption, wind power adoption, pollution controls on coal burning plants, etc).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 20 2016, @12:16AM
Plenty of people are up for that
Yeah, I was. When I was single, and in my 20s. It's pretty shocking how hard it is to transition out of the startup world once you've been in it for 20 years.
There's a lot of benefits (beyond just money) to go with that "chaos and personal expense".
Was just watching Santa Clause 2, applicable quote from the movie: "Oh yeah? Name five."
And I'll note as I did at the beginning that we have an approach which is very effective at the sort of rapid changes that you were saying would take half a century or more.
We have an approach that is very effective at throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and hoping that some of it sticks. The stuff that gets flung at the wall is mostly only stuff that is perceived as giving its investors the chance of large ROI in a short time frame. An incremental development program that requires $5M in investment capital to improve the efficiency of power transformers by 1%, generating ROI on transformer replacement after 7-10 years, and ultimately saving Billions per year in increased efficiency... nah, ain't nobody got time for that.
The reason I said the changes would take 50 years or more is not because companies like FSLR aren't pushing the envelope on the technology, but because the existing power industry is entrenched. They own enough legislators to keep their interests protected through any broad change in the power generation structure. Florida Power and Light and the "Solar For The PEOPLE" amendments they have been promoting are a great example: legislation written to ensure that solar power doesn't eat into the profitability of the existing utilities. The reason it will take 50 years is because of all the other laws, existing and yet to be passed, that are completely off the public radar, doing the same thing as the FP&L amendments: protecting the industry from disruption.
There are plenty of smart people in the world, any number of which can envision, design, build and prove new power systems that are superior to the existing ones in many ways. They are up against the existing system which knows all too well how to deal with "disruptive" troublemakers like them - it will take something as game-changing as nuclear was in the 1950s to make a rapid change in power generation. CO2 emission, dirty coal and fracking issues all are going to be with us for a long long time if all we've got to go against them is wind and solar.
If somebody develops a $1M 1GW Tokamak, that will turn the industry on its ear. See the movie "The Saint" for what Hollywood (and my Grandfathers) think would be a likely response to such a development.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @09:06AM
Was just watching Santa Clause 2, applicable quote from the movie: "Oh yeah? Name five."
First, it tends to be a good, long shot gamble. Second, flexible work environment. Third, you get a larger variety of work experience than in a big company and it tends to be higher value. Fourth, you can develop better connections. Fifth, the the stories are better - flashier job titles, more epic successes and failures at your level, more eccentric characters, etc.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:25PM
First, it tends to be a good, long shot gamble.
Agreed, if you just take crackpot ideas off the street you're looking at 1000:1 or worse conversion rates, and no better ROI on the hits. The good VCs tend to get "hits" at a rate of 1/30 or better. Still looks like abject failure from the inside - takes 2-3 years to make a good shot at anything, so you can spend two or three whole careers before participating in a "hit," especially if you join ground-floor every time. The 1/1000 people who are fortunate enough to participate in two hits in a row get the halo title "successful serial entrepreneur." IMHO, that rare title is about as meaningful as being a "top fund manager" for the past X years. They didn't screw up a good thing, twice in a row. Most people who run these startups don't screw up... circumstances make or break more ventures than incompetence. Some successes are partly thanks to VC vetting and management, others are accomplished in spite of it.
Second, flexible work environment.
You would think so, but in my experience the reverse is true. The startup world is full of minimal vacation policies, essentially mandatory long hours, and just as many "traditional" office cultures that demand personal presence 5 days a week, 8+ hours per day. My personal experience in the "big company" world has been much more flexible working conditions.
Third, you get a larger variety of work experience than in a big company and it tends to be higher value.
Yes on the first, I'd say that working in a startup is like a real-world MBA. As for the higher values - my startup salary history mostly paralleled my school-mates who went with the larger company route, within +/- 10% at any given time, basically the same. Both environments favor job-hoppers, periodic renegotiations with new companies can boost compensation much more than any startup/big company contrast.
Fourth, you can develop better connections.
My best, most valuable connections came from the larger companies. I made good friends in the startup world, but they have been mostly impotent in terms of valuable references. The only exception was one of the principal investors, I made a good reputation with him and did get "easy" entry into a couple of flaky jobs in his sphere of influence.
Fifth, the the stories are better - flashier job titles, more epic successes and failures at your level, more eccentric characters, etc.
Depends on what you value in a story. Everyone knows what VP means at a company with less than 10 employees. Plenty of eccentric characters in the big companies, but yeah, the real 3 sigma+ outliers are found in the startup world. And also depends on what you call epic, it's fairly easy to participate in successes/failures at the $10M+ level in a big company... a $2M event can make or break a whole startup company.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]