SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
World spending on renewable vitality is outpacing investment decision in electric power from coal, natural gasoline and nuclear energy plants, pushed by slipping costs of manufacturing wind and solar ability.
More than 50 % of the energy-producing capacity extra all-around the entire world in current several years has been in renewable sources this kind of as wind and solar, in accordance to the International Vitality Company.
In 2016, the newest calendar year for which data is out there, about $297 billion was used on renewables—more than two times the $143 billion spent on new nuclear, coal, gas and gas oil electric power plants, according to the IEA. The Paris-based organization assignments renewables will make up 56% of net producing potential additional through 2025.
The moment supported overwhelmingly by hard cash-back incentives, tax credits and other authorities incentives, wind- and solar-era charges have fallen continually for a 10 years, earning renewable-energy financial commitment additional competitive.
Renewable charges have fallen so significantly in the earlier number of yrs that "wind and photo voltaic now symbolize the least expensive-charge selection for building electrical energy," claimed Francis O'Sullivan, study director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative.
Sustained government assistance in Europe and other formulated economies spurred the development of renewable vitality. But expenses have fallen for other factors. China invested closely in a domestic photo voltaic-producing market, generating a glut of affordable solar panels. Innovation assisted makers make for a longer period wind-turbine blades, generating devices ready to generate significantly far more ability at a reduced expense.
Quoted Article: http://relatednews.net/31303/global-investment-in-wind-and-solar-energy-is-outshining-fossil-fuels/
Originally Submitted Article [paywalled]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-investment-in-wind-and-solar-energy-is-outshining-fossil-fuels-1528718400
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12 2018, @02:01PM (12 children)
How does energy produced per dollar invested in renewables, compare to traditional sources?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday June 12 2018, @03:01PM (1 child)
The energy my PV panels produce, the retailer buys with 6c/kWh.
The energy I consume from the network? The damn'd retailer (my "traditional" source) sells it to me at 22c/kWh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 12 2018, @08:19PM
Yeah, I used to wonder how energy companies could stand to promote green energy. Surely that would cost them business?
But your situation is typical. You have to sell them all the electricity your solar panels generate, at the wholesale price, and then you have to buy from them all the energy you use at the retail rate. Often, you are paying them money to use your own electricity! Oh, and a nice bonus for them is that you bear all the costs of maintaining your solar cell system. The way to break out of that racket is go totally off grid. You ought to be able to wire your house to use your electricity first, but of course that would cut into their parasitic profits, and they don't like that.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday June 12 2018, @03:06PM (9 children)
It's cheaper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:59PM
Governmental meddling does not efficient technology make.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 13 2018, @12:35AM (2 children)
That's complicated. Yes, it's cheaper, but it's also intermittent. So you need to handle storage. This can be done in lots of different ways, and which way works best depend on the local situation. Also on how long you need to be prepared for your renewable to be low or down.
Batteries are an acceptable answer if you need to balance out a single day, but don't work as well if you need to balance out a few months. For that pumped hydro is a better answer, but that's better done at the grid level than at the individual level.
There's also the question of siting for the solar cells. For an individual house it can be on top of the house, or if land is cheap in the yard. But that doesn't work well for an apartment building or a factory.
As always, once you get into the problem there are lots and lots of details to deal with.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday June 13 2018, @02:55AM (1 child)
The USA has lots of empty land.
Much of the intermittent nature of solar and wind can be handled by a grid. Usually, there is wind and/or sunshine somewhere.
Both solar and wind output can be predicted, and solar produces more electricity during times of greater demand (except towards the end of the day).
Batteries and other energy storage may be required, but we should not get hung up on installing renewable source because they cannot provide 100% of the power requirement -- we need to reduce CO2 output, not eliminate it.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 13 2018, @06:21PM
OK. Now you're probably talking about long distance transport of high voltage DC. That's been talked about, but it requires a substantial investment before you start seeing pay-back. It's done in a few places, but you need to design a system where lots of small suppliers can contribute power, and another bunch of small consumers can extract it. I don't think this is intrinsically difficult, but I'm not aware of anywhere that it's been done.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 13 2018, @05:36AM (4 children)
At least with subsidies. With this much investment in a Trump administration, it may be close to being profitable without subsidies too.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday June 13 2018, @03:01PM (3 children)
Please stop pushing your ignorance and get a clue.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3190409/sustainable-it/unsubsidized-wind-and-solar-now-the-cheapest-source-for-new-electric-power.html [computerworld.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:17AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:07AM (1 child)
You are talking about subsidies for fossil fuels?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 15 2018, @12:23PM
No, for renewables, though fossil fuels have them too. I'll note that comparisons of subsidies between the two are wildly dishonest. Nobody compares like to like or notes who does the subsidizing. For example, why should extraction industry depreciation or pollution be considered subsidies for fossil fuels, but not for the various resources that go into renewable power and batteries? Why should Iranian consumption subsidies (which are a large share of actual fossil fuel subsidies) be considered as a justification for EU subsidies on renewable energy?
Further, renewable energy subsidies are going up at a time when they are needed less. Why should we need to greatly increase such subsidies, if these are outcompeting existing power generation? One obvious answer is that maybe they aren't actually that competitive in the first place.