Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Wind and Solar are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Old 04-19-2016, 03:48 PM   #1
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 847
Wind and Solar are Crushing Fossil Fuels

An interesting analysis about trends in energy investments...

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Bloomberg
__________________

__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-19-2016, 04:02 PM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Then no need for subsidies.
__________________

__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 05:48 PM   #3
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Then no need for subsidies.
I agree! Renewable has been remarkably successful in spite of the headwind they've been fighting...

US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge

__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 06:05 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,302
Take away the subsidies and it's an entirely different story. Here's another perspective on the real costs up here in Canada:

Ontario Wind Turbines | Ontario has the most expensive electricity in North America
__________________
Music Lover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 06:15 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Mountains
Posts: 2,136
Shall we say the article leans just a "wee" bit to the left?

Referring to the OP's original article.
__________________
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 06:49 PM   #6
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Shall we say the article leans just a "wee" bit to the left?

Referring to the OP's original article.


From those lefties at ..... Bloomberg LOL
__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 06:57 PM   #7
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Take away the subsidies and it's an entirely different story. Here's another perspective on the real costs up here in Canada:



Ontario Wind Turbines | Ontario has the most expensive electricity in North America


Could probably be cheaper without the subsidies, right?

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/15...uel-Subsidies/
__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:06 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,422
Doesn't oil still get subsidies?

Or very cheap leases on federal lands and territory off the coasts?
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:19 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nash031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Coronado
Posts: 1,486
From EIA:

In 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity.1 About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).
Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:1
  • Coal = 33%
  • Natural gas = 33%
  • Nuclear = 20%
  • Hydropower = 6%
  • Other renewables = 7%
    • Biomass = 1.6%
    • Geothermal = 0.4%
    • Solar = 0.6%
    • Wind = 4.7%
  • Petroleum = 1%
  • Other gases = <1%
Solar and wind have a long way to go, but in 2008, "renewables" accounted for just 7% of electricity generation, so it's gone up 6%.


Or as that Bloomberg article would say, "It's DOUBLED unstoppable!! (sic)" A whole bunch of fuzzy stat manipulation in that article.


I see two primary issues here:

- Renewables aren't as readily available in most cases. Wind isn't viable everywhere and there is resistance to and environmental impact from ubiquitous windmills. Solar is less viable in certain parts of the country and during certain parts of the year. Hydro is limited by water sources, obviously.

- 87% of electrical power generation comes from fossils and nuclear. That means we need to somehow generate 8 times as much energy from these limited sources as we do now in spite of the fact that renewables aren't readily available.

Now, there's something to solar being a technology rather than a fuel, but it's really got a long way to go.

IMO, the answer to replacing fossil is primarily nuclear, but there's an awful lot of ignorance and fear about that energy source out there, so it is unlikely to happen.

(Disclosure: I'm part-nuclear engineer.)
__________________
"So we beat to our own drummer in the sun;
We ask for nobody's permission to run.
I just wanna live in a world like that;
Now I'm gonna live in a world like that!" - World Like That, O.A.R.
nash031 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:20 PM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Florence, AL/Helen, GA
Posts: 2,092
It just tells me they're spending a large fortune on renewables.

10% of U.S. steel production is going into the windmills. Little of the U.S. has enough wind to generate much power by this method, and wind is just a tiny percentage of U.S. power production. With it costing $2 million per mile just to hook up to the grid, don't expect wind power to be reasonably priced--despite wind being "free."

We still see 53% of U.S. power produced by fossil fuels--coal. Politics has gotten in the way, and we're seeing the big 4 coal companies driven into bankruptcy. Peabody Energy was the latest company going into bankruptcy last week. This is simply not good for the security of the U.S., as our industry needs reasonably priced power to keep down prices of goods and services.

For the near future, look to natural gas power plants to be the only ones being built. Coal and hydro power requires mega capital to build plants, and natural gas plants are cheaper to build.

Renewables--forget'em. They're incapable of producing enough power for a major industrial country like the U.S.
__________________
Bamaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:26 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,413
I'm skeptical too. We had a proposal done for for a solar installation at our house a couple years ago. With subsidies, payback was about 15 years assuming that opportunity cost of money is 0%. With a reasonable opportunity cost, the payback was about 25 years.

I decided that it was no a wise investment for a 60 year old. I wrote to the guy and explained that the economics were not attractive but perhaps the technology would improve and the cost would come down where it would be attractive.

He responded that now was the time to buy as certain federal and state subsidies might not be renewed. I responded asking that if that was the case did it mean that the solar installation was nowhere near economically viable without taxpayer subsidies.... I never received a response on that one.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:41 PM   #12
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 847
Wow. [mod edit] Since you missed it, here's the subtitle:

Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1

The article isn't about energy output or production or market share. Just investment.

Why am I even wasting pixels here? *headdesk*
__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:54 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
It's funny how attached people are to coal. It's like getting emotional about bauxite or something.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:12 PM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixonge View Post
Wow. [mod edit] Since you missed it, here's the subtitle:

Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1

The article isn't about energy output or production or market share. Just investment.

Why am I even wasting pixels here? *headdesk*
I can read, and I did read the article (admit, I skimmed a bit).

Yes, investment in wind and solar is growing. Maybe we can get some more focused input if you explain why you posted the link?

Are you interested in investing in solar wind companies or suppliers?

Do you want a discussion on whether this investment is good/bad? For who?

I'll throw out one thought, at the risk of drifting from wherever you wanted this thread to go:
Adding wind/solar is a positive in many ways, but it could be debated as to whether it makes economic sense to push it now, or wait for it to get better or (lots of questions if you think about it). But let's forget that for now, and assume it's almost all good.

Growing now is fine then, but w/o storage, the intermittent nature takes a toll when you start getting to 10, 20, maybe 30% of average production being wind/solar? To have that much average, you end with peaks that probably can't be absorbed, so can't be sold. So the price starts going up again (to recoup the investment with less sales). And storage costs $ and wastes some of the energy.

That doesn't mean wind/solar aren't viable, it's just an issue when you start hitting higher average rates.
I saw an article on this just today, pretty good, IMO....hmmmm, not finding the link offhand, will try later.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:19 PM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
It's funny how attached people are to coal. It's like getting emotional about bauxite or something.
The only attachment that should be questioned are those who blindly think the world can run on windmills and solar panels.

Coal is a proven, reliable energy source that has contributed greatly to the benefits of modern life.
__________________
Music Lover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:30 PM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
zinger1457's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
He responded that now was the time to buy as certain federal and state subsidies might not be renewed. I responded asking that if that was the case did it mean that the solar installation was nowhere near economically viable without taxpayer subsidies.... I never received a response on that one.
Besides subsidies being cut some electric utility companies are now looking to recover their infrastructure cost from home solar users. My local utility is proposing a ~$70/month fee for home solar users to be connected to the grid. If approved it will bring new local home solar installs to a halt.
__________________
zinger1457 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:32 PM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Bay
Posts: 1,026
Note that this article is discussing investment in power plants only, not in fuel industries. It's comparing investment in fossil-fueled power plants versus alternative power plants...not comparing investment in the solar/wind industries versus investment in the oil/coal industries.
__________________
scrinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 10:45 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
Doesn't oil still get subsidies?

Or very cheap leases on federal lands and territory off the coasts?
Not aware oil (or coal or NG) is getting paid to produce energy. Correct me. please.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 10:52 PM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,422
US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies | Environment | The Guardian

Those are subsidies for various industry facilities.

Then there are cheap leases for oil production on federal lands:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...should-change/
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 11:12 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,711
Actually if you look at the numbers onshore wind is crushing coal and about equal in cost to combined cycle natural gas. Offshore wind costs twice what onshore wind costs. Some utility scale solar comes in the same price range, and some does not. Interestingly the same thing is happening to rooftop solar in Europe and the US as it gets market penetration in introductory deals vanish, see feedin tariff in Germany for an example.
But for utility scale solar the US has lots of land that could be used good chunks of West Texas and Eastern NM come to mind. Of course to use this we need to build power lines east and the NIMBY crowd will object. (Actually locating the solar so that the sun sets 2 hours later than the consuming location, helps in terms of demand as the peak demand is during the still major output from the solar in the west.
__________________

__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Solar & Wind won't be viable anytime soon? Midpack Other topics 67 06-30-2011 02:07 PM
Old Pharts are crushing us :-( mickj Young Dreamers 103 11-14-2007 12:57 PM
Hydrogen Hoax and real Alternative Fuels for cars samclem Other topics 86 02-27-2007 10:38 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.