Price of solar energy in the United States has fallen to 5c/kWh on average

September 30, 2015
Solar energy pricing is at an all-time low, according to a new report released by 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 5c/kWh. Credit: Berkeley Lab

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.

Key findings from Berkeley Lab's latest "Utility-Scale Solar" report - which each year draws upon large volumes of empirical data to identify key trends in project costs, performance, and pricing among ground-mounted solar projects larger than 5 megawatts (MW) - include the following:

  • Installed project costs have fallen by more than 50% since 2009. Median up-front project costs have dropped from around $6.3/W in 2009 to $3.1/W for projects completed in 2014. Some projects built in 2014 were priced as low as $2/W, and the 20th percentile of the sample declined sharply from $3.2/W in 2013 to $2.3/W in 2014. (All numbers are reported in AC watts and 2014 dollars.)
  • Newer solar projects generate electricity more efficiently. Projects completed in 2013 performed at an average capacity factor of 29.4% (in AC terms) in 2014 - a notable improvement over the 26.3% and 24.5% average 2014 capacity factors realized by projects built in 2012 and 2011, respectively. This improvement among more-recent project vintages is due to a combination of several trends: newer projects have been sited in better solar resource areas on average, and have increasingly oversized the solar collector field and/or employed tracking technology to increase energy capture.
  • Solar power purchase agreement have fallen to new lows, making solar an increasingly cost-competitive option for utilities. The improvements in up-front installed costs and capacity factors mentioned above have helped to drive power purchase agreement (PPA) prices to new lows, with PPAs now regularly being signed at prices of 5 cents/kWh or less. Particularly in the Southwest where the solar resource is strongest, there appears to be a deep market at these low prices, as evidenced by several recent utility solicitations for that have been heavily oversubscribed, with many of the unsuccessful projects offering prices similar to the winning projects. Declining PPA prices have also made utility-scale solar increasingly competitive outside of the traditional stronghold of the Southwest, with recent contract announcements in states like Arkansas (at ~5 cents/kWh) and Alabama (at ~6 cents/kWh) that have not previously seen much solar development.
  • A strong pipeline of projects under development reflects utility-scale solar's increasing competitiveness. There were nearly 45,000 MW of solar capacity making their way through various interconnection queues across the country at the end of 2014 - more than five times the installed capacity base at the time. In another sign of a broadening market, much of the new solar capacity that entered these queues in 2014 is located in regions outside of California and the Southwest, such as Texas and the Southeast. Though not all of the capacity in these queues will ultimately be built, presumably most of those projects that are able to proceed will try to reach commercial operation prior to 2017, when the 30% federal investment tax credit is scheduled to decline to 10%. This looming deadline suggests a frenzied pace of construction over the next 15 months - as well as a wealth of new data to analyze in future editions of this report.

Explore further: Study finds price of wind energy in US at an all-time low, averaging under 2.5 cent/kWh

More information: The full report ("Utility-Scale Solar 2014"), a PowerPoint briefing that summarizes the report, and an Excel workbook that contains much of the data presented in the report, can all be downloaded from: utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov/

Related Stories

Q2 2015 an impressive quarter for the US solar PV market

September 10, 2015

The business of photonics site, optics.org, reported on Wednesday that Solar PV (photovoltaic) was responsible for 40 percent of new US electricity generating capacity brought online in the first half of this year. As important, ...

America's place in the sun: Energy report sets goal

December 24, 2014

A recent energy report said that America should build on the recent growth in solar energy by setting a goal of obtaining at least 10 percent of its electricity from solar power by 2030. "Star Power: The Growing Role of Solar ...

Recommended for you

Startup Pi out to slice the charging cord

September 19, 2017

Silicon Valley youngster Pi on Monday claimed it had developed the world's first wireless charger that does away with cords or mats to charge devices.

A solar cell you can put in the wash

September 18, 2017

Scientists from RIKEN and the University of Tokyo have developed a new type of ultra-thin photovoltaic device, coated on both sides with stretchable and waterproof films, which can continue to provide electricity from sunlight ...

183 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 30, 2015
Meanwhile, the costs of the Vogtle reactors continues to climb. Who will be forced to buy that expensive power?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2015
In 2010, fossil fuels received a subsidy equivalent to $0.64 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced, solar and wind received $776 and $56.3 per MWh, respectively, and nuclear received $3.14.

Beware what is said to be cheap. Cost is being picked up by someone.

No time to look up current subsidies, I wonder what it looks like.
kochevnik
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2015
Beware what is said to be cheap. Cost is being picked up by someone.

No time to look up current subsidies, I wonder what it looks like.
Naked sunpower solar cells from China product energy at 0.4 cents/kilowatt hour
denglish
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2015
from China product energy at 0.4 cents/kilowatt hour

Or $400 per MWh.

Is it subsidized?
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 30, 2015
denglish
No time to look up current subsidies, I wonder what it looks like.


But time enough for denglish to advertise ignorance of the topics being discussed. Denglish' time would of course be better spent getting an education - and learning some facts.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm's analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.


from - http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0 (note the article is almost a year old - and the costs keep falling).
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2015
deleted
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2015
Holy Boondoggle. If this is true...

Report: Danger of Government-Created Solar Bubble Bursting When Subsidies Expire in 2016
http://www.cnsnew...ing-when

More info on the cost of Solar Power:

Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US
http://cnsnews.co...ctricity

Nothing is free, and if the bubble bursts, this could be a solar-powered hot mess.

kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2015
from China product energy at 0.4 cents/kilowatt hour

Or $400 per MWh.

Is it subsidized?
No it is 25% efficiency solar cell now a five year old technology and third generation. Sunpower is traded on New York stock exchange. Your calcualtion is wrong. 0.4 cents/kilowatt hour means $4/megawatt, not $400

With pink biocoating, which converts 400nm to 800nm, efficiency can double and cost fall to $2/megawatt
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2015
"5c/kWh on average", including energy storage? almost for free/ "too cheap to meter" ?
gkam
2 / 5 (29) Sep 30, 2015
"too cheap to meter" was the phrase they used when they were selling us "Nookulur" power, in the 1950's. Instead, it turned into promise after promise, disaster after disaster, subsidy after subsidy, leaving in their failures mountainous amounts of highly-radioactive and deadly waste, the stuff they never learned how to handle.

This is the promise of nuclear power:
http://www3.nhk.o...130.html

We ought to welcome alternative energy to save us from nuclear technologies.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2015
"5c/kWh on average", including energy storage? almost for free/ "too cheap to meter" ?
Coal has it's own built-in energy storage, at least when tossed at your head
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2015
Coal has it's own built-in energy storage...
"A major problem for solar/wind is intermittency -- while nuclear reactors operate best supplying reliable, steady base-load power. Intermittency can be partially overcome by providing costly "stand-by" power, at least partly from fossil fuels."
http://www.americ...ear.html
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2015
energy to save us
"Energy based on nuclear fission has many of the same advantages and none of the disadvantages of solar and wind: it emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) and is practically inexhaustible."
"Nuclear does have special problems; but these are mostly based on irrational fears."
"It should be noted that there have never been lives lost in commercial nuclear accidents.."
http://www.americ...ear.html
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2015
USA full of corporate shills and huge sheeple populace trained as human centipede
antonima
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2015
Price of solar energy in the United States has fallen to 5c/kWh on average, on paper
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 30, 2015
And the price of power from the still unbuilt Vogtle reactors is already forecast to be 13 cents, wholesale, on paper. But the total project cost rises by $2,000,000/day because of financing costs. Who will have to buy that power for 40 years?
animah
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2015
there have never been lives lost in commercial nuclear accidents

While I do believe Nuclear has a role to play, this is simply not true:
Alexander Akimov and the 30 Chernobyl direct radiation poisoning fatalities:
https://en.wikipe...r_Akimov
http://www.world-...ccident/

UNSCEAR report:
http://www.unscea...ex_D.pdf (see Annex C - "Early Health Effects")

Arguably more controversial, the List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll:
https://en.wikipe...ath_toll
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2015
5c/kWh is very competitive in today's energy market. The beauty of solar is that the only resource Solar consumes, is free to download and the only costs are your initial investment and the day-to-day maintenance (which isn't much more than keeping dust off the collectors). Unlike a nuclear plant that costs billions of dollars to decommission, solar from startup is a win.
I'm with @gkam, nuclear while clean (???) has the potential to make uninhabitable to
people an area the size of Indiana from human error, misjudgement. or unexpected natural events. Nuclear accidents happen about every 5 years, So do you trust the management of your friendly neighborhood nuclear plant?
Fossil fuels are global suicide, nuclear is out, fusion is still "50 years away". Your only real choice is solar, and the amount of solar that hits the Earth dayly can not be reached by the capacity of fossil, nuclear combined. Solar IS fusion at a safe distance by the way. $0.30/W is what I see on panels now.

KBK
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
Rossi was granted his USPTO "e-cat" patent, which is for a over-unity device.

It is an over unity self sustaining heater. Use it to turn water into steam and run a turbine.

As per US patent law, full disclosure of how to make a working device, is in the patent proper.

That kind of efficiency beats the living bejesus out of any other energy source in this article and comments.

The numbers are downright stupid, at 0.05 cents per kW/hr, or similar.

USPTO link:

http://pdfpiw.usp...09115913

Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2015
97 Percent of All Patents Never Make Any Money.
http://www.allbus...0-1.html
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
97 Percent of All Patents Never Make Any Money.
http://www.allbus...0-1.html
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
And the price is going to continue to fall - https://www.db.co...ngth.pdf
We are now clearly entering uncharted territory. The oil majors are taking a beating - http://oilprice.c...ket.html
But money is flowing into lithium - http://oilprice.c...ion.html
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
Onions don't rejoice too much in the fall of oil prices. This fall will drive many producers and drillers out of business in North and South America. Once that happens there will be a foreign monopoly controlling the market and world oil prices will go way the last oil price peak.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
MR166 - you think there are only 8 weather stations in Antarctica - and you get your science info from youtube. Maybe a rethink of how much you really understand would be good. Perhaps you should listen to the ceo of Shell Oil - who understands that solar energy will be the " dominant backbone of our energy system" in the future. http://cleantechn...-system/ We are entering the age of the demise of the old oil system - http://cleantechn...oil-age/
I only care about progress. Progress means the adoption of better technologies as they emerge. You seem to only care about the preservation of the old ways of doing things. As the cost of energy from renewables continues to fall - hang on to your hat. You are just wrong MR166 plain and simple.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2015
I wonder how much more solar (and wind) electricity prices can fall.
Given that there's practically daily new research results posted on solar cells that either make them cheaper or applicable to areas where they couldn't be applied/installed before there seems to be quite large margin...and we haven't even seen the perovskite cells hit the market yet.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
I'm going to wait until the subsidies run out. That will be the telling factor in whether or not solar is sustainable.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 01, 2015
AP, it will not be a good future for coal producers and dirty fuel mongers. With the falling prices for batteries of all kinds, it is obvious where our future lies. The eventual jailing of Don Blankenship can top off the effort to cleanse America of filthy fuels.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2015
I'm going to wait until the subsidies run out.

If renewables are treated fairly with comparison to fossil/nuclear then you should probably apply for cryogenic freezing.

According to the IEA report fossil fuels alone currently get more than half a trillion dollars in subsidies per year. Even though subsidies for renewables are on the rise they are projected to only get half of that by 2035 (currently they're in the 10-20% range of fossil fuel subsidies).

If you add subsidies for nuclear the picture looks even more lopsided..
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
denglish
I'm going to wait until the subsidies run out.


it is so interesting to see the double standards. Coal has been receiving significant subsidies for decades - http://cleantechn...r-fuels/
These susidies "Boost Emissions, Distort Market, And Impede Cleaner Fuels"

But all of a sudden - the new standard has to be - that fuels must be sustainable without subsidies. It is all so transparent.
Dug
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
Looking at capacity charts for solar and wind - the growth trend began to decrease in 2011 and flattening more in 2013, peaking in 2014 and totally flat or declining in 2015 with current lower oil prices. Electric car sales are already being hit where tax incentives are being pulled making ICEs more econ. With incentives being cut for alternative energy sources and products you can expect to see even more cheer leading PR on phys.org. where "tech news" is often paid content PR.

Components of wind and solar are dependent on stable petro-chemical prices. Petro-chemical prices are dependent on a petroleum feedstock supplies from the transportation fuel industry that do not decline below efficiency levels that raise oil production costs. No doubt that the petroleum industry will shrink some, but it certainly isn't going a way until there is some true disruptive energy technology and certainly not tied to devices as dependent on petroleum as wind and solar. High beta fusion reactors?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2015
Dug, the volatility of petroleum prices is driving some users to other fuels and feedstocks. Industries cannot forecast if they do not know the future price of energy, which is added at each step in manufacturing, thus achieving a multiplier effect in the economy.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2015
Renewables are dependent on petroleum as feedstocks, not as products for combustion. There are great differences in the Carbon footprint in those uses.

Feedstocks are what they should be restricted to, for the most part.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2015
According to the IEA report fossil fuels alone currently get more than half a trillion dollars in subsidies per year.

Would you link that report and point us to the figure? I am very interested to see that.

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
subsidies
Energy Source Subsidy per kwh
Solar $0.9680
Wind $0.0525
Geothermal $0.0125
Nuclear $0.0031
Biomass Power $0.0020
Hydroelectric $0.0008
Natural Gas. $0.0006
Petroleum Liquids $0.0006
Coal $0.0006
http://www.eia.go...subsidy/
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
Dug
Looking at capacity charts for solar and wind - the growth trend began to decrease in 2011 and flattening more in 2013, peaking in 2014 and totally flat or declining in 2015.
And your point is? It is notable that you did not supply any support. Here are a couple of charts to show where things have been going - https://en.wikipe...voltaics
http://www.gwec.n...2014.jpg
As a supporter of renewables - I see no reason for concern in that data - especially as wind and solar are just now approaching grid parity. Hold on to your hat.

Does it interest you that you are at odds with the ceo of Shell Oil?
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
denglish
Would you link that report and point us to the figure? I am very interested to see that.


God - it is sad to see this board so spammed by fools. If denglish learned to use google - it might be easier to not be so despondent about the state of humanity. I did a google search on "IEA report on fossil fuel subsidies" - and guess what the first hit was? - http://www.worlde...bsidies/
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored
...show comment

No thanks.

Thanks Willie. It looks like that trillion dollars to fossil fuels isn't correct, and the "affordability" of solar is being enabled by the taxpayer.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when the subsidies run out. Is solar capable of being marketable on its own?
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
The number is not 1 trillion - it is half a trillion. The IEA report is regarding global subsidies - Willie referenced the eia - that reports U.S. data. I guess those distinctions are very subtle - when you are not too bright - poor denglish.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2015
It looks like that trillion dollars to fossil fuels isn't correct

Well, then you might have tried reading what I wrote. To quote myself:
According to the IEA report fossil fuels alone currently get more than half a trillion dollars in subsidies per year.


Notice the 'HALf' in that sentence? Or is that too complicated for you?
denglish
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2015
Notice the 'HALf' in that sentence? Or is that too complicated for you?

Thank you for the courteous and thoughtful correction.

Half a trillion is wrong too.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
One trillion is a thousand billions, or equivalently a million millions.
http://statistics...ions.htm

Anitialias said
According to the IEA report fossil fuels alone currently get more than half a trillion dollars in subsidies per year


Here is the IEA report - http://www.worlde...bsidies/

From said report
The IEA's latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $548 billion in 2013


We report - you decide...
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
Oh wait anti-alias, I think I see where our wires crossed. The article (and report) are about the USA.

https://emp.lbl.g...tion.pdf

You were talking international, yes? Now I'm interested in understanding international subsidies more...especially if they're putting that much into fossil fuels - because it isn't happening in the USA. Who is/are the main culprit(s)?
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
Poor denglish - details are just so hard to follow aren't they? Maybe actually reading the reports one is commenting on would help - but that does require some google skills!
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
Vogtle reactors is already forecast to be 13 cents
Energy Source Subsidy per kwh
Solar: 96.8¢/kWh
Wind: 5.25¢/kWh
Nuclear: 0.31¢/kWh
http://www.eia.go...subsidy/

Solar: (5¢ + 96.8¢) = 101.8¢/kWh
Nuclear: (13¢ + 0.31¢) = 13.31¢/kWh

Do the math.
Solar is at least eight times more expensive than Vogtle.
Just add energy storage to solar/wind expenses and the cost skyrockets even more. Aside ecological impacts per gigawatt produced.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 01, 2015
No, Willie, nuclear technology has been subsidized continuously by the Feds.

All parts of it. It's the feds who are stuck with the nuclear waste, yet it is not considered a subsidy? The paltry sums taken in for that management is nothing compared to the cost of doing it, if we ever find a way to do so.

Meanwhile, they are running out of people to dose at Fukushima, and need more workers/radiation sponges. Want to put yourself where your mouth is, and make some good money? Hmmmm?
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
Willie - where did you get the figure of 96.8cents per kWh for subsidies to solar? I read your eia report numerous times - and cannot find this number.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
Willie
Solar is at least eight times more expensive than Vogtle.
If you are just going to tell stupid lies - how can you hope to have any credibility? Solar power is coming in consistently at sub10 cents levels.
electricity from new coal and gas-fired plants costs between 5 and 10 cents per kilowatt hour. And in Germany, right now, large solar plants deliver power for less than 9 cents, compared to as much as 11 cents from nuclear.
- http://www.forbes...rts-say/

How on earth do you get off saying that solar is eight times more expensive that nuclear? We are so sick of the lies.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
"Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US" - February 17, 2015
http://cnsnews.co...ctricity
Returners
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
Cheaper than Gasoline or Diesel even if you don't consider the cost of the generator.

Probably cheaper than Coal too. Well, I've done the math, so I know it's cheaper than Coal over the long term.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
I asked you where you got your 96.8 cents figure from Wiliie...
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2015
greenie, be easy on Willie. This trolling is obviously his very first job.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
Not today gkam - not today. Posting garbage like 96.8 cents kWh subsidies for solar power - and how solar is eight times more expensive than nuclear. No different than MR166 and Antarctica only has 8 weather stations. The big problem with the claims about the level of subsidies for solar - is that eia numbers do not include residential solar - so that skews all the claims. Also - the subsidies for solar are in the form of an up front tax credit. Well - if you divide the tax credit by one years worth of power generation - you get a big number. But of course - the panels will keep generating for the next 30 years - so the number does not represent the true - per kWh value. Sneaky little liars - right?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 02, 2015
"Sneaky little liars - right?"
------------------------------------

Yes, . . . but pathetic.

I get little joy out of kicking some loser on the ground screaming.
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
be easy
gskam is a fake engineer who not even knows how to deal with numbers. Lamentable.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
"Between January and October of last year, the U.S. produced a total of 3,431,473 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. But only 15,973 million kWh were generated by solar thermal or photovoltaic (PV) solar modules that use semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity, according to EIA's latest Monthly Energy Review."
"Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US" - February 17, 2015
http://cnsnews.co...ctricity
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 02, 2015
Well gosh, Willie, how long do you think it takes to re-build an entire electrical infrastructure? We are doing it faster than ever done before, but must make sure we do it right, so the nay-sayers do not clog up the discussion groups.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Notice the 'HALf' in that sentence? Or is that too complicated for you?
@AA_P
reading and comprehension is not high on his list of things to do... you should read his other blatant misrepresentations of actual science
better yet, here is a synopsis of his typical tactics WRT science and ESPECIALLY WRT climate science
Three Ways Climate Deniers Cherry-Pick Facts about Climate Change
1. Misrepresenting Data
2. Cherry-Picking Facts
3. Dwelling on the Weather
you can read the article that called out his tactics here: https://www.clima...=general

you will not get actual thoughtful dialogue with dung, only political and delusional feedback and denier links

considering his repeated lies even after furlong demonstrated the problem with his graph, evidence suggests he is a paid shill & trolling, nothing more
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
gskam and his gang detest the truth.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
"Reality Check: Solar Is Not The Cheapest Form Of Energy" - Oct 1, 2015
"the cost is highly variable and dependent on local conditions, primarily because of weather conditions"
"promoters of solar power often misrepresent the economics"
http://www.forbes...y-check/
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
"The cost for power from California's privately owned utilities ranged from 18 cents to 21 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with 12 cents nationally." - Oct 02, 2015
"The cost of that energy comes to about $84 per megawatt hour, compared to the average $46 per megawatt hour wholesale cost of electricity"
"California's huge solar projects causing energy poverty"
http://www.dailyn...as-elias
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
Willie - I keep asking you for an explanation of your 96.8 cents per kWh figure. You posted that number - now show us where it came from. It woud also be good to see you defend saying that
Solar is at least eight times more expensive than Vogtle.

I think that you just make shit up - and gamble that others don't have the time to fact check you. You are no better than denglish, and antigoracle - just obsessive little liars.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
just obsessive little liars.
True liars love to call other liars.

Just add subsidies, energy storage, land area, ecological impacts per gigawatt produced, to final costs, and you get the truth.

"Nuclear power kills fewer people than solar per unit of electricity, says University College London Professor Tim Stone" - March 2015
http://www.adelai...60446437
"There is an argument, however, that solar power may ultimately be safer than coal-fired generation because of the reduction in pollution. Ironically enough, however, solar power is far more dangerous than nuclear, even in a year when an accident like the disaster at Fukushima occurs."
http://asiancorre...-panels/
Roderick
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
GreenOnions,

A couple comments. You need to include the back up costs of other forms of energy when calculating solar power prices and costs. In Europe solar power requires that energy companies be paid to keep conventional power plants ready to back it up. Since a solar power panel produces electricity only 9% of each year in Italy, the real cost of solar power will vastly exceed conventional power.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
True liars love to call other liars.
Why don't you just show us how you arrived at you 96.8 cents number. That would mean showing an equation - like x times y divided by z = 96.8 It is a simple request. And then show us how
Solar is at least eight times more expensive than Vogtle.
If you don't like being called a liar - prove that you are not...
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
Roderick
You need to include the back up costs of other forms of energy when calculating solar power prices
Not totally true Roderick. The situation is highly complex. If you look at the demand curve of a community - you see it is not flat - but more of a sine wave. So - say the peak of the sine wave is 1 gigawatt, and the trough is .5 gigawatt. How do you handle that? You can build a 1 gigawatt coal plant, and throttle it down when it is not needed, or a .5 gigawatt coal plant, with .5 gigawatts of peeker plants - to ramp up when needed. Either way - you have wasted capacity. Well - transmission, demand control, storage etc. can mitigate the problem of supply not matching demand. If solar supplies power at times when there is high demand - solar can be used to offset the need for new peekers. The equations are of course far too complex to really understand the true cost of power. The more a peeker or baseload stands idle - the more the power it does produce cont.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
costs. Storage is a great option - which is why pairing wind, and solar, and hydro looks very promising. So there is a very complex picture - and it is certainly not true that we must build 1 for 1 backup for renewables. We are currently looking at integrating around 30 percent of renewables without backup - http://www.washin...he-grid/ Here is a neat quote from the head of one of the worlds biggest utilities
Post-2020, there may never be another peaker built in the United States
from - http://renewecono...ts-18477 Understand that the cost of renewables and storage is falling fast - http://cleantechn...2%A2kwh/ We really entering uncharted territory.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
Solar/wind receives at least four times more subsidies than nuclear.
"Annual Energy Outlook 2015"
http://www.eia.go...tion.cfm
Nuclear power is more compact, energy dense, produces fewer fatalities and less ecological impact per unit of energy generated.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
Wow Willie - time to just say "you are right - I made that stuff up - I can't produce the support you are asking me for" Yes - solar and wind receive more subsidies than traditional fuels - and those subsidies are set to expire. That does nothing to change your lies.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
"the solar industry is subsidized 345 times more than coal and oil and natural gas electricity production, and wind is subsidized 52 times more than more conventional fossil fuels." March 20, 2015
"Wind and solar are vastly more subsidized than these other sources," and kill more than nuclear per terawatt-hour.
"Despite this massive amount of taxpayer dollars going towards these energy sources, they still produce such a small, small potion of our electricity. So you're not getting a lot of bang for your buck."
subsidies "across the board distort the market."
http://watchdog.o...bsidies/
http://watchdog.w...tion.jpg
http://watchdog.w...arch.jpg

gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 02, 2015
Fukushima is calling you, Willie.

They need more "believers" to dose up to the max working there, paying dues to the Yakuza.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
So what Willie - it does not change the fact that YOU said 96.8 cents - and you cannot support it. YOU said
Solar is at least eight times more expensive than Vogtle.
and you cannot support it. WE are sick of the lies - stop it and let's have an honest conversation - that is based on the facts. The only thing that we can draw hope from - is that reality is kicking you in the balls - and renewables continue their long march to replace fossil fuels. Here chew on this
In fact, wind and solar were the only new generation capacity added in August,
from - http://cleantechn...-august/ It is happening despite the purveyors of lies...
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
The truth about subsidies:
http://www.eia.go...subsidy/

As has been revealed in another thread, solar has an awful return on investment record; as shown in this report. Even a modicum of business sense reveals that solar cannot stand on its own as a marketable product.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
more "believers"
Have you already installed those solar panels on your rooftop, or windmills in your backyard, to tell us the true costs of electronics, inverters, energy storage, depreciation? still believing in your own fibs?
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
renewables continue their long march to replace fossil fuels.
Unlike hydro, solar/wind is intermittent/out-of-phase with demand, needing to be compensated by fossil fuels; or add storage energy costs and the prices skyrocket.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
Unlike hydro, solar/wind is intermittent/out-of-phase with demand, needing to be compensated by fossil fuels; or add storage energy costs and the prices skyrocket.
And the only new power added in August in the U.S. was wind and solar. How about that 96.8 cents - liar.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
denglish
Even a modicum of business sense reveals that solar cannot stand on its own as a marketable product.


Which is why globally - 37 gigawatts were installed in 2014 - a "ten fold increase from 2008" And we are just hitting grid parity in many parts of the world. Keep howling at the moon you luddites. http://www.greent...rom-2008 And the costs are going to keep falling - http://renewecono...rs-21235 Hang on to your hats luddites.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
denglish is looking for somewhere to invest some cash. The head of Shell Oil thinks that solar power will be the backbone of the world's energy system in the future - http://cleantechn...-system/
I am sure denglish knows better - hey denglish - go long - leverage everything you have - oil is where the future is. If denglish could understand this report - it might change his mind - http://cleantechn...big-oil/
Roderick
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
GreenOnions, solar power is not used to handle peak demand. Seasonal electricity demand peaks in the winter. So building solar power plant means creating more excess capacity during the summer months. In fact, this explains why so much solar power is exported by a country like Germany - German electricity is 20% lower in the summer and yet Germany adds lots of capacity that only produces power during the summer. The economics are totally perverse.
Roderick
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
GreenOnions, since a European solar panel only produces electricity 9% of the time (right from ENEL's 10K) and produces most of that power during the low season for electricity demand, and there is no way to economically store it, how is solar power going to become the backbone of the world's energy demand?
Roderick
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
GreenOnion, if the costs of solar power are so low, why does the industry needs subsidies? By the way, I have no difficulty believing there are fossil fuel subsidies, but it would be helpful if there was a precise definition of subsidy. One man's subsidy is another man's reasonable depreciation allowance. It is a clear mistake to classify all depreciation and amortization allowances as subsidies.
Roderick
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
Finally, GreenOnion, what is the capacity utilization rate assumed in this study? Cost per kilowatt obviously depends on the utilization rate and here in Europe that rate is dismally low, under 10%.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Roderick
GreenOnions, solar power is not used to handle peak demand.
Yes it is - https://www.sunli...-demand/

Listen Roderick - if you and your pals don't like progress - that is on you. The future is happening - and renewables are on track to provide the world with cheap, clean, reliable energy. You don't believe that - go ahead and be King Canute - and watch the tide come in. Solar and wind are at parity in many parts of the world. Enough with the crap about subsidies. Subsidies are set to roll off over the next 2 years. If coal is so special -why does it need subsidies? - http://cleantechn...r-fuels/ Just maybe the head of Shell Oil knows more than you - but hey - join denglish - leverage all you got on oil - or maybe this coal company - http://oilprice.c...000.html
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Cost per kilowatt obviously depends on the utilization rate and here in Europe that rate is dismally low, under 10%.
So how is solar - the new kid on the block - so close to grid parity? http://www.public...aims-rea

http://cleantechn...et-2017/

We have not even started to talk about the externalities of fossil fuels. Hold on to your hat there..
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Meanwhile, the costs of the Vogtle reactors continues to climb. Who will be forced to buy that expensive power?

Meanwhile, gskam hasn't installed any of these cheap solar panels, even though everyone of his neighbours have. What are you waiting on, you Pathological Liar.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
renewables continue their long march to replace fossil fuels.
"is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy."
http://www.slate....est.html
"Wind and solar each already receive more than 50 times more subsidy support per megawatt-hour than conventional coal, and more than 20 times more in terms of average electricity generated by coal and natural gas."
http://www.cfact....gy-push/
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
Williee "is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy."

So let's wait and see what who is right. Solar is just reaching grid parity in many markets. I think that you have no ability to think creatively about what will happen when it becomes the cheapest fuel source - without subsidies. This report says 80% of the world by 2017, so 2020 is a conservative estimate. http://cleantechn...et-2017/

Yes Willie - wind and solar currently get high subsidies - and they are set to expire in the next 2 years. Prices are going to continue to fall - http://www.greent...-by-2020 which will more than offset the subsidies. Think about what happens when the renewables industries can go toe to toe with the the oil and gas big boys - and fight for a real piece of the pie. Hey - you put your money on Exxon..
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Here Willie - you put your money on this company - http://oilprice.c...000.html
And I will put mine over here - http://oilprice.c...ion.html
Musk wants a
complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world to completely sustainable zero carbon


How is your track record up against the ceo of Pay PaL, Space X, and Tesla Motors there Willie.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2015
..and it does not need to be compensated by fossil fuels and will replace fuels, including in automobiles.
Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.


greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2015
Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.


96.8 cents per kWh.....
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2015
from China product energy at 0.4 cents/kilowatt hour
"Next Generation Of Nuclear Power -- In China" Oct 2, 2015
"Bill Gates has long understood the essential role of reliable power in eradicating global poverty ... and decided that nuclear was the best long-term solution for base load power."
"It's imperative that clean energy, like new nuclear, dominate that growth – not coal."
http://www.forbes...h-china/
gkam
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2015
Right now, Willie can contract to buy wholesale power at 3-4 cents/kWh from wind or PV, or can buy 13 cents/kWh power from the nuclear Vogtle.

Which one will he choose?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2015
Here are some sources of good news:
http://www.forbes...ingstar/

http://www.forbes...ut-down/

What are they going to do with all the radioactive stuff, miles of piping, copper, steel, contaminated materials of all kinds? What about the intensely-radioactive nuclear waste?
Roderick
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2015
Greenonions, you can't run an economy solely on green power. That is why Germany has been forced to build and activate more coal powered plants. Simply put, power needs to be controlled and the idea you can run an economy on random power sources is silly. It might become more plausible if this randomly generated power could be effectively stored, but it can't.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2015
Roderick, you are way behind the times. It takes time to build an infrastructure, but they are doing it in record time. The use of fossil fuels is temporary, and even you know that. They will be relegated to secondary sources, backups, then just for feedstocks, which is their real value.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2015
Roderick
Greenonions, you can't run an economy solely on green power.
"Green power" is your term Roderick - so you probably need to define it to be clear about what you are saying. I would point you to Denmark, or Costa Rica as examples of economies that are well on their way to being run on non fossil fuel energy. - http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
http://cleantechn...of-2015/ -The mistake I think you make is assuming that the transition must happen overnight, as opposed to over the next 100 years or so. That it is theoretically impossible is something that engineers disagree with you on - http://mitei.mit....eofsolar That it is practically possible - will take a few more decades for us to really show the doubters - there is no doubt in my mind - you can call it silly - I call you 'without any imagination'. Let's wait.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2015
Roderick
It might become more plausible if this randomly generated power could be effectively stored
Which rock have you been hiding under roderick?

http://www.scienc...1213.htm
http://cleantechn...largest/
http://news.scien...d-energy
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2015
I get little joy out of kicking some loser on the ground screaming
-On the contrary...

"what does the psychopath REALLY get from their victims? It's easy to see what they are after when they lie and manipulate for money or material goods or power. But in many instances, such as love relationships or faked friendships, it is not so easy to see what the psychopath is after. Without wandering too far afield into spiritual speculations - a problem Cleckley also faced - we can only say that it seems to be that the psychopath ENJOYS making others suffer. Just as normal humans enjoy seeing other people happy, or doing things that make other people smile, the psychopath enjoys the exact opposite." IMO

-This is why you enjoy these AGW pack attacks. Youre the little guy in the back yelling 'kick him again!'

Why did you use the metaphor to begin with, if it wasnt already on your mind?
denglish
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

Hat Trick!

Dammit Otto, you beat me by seconds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2015
Meanwhile, gskam hasn't installed any of these cheap solar panels, even though everyone of his neighbours have. What are you waiting on, you Pathological Liar
-This is probably because his wife needs to earn enough money. She seems to be the only one who can maintain a steady job.

From what he tells us he has had 20+ jobs and is currently 'retired' although he thinks derogatory comments posted here will affect his ability to get work.

Its pretty obvious that it is HIS comments which would have the more detrimental effect. Because theyre full of lies and inanity and delusion (all well documented) which are unbecoming of even a FAKE engineer.

All we do is dismantle these comments and show what nonsense they are. George thinks this is slanderous becauuse there HAS to be something wrong when people expose his lies and fabrications.

And he is apparently constitutionally incapable of finding fault with himself, except when it suits his purposes.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2015
The use of fossil fuels is temporary
gskam believes in his own fibs.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
At risk of repeating myself:

"Others, with psychological problems, can't even stay on the issue."

otto thinks using pseudonyms and going through a Coward's Portal to hide himself he cannot be found, so he plays the character assassination game. Hiding is most important to the kind of sniper who has neither a real life or any morals. Many understand their problems and find ways to scream for help, continually bringing up psychopathy so someone will see their cries.

You won't get any help here, otto.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
"gskam believes in his own fibs."
------------------------

No fibs, Willie. Petroleum will go from fuels to feedstocks. Coal will die. Nuclear will cost its way to extinction.

Even you know that, can see that, can fear that.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
96.8 cents per kWh.....
Putting into account subsidies, energy storage, fossil fuels as backup, mining pollution, ecological impacts, it is to cost more than 5 dollars/kwh instead of 5¢.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
Willie, once again, your statements have no truth, just corporate propaganda. You do not seem to even understand the technology, but act as an internet billboard.

Sorry, but nothing of yours has any credibility at all.

The issue is the cost of power, and your favored sources are losing market share. Got any idea why?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
otto thinks using pseudonyms and going through a Coward's Portal
Need I point out again that all of the few remaining supporters you have, post anonymously as well?

Are you calling them cowards too?

Of course you are.

But like everyone else they know that posting their real names here opens them up to harassment by people like you, who hide behind phony claims of 'experience' and 'education'.

Which is why you have threatened me and others with 'outing' and slander, right? Refraining from lying and cheating is just to much trouble for a psychopath IMO.

Also - people posting under their real names would still be exposing your lies and bullshit. like the little one about mosquitoes and UV. You think that you can make up bullshit like that just because you post under your real name? Or your phony MS?

And as Ive pointed out before I dont use a proxy site. It must be physorg.

Try tracking the posts of thermodynamics and see if this isnt true.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2015
Willie
Putting into account subsidies, energy storage, fossil fuels as backup, mining pollution, ecological impacts, it is to cost more than 5 dollars/kwh instead of 5¢.

Did you just make that up Willie (like the 96.8 cents thingy) or do you have a source we can look at?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2015
No, otto, you are just playing your admitted "game", the one you bragged about playing here. I hurt your ego when I proved I am real, as you continue to hide, to cower.

You apparently have had no life of your own, are SCARED of life, SCARED to take responsibility for your words and actions, . . just SCARED.

You are a gnat.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
the one you bragged about playing here
This is a lie george. I never said this. Youve admitted that you are here to play people like cheap kazoos.
You are a gnat
Are gnats included in the lie you made up about mosquitoes being attracted to UV?
http://phys.org/n...ure.html

-You think that posting under your real name enablles you to say anything you want?

But referring to fellow humans as bugs and kazoos is another strong symptom of psychopathy. Did you know it?

"They perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile world in which others are competitors for power and resources. They feel it is the optimum thing to do to manipulate and deceive..."

"Anyone who has ever observed a cat playing with a mouse before killing and eating it has probably explained to themselves that the cat is just "entertained" by the antics of the mouse and is unable to conceive of the terror..."
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2015
You are a gnat.

Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity
Calculate what we will or will not tolerate
Desperate to control all and everything

Clutch it like a cornerstone
Otherwise it all comes down
Justify denials and grip 'em to the lonesome end
Terrified of being wrong. Ultimatum prison cell

Humbled again.

Justify denials and grip 'em to the lonesome end

Desperate to control
Unable to forgive
And sinking deeper

Give away the stone
Transmutate this cold and fated anchor
Transmutate these leaden grudges into gold
Let go
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
Real world:
"Hawaiians Learning About the Pitfalls of Solar Power, electricity, renewable energy"
"they are having trouble surviving financially when they must provide back-up power to intermittent renewables (wind and solar) that is not fully reimbursed and must maintain the electric grid that the intermittent renewables also use for free."
"it does not always shine and reliable energy will be needed to meet demand 24/7."
"causing electricity bills to skyrocket and electric utilities to have trouble covering their costs."
"renewables like solar and wind cannot produce power 24/7 and must be backed up by reliable forms of energy."
http://canadafree...enewable
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2015
"This is a lie george. I never said this."
---------------------------------

If I find it, will you apologize and tell us why you are hiding?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2015
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2015
denglish
You are a gnat.


But you keep wasting everyone's time with your stupid assertion that you have people (gkam in this instance) on mute. Look you brag about it here - http://phys.org/n...ees.html But then you keep making it obvious that it is just a childish game. What a fool you are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2015
If I find it, will you apologize and tell us why you are hiding?
Ask your few supporters why they are hiding and why you look down on them for doing so.

Ask thermodynamics and barakn.

Do you consider them gnats as well?

Of course they wouldnt be your supporters if they saw what most of the rest of us have seen.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2015
Real world:
Recent oversupply of solar PV from China has contributed to this cost decline, thanks to semi-slave labour and mining pollution.
"So what makes China's solar panels so cheap?"
http://www.americ...r-panels-part-2]http://www.americ...s-part-2[/url]
"The True Cost of Chinese Solar Panels"
"pollution at manufacturing facilities continues unabated exposing workers and the general public to a growing mix of toxic chemicals. "
http://www.americ...r-panels
"China's Solar Panel Production Comes at a Dirty Cost"
" ''In China, we have a lot of photovoltaic makers, and it's something that's been encouraged by the government,'' he said. ''But there's also a lot of pollution that comes from that.'' "
http://sinosphere...ty-cost/
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2015
gskam's world:
- wind/solar: eco-friendly, even it butchering millions birds and bats, destroying natural landscapes, polluting wildlife's habitats
- nuclear: trillions cancer deaths

Real world:
- nuclear: no one has died from Fukushima radiation, no cancer rate increase
- wind/solar: more fatalities, more ecological impact per gigawatt produced than nuclear

http://asiancorre...-panels/
http://www.adelai...60446437
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
Real world:
Recent oversupply of solar PV from China has contributed to this cost decline, thanks to semi-slave labour and mining pollution.
"So what makes China's solar panels so cheap?"
http://[url=http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/entry/the-true-cost-of-chinese-solar-panels
China 'slave' labor taking week for holiday off while debt-slave yank drones toil until their government instigates WWIII
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2015
Real world
G20 energy leaders (this is a group of countries that represent 75% of global trade) - squarely embraces renewable energy - through the adoption of a renewable energy toolkit. This - "aligns G20 countries with the goal of improving energy access while preventing the fossil sector from increasing its share of developing markets." "The G20 ministers also endorsed the African Union Summit's African led Renewable Energy Initiative as an effective strategy for reducing "energy poverty," so right back at you, Rex." Good night - as we begin to turn out the lights on fossil fuels. http://cleantechn...l-fuels/
Osiris1
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2015
As soon as I am able to buy the land, I will put enuf panels in service to NEVER have to pay any 'tier 5, 4, or 3 rates for power ever again. For your info, readers outside southern California, the SCE here charges TWENTY cents per KwH for power at 'tier 5'.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2015
G20 energy leaders (this is a group of countries that represent 75% of global trade) - squarely embraces renewable energy -
Vested political interests/ecological hypocrisy, they do not care about millions birds and bats, natural landscapes, wildlife's habitats; they want more mandates, more political powers. If they really cared about the environment, they would support nuclear power.

"Moderate Environmentalists Go Nuclear"
http://thebreakth...-nuclear
"EFN believes that environmentalist opposition to nuclear energy for the production of electricity is the worst misunderstanding of the 20th and 21st centuries."
http://www.hirosh...rgy.html
"Environmentalists against solar power"
http://www.sandie...t-solar/
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2015
Well at $2.30 per installed watt they are getting closer to making money @ 5 cents/KWH based on a 20 year life span. At a 3% interest rate they would need six to seven cents/KWH to pay off the loan, Then of course you have to add labor, maintenance, real estate taxes and profit costs into the equation.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2015
Yeah Willie - all the birds, and the bats, and the natural landscapes in Costa Rica have been destroyed. It is a nuclear wasteland. https://www.youtu...BVy457HQ Despite closing in on 100% renewables - http://cleantechn...of-2015/
Maybe these politicians actually care about their countries - and the people experiencing energy poverty - and they don't share your vision for our future world. - https://www.youtu...a7BsP4Bw
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2015
Costa Rica
Costa Rica: fossil fuel(9.28%) hydro(80.62%) other(10.1%)
Excluding hydro, renewable energy has proven to be unreliable.
http://en.wikiped...sta_Rica

Nuclear is safer, fewer ecological impacts, than solar, wind and hydro.
http://scienceblo...tricity/
Despite closing in on 100% renewables - http://cleantechn...of-2015/
like enenews, cleantechnica is biased as they have been selectively deleting comments that disagree with their green hypocrisy.
greenonions
4 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
MR166's numbers are pretty close to target - http://arstechnic...s-alone/ Despite as usual not providing any source. So if the costs keep falling - as they surely will - http://costofsola...40-2017/ And the panel warranties are now at 25 years consistently - http://www.canadi...e_en.pdf And storage is about to come into its own http://rameznaam....d-cheap/ Renewables look like they have a monster tail wind going forward!!!
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
Willie - not only are you a liar - but you repeat the same lies. Who is paying you? We already went around the issue of your wikie article on Costa Rica - which is decades out of date. I showed you a 2015 article - showing that Costa Rica got 100% of it's power from renewbles. Yes - most of that is hydro - but hydro is a renewable. Stop with your ignorant lies. I don't want the tar sands - I want Costa Rica as my model.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 04, 2015
greenie, at the same time, did you read the problems internationally with new nukes?

http://www.theeco...y_c.html

and this:

http://www.theeco...wer.html

Nukes will be DEAD soon. Like the victims of Chernobyl.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
Willie
cleantechnica is biased as they have been selectively deleting comments that disagree with their green hypocrisy.

Translation - Cleantechnica moderates their board - and keeps paid shills from spreading their lies. Sure Cleantechnica is biased - so am I - we want a cleaner, better world - and are excited about technological progress. That is why you get away with your lies on Physorg (96.8 cents, solar 8 times the cost of nukes, out of date wiki articles etc.) - and are not welcome there.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 04, 2015
Send Willie to Flamanville to see the EPR for himself. It makes Vogtle look like a good decision.

If these poorly-made units fail, all of Europe will suffer dramatically. We are just waiting for the next one. It will happen, and the nukers will only care about themselves and their jobs.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2015
gkam - Hinkley is definitely an interesting case study - but it is not the last word. China is set to do some major nuclear building - http://thediploma...er-boom/ Saudi Arabia is putting some big money in nukes - http://large.stan...jamaan1/ With new plants possibly looking at a 100 year life expectancy - the cost could rival renewables. What is for sure is that fossil fuels are on oxygen right now - and the picture does not look to get any brighter - as renewables get cheaper. Hold on to your hat.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
Those that think that a move to alternative power as a sole source would seem to be unaware of how important the use of fossil fuels are to the prosperity of humanity, and nature.

Here is an excellent study demonstrating the importance of having suitable replacements on-line when we do reduce the use of fossil fuels:
http://object.cat...a715.pdf

Costa Rica 2013 GDP: 10.184 Billion USD
USA 2013 GDP: 16.77 Trillion USD

To think that Costa Rica is an example of modern society successfully using alternative power would make one believe that such a viewpoint is indicative of an odd definition of modern society.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
Lets make that a bit more clear re: GDP. I honked that up pretty good:

Costa Rica GDP per capita: 10.184 Thousand
USA GDP per capita: 53.041 Thousand
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2015
denglish
Those that think that a move to alternative power as a sole source would seem to be unaware of how important the use of fossil fuels are to the prosperity of humanity, and nature.

And the era of fossil fuels is now waning - as we move towards a better future - with cheaper - non polluting, low carbon fuel sources. Denglish wants to live next to the Alberta Tar Sands - I would prefer to live in Costa Rica.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 04, 2015
"Those that think that a move to alternative power as a sole source , . . . "
----------------------------------

We will probably never be there, and we do not have to be there. We only have to live within our ability to not screw up the environment, which makes our oxygen, cleans our water, and provides us with food.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2015
Yes denglish - the people of Costa Rica live in mud huts - and eat berries and insects. http://www.google...mp;itg=1
MR166
3 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2015
"Despite as usual not providing any source. "

The source is basic financial math. Start with the installed cost/watt divided by the actual production factor and you get the real cost per watt. These were all stated in the article and I applaud it's disclosure of real cost and production numbers. As you can see from my first post 5 cents/KWH is only possible with huge subsidies. Thus the headline of solar costing 5 cents/KWH is highly misleading. It should read that solar power companies are operating at a huge loss due to poor demand for their product.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2015
As you can see from my first post 5 cents/KWH is only possible with huge subsidies. Thus the headline of solar costing 5 cents/KWH is highly misleading. It should read that solar power companies are operating at a huge loss due to poor demand for their product.

This. Talk about man-made disasters, the reduction of subsidies could be a big'un.

greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2015
MR166
The source is basic financial math.
Except as usual - you don't supply the numbers. You are not aware that the cost of solar is highly dependent on the amount of solar insolation - that varies by location.
5 cents/KWH is only possible with huge subsidies
Correct - and those subsidies are set to expire Dec 2016 - http://energy.gov...edit-itc Now those subsidies having been applied - will continue to benefit consumers for as long as the panels keep operating. Prices are projected to fall more than the value of the tax credit over the coming years - http://costofsola...40-2017/ So those 5 cent costs will continue without subsidies. After your 20 year time period - panels will be paid for - and delivering dirt cheap power. Panels are warrantied for 25 years - and will probably be producing at a reduced output for 40 - almost free power!
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2015
denglish
This. Talk about man-made disasters, the reduction of subsidies could be a big'un.
Only if you can't do mat (denglish can't) The cost of panels will keep falling - and the lower costs will more than offset the loss of the itc.

http://cleantechn...0-years/

After 20 years - the panels will be paid for - and will continue to generate almost free power for many years more - http://energyinfo...-panels/
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2015
Yes - most of that is hydro - but hydro is a renewable.
Hydro impacts: "dislocation of people living where the reservoirs are planned, release of significant amounts of carbon dioxide at construction and flooding of the reservoir, disruption of aquatic ecosystems and birdlife, adverse impacts on the river environment, potential risks of sabotage and terrorism, and in rare cases catastrophic failure of the dam wall."
https://en.wikipe...ctricity

gskam and his mates hate with all their heart the truth that renewable creates more environmental impact per gigawatt produced than nuclear.
we want a cleaner, better world
hypocrites.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2015
Onions today's solar panels will pretty much need to produce power for 30 to forty years in order to become profitable without ratepayer subsidies. When economical local power storage becomes a reality home solar will displace traditional grid power and fossil electric will be history. I pay about 25 cents/KWH for power at my home. Thus there is a huge savings to be had if solar and wind powered local grids can be developed. That said, 24/7 power is a must and at this moment wind and solar do not really solve that problem.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2015
MR166
Onions today's solar panels will pretty much need to produce power for 30 to forty years in order to become profitable without ratepayer subsidies


Again no support for you assertions. Why do you never learn? The viability of solar panels is very dependent on geography. In some parts of the world - they are currently very viable - because they are replacing diesel generators - and a really great replacement - http://www.mysola...ent.html So your generalization - is - as usual pretty meaningless. However - I think we can see that you are acknowledging that solar panels are at or close to grid parity in many places. Numerous reports support this assertion - https://www.db.co...ngth.pdf So as the prices continue to tumble - the train will gather steam - and we are in the waning years of the fossil fuel era.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2015
Willie
Hydro impacts: "dislocation of people living where the reservoirs are planned


But you have no problem with dislocating indigenous peoples for the mining of uranium and coal! https://news.vice...o-nation
http://static1.1....2BNnE%3D

Who is the hypocrite?
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2015
mining of uranium
Power density makes the difference, nuclear has the smallest footprint, lowest ecological impact.
"nuclear power plants have only a tiny footprint and can be placed at many more locations"
"nuclear energy is also inexhaustible"
"For Sustainable Energy, Choose Nuclear"
http://www.indepe...?id=8539
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2015
dislocating indigenous peoples
"Indigenous communities in Chiapas are fighting against large wind energy projects by asserting their rights to their communal lands."
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/10/bad-wind-energy-when-built-illegally-harming-indigenous-communities-155230
"Some of the world's most promising wind and solar resources are situated on lands controlled or occupied by indigenous groups."
http://books.goog...pg=PT110
"wind..the project has raised concerns over vibrations, bird deaths and invasion of Indian lands."
http://www.salon....project/

The same palefaces that have been destroying natural world, are the same palefaces that are saying they will save planet with their environmentally hypocritical means of energy production, occupying wildlife's habitats, ruining natural landscapes.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 04, 2015
No, Willie nuclear energy is not inexhaustable.

That phrase just means we will be gone before it is.
greenonions
4 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2015
Willie - I am pro nuclear. I am also pro renewable. I am interested to see which source eventually pans out to be the cheapest, and also the most environmentally friendly. All systems have pros and cons. It is very clear from an environmental standpoint - that coal, oil, and gas should be the first to go. Nuclear does have problems. Study Hinkley Point. Your problem is that in order to support your choice of source - you will lie, misrepresent, and be a hypocrite. I Hope that nuclear has a bright future in our world. Your lies make me sick...
MRBlizzard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2015
kochevnik or anybody else,

reference for pink biocoating

please
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2015
lies make me sick...
Statistics do not lie.
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2015
Willie
Statistics do not lie.
"96.8 cents, solar 8 times the cost of nuclear, Costa Rica gets 9.28% of it's power from fossil fues" These are three lies that you have told on this one thread alone. Statistics may not lie - but you certainly do.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Costa Rica does not have all its automobiles solar/hydro/wind-powered.
"cleantechnica is biased"

"The truth behind Costa Rica's renewable energy" - March 2015
"Most years, these sources allow Costa Rica to generate approximately 90% of its electricity without burning fossil fuels."
"droughts ...This forced Costa Rican utility companies to burn fuel to generate power, releasing greenhouse gases and causing rate rises."
"the country still relies on petroleum for transportation, and emissions from this sector are the largest hurdle the country faces in reaching its carbon neutrality goal"
"The environment ministry reports that fuel burned by cars, buses and trains accounted for almost 70% of the country's carbon emissions in 2014"
"..require environmental loss of a different kind, by altering rivers, displacing people and animals, and destroying vegetation"
http://www.thegua...e-change
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
lies
True liars love to call other liars.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 05, 2015
Willie, you can post all you want: You're losing.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2015
You're losing.
the gskam's game?
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
you can post all you want
"Intensification of solar farm development harmful to landscape character"
http://www.planni...haracter
"Villagers object to the solar farm plan in Rocester"
'undulating nature of the landscape'
http://www.uttoxe...ory.html
"solar farm..have been rejected by councillors because of the impact it could have on the landscape."
http://www.chad.c...-7458160

palefaces and their ecologically hypocritical means of energy production.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2015
Whatever Willie. I have given 3 concrete examples - from this one thread alone of how you are willing to lie to support an agenda. That should be enough to make you put your tail between your legs - and STFU. Instead - you keep posting. You really are despicable.

palefaces and their ecologically hypocritical means of energy production.
What does this even mean? Black people, or native peoples don't support renewable energy or something? You just keep digging deeper - Willie liar.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
It was already proven by concrete references that: Costa Rica is not 100% renewable; solar/wind receives at least four times more subsidies than nuclear; solar/wind causes more environmental impact than nuclear per gigawatt produced.
http://www.eia.go...tion.cfm
http://watchdog.o...bsidies/
http://www.cfact....gy-push/
http://www.eia.go...subsidy/
http://environmen...subsidy/
http://cnsnews.co...ctricity
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Nuclear power is much more ecologically friendly; Nature thrives well better.

"Wildlife thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant despite radiation" - October 5, 2015
"High numbers of elk, deer, boar and wolves show long-term effect of world's worst nuclear accident is less damaging than everyday human activity, say scientists"
http://www.thegua...adiation

"Wildlife thriving in region around Chernobyl nuclear power plant, study says"
"a nuclear disaster may actually be less harmful than human encroachment."
"wolf abundance is more than 7 times higher,"
http://www.latime...ory.html

"Nature thrives in Chernobyl"
"nature flourishes" No solar panels, no wind blades
http://www.dailym...ter.html
greenonions
3 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Willie
It was already proven by concrete references that: Costa Rica is not 100% renewable


Which is your justification for using decades old reference that you have used before and told that it is way out of date. I referenced you an article - that said that Costa Rica covered 100% or their power with renewables "for 1st 75 days of 2015". I never claimed that they would never use fossil fuels again - I was just showing how out of date your wiki article is. None of this changes your nasty little habit of telling lies - 3 of them on this one thread.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Willie
cleantechnica is biased


Yes it is. It just chaps little liars like you that some sites are moderated, and wont tolerate your nasty lies. How about that 96.8 cents Willie?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
wiki article
"The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis."
Projected LCOE in the U.S. by 2020 (as of 2015)
Advanced Nuclear: 9.52¢/kWh
Solar PV: 12.53¢/kWh
http://en.wikiped...y_source
Aside nuclear has the smallest footprint, lowest ecological impact, it is less environmentally costly than wind/solar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 05, 2015
"This is a lie george. I never said this."
---------------------------------

If I find it, will you apologize and tell us why you are hiding?
Ive found and disproved many of your lies and fabrications, none of which you ever owned up to, like your big lie about having an MS in environmental management.

Apologize for all of those.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
some sites are moderated
They are moderated to protect their dogmas/vested interests. They selectively delete truths that are not convenient to them. A good place (paradise) for gskam and his gang.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2015
Willie - your LCOE chart is 2 years out of date. This is a long time in todays environment. LCOE is a very difficult number to pin down - but here is a couple of newer numbers.
http://www.eia.go...tion.cfm
http://go100re.ne..._ISE.pdf

The Fraunhofer Institute is probably very realistic numbers - showing good ranges. You will see that geothermal, hydro, and wind are all highly competitive with nukes. On top of learning not to lie - you really should learn to keep up with the most recent - and balanced information sources.
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2015
Willie
They are moderated to protect their dogmas/vested interests
I disagree - they seem moderated to keep trolls like you from wasting everyone's time. Bob Wallace is happy to let you present information on Cleantechnica - but will not tolerate lying bullshit like you present here. Of course - you are quite welcome to keep away from boards like Cleantechnica - I am sure they would appreciate you not polluting their site.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
bullshit like you present here
Yeah. solar/wind 2¢/kWh, and good for environment, any information that contradicts it, is BS.
greenonions
3.6 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2015
Yeah. solar/wind 2¢/kWh, and good for environment, any information that contradicts it, is BS.
No - like 96.8 cents Kwh, and solar 8 times cost of nukes, and using outdated references that you have already been told about.
I always support what I say with references - that allow others to verify the assertions I make. I have always been clear that I am pro nukes, and pro renewables - and that my major problem is with fossil fuels. I acknowledge the advantage that fossil have brought our world - and think the data supports the understanding that it is time to begin the transition to cleaner, better, cheaper fuel sources. I don't have to lie to support my agenda - as you do. The lies you tell are the bullshit I am calling you on.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2015
cleaner, better
"The more people know about nuclear power, the more they favor it."
"The plant has paid millions of dollars in property taxes and has regularly made contributions to local non-profits." - October 5, 2015
"Fossil fuels emit carbon in the air. Nuclear plants do not," said Rep. John Katko, R-Syracuse.
http://www.twcnew...nt-.html
http://nuclear-ec...-summer/
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
Wow Willie - you missed a very important line in your article - let me quote it for you
Entergy is considering the move because it says the plant has been struggling financially.


Funny thing about all of this Willie - is that I support nuclear - so you don't have to convince me of anything there. i don't have to lie to make my point like you do. There are big questions about the financial viability of nukes - so let's get the data - and see who wins on a cost/functionality basis. My money is with the ceo of Shell - that solar will win.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2015
i don't have to lie
Maybe you're not, but gskam is notoriously a champion fibber/fear-monger.

"Clearly, even as nuclear energy receives much of the attention due to the expectation of devastatingly spectacular accidents, the fatalities from other forms of energy go nearly unnoticed as they feel more distant." - October 7, 2015
Deaths per gigawatt (GW) per year (max)
Hydro: 36.3
Nuclear: 0.03
http://www.busine...4_1.html

Statistics tell us the truth.
There are big questions about the financial viability of nukes
These questions are more political/ideological rather than technical/scientific.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2015
These questions are more political/ideological rather than technical/scientific.

Completely wrong - they are technical. Hinkley Point is a prime example. I understand that Hinkley is not the sole example we should look at - but other examples - such as the Chinese reactors - are proving very hard to get numbers on. If plants can be designed to run for 60, or even as high as 100 years - perhaps they will be cost competitive with renewables - plus have the advantage of predictability of output. Currently - nukes are proving costly.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 07, 2015
Google "nuclear over budget", like I just did, and see how many pages of references turn up.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2015
political/ideological
renewables..
Ecological costs conveniently left aside.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 07, 2015
Nuclear materials are now for sale to terrorists.

Good work, nukers.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
Ecological costs conveniently left aside.

Not at all - stop being a baby. Every fuel source has pluses and minuses. On the ecological side - it seems that solar is probably about the best. Electrical transmission lines kill lots of birds. Do you want to stop nukes as a result - and we will all use roof top solar? You are very childish. We have to balance costs against benefits. I think that what will emerge is a balance of renewables and nukes.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
Nuclear materials are now for sale to terrorists.
Fear-mongers induce more deaths/abortions/anxieties/heart-attacks/suicides than nuclear material by rising irrational fear on misinformed population. Terrorists should hire/recruit fear-mongers, more efficiency in provoking terror.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2015
Nuclear materials are now for sale to terrorists.
Fear-mongers induce more deaths/abortions/anxieties/heart-attacks/suicides than nuclear material by rising irrational fear on misinformed population. Terrorists should hire/recruit fear-mongers, more efficiency in provoking terror.
"The World has only one problem, Psychopaths. There are two basic types of Psychopaths, Social and Anti-Social. The essential feature of Psychopaths is a Pervasive, Obssesive- Compulsive desire to force their delusions on others. Psychopaths completely disregard and violate the Rights of others...."
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
Nuclear materials are now for sale to terrorists.

Good work, nukers.

Know what else are on sale?
Something all your neighbours got, but not you...yep...solar panels.
Good work, pathological liar.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
cost competitive
"EU nuclear trade body calls for 100 new reactors by 2050"
"Nuclear energy contributes to all three objectives of EU energy policy..security of supply, decarbonisation of the electricity sector and competitive power prices."
"global interest in nuclear power is growing and there are currently more nuclear power plants under construction around the world than there have ever been."
"Expected to have high competitive and sustainability advantages, advanced nuclear reactor technology, including Generation IV, should be provided with adequate funding for development and demonstration at EU level, taking into account the EU potential in terms of human and financial resources,"
http://www.world-...501.html

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.