Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact solar and wind power to produce electricity is cheaper then coal.
I've stated this before and I'll state it again. I defy you or anyone else to show me spreadsheet that includes all costs, subsidies, incentives and the green credit included.
Quote:
Tell me what is better to heat your home? A: 100 tons of coal you burn
B: put in a solar panel to get the electric power to turn on a heating system.
Funny you would mention this because I've calculated this before just for the laughs. Where is it you get 100 tons to heat a house? General rule of thumb for an average 2000 sq ft. home you're going to use about 5 tons.
I heat about 2000 sq ft. at 70, basement space of about 1400 sq. ft at 60, another 1400 sq. foot of garage space at 55 and year round hot water. I burn 10 ton of coal and it cost me about $2K per year.
The calculation I came up to do that with solar where I live for half that heat demand came out to $260,854.
I can go with coal or need a solar array that would last for the next 260 years.
"In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. " http://www.dblinvestors.com/document...al-Version.pdf
Irrelevant, what is the cost per unit of generation? That's the important number.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-23-2014 at 08:09 PM..
"Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008."
Wrong. Coal mining is subsidized. Oil exploration and drilling is subsidized.
You can argue with the EIA then. I don't care what the rest of the world is doing, I want to know the numbers for here.
I've provided a document from the EIA, if you are going to reference material please do it from a reputable resource. The important number as I've already mentioned is what is the subsidy per unit of production.
And these articles are relevant to subsidies per unit of production how?
That said If you want to compare costs I defy you to show me an analysis that lists wind power at 5 cents a kWh that includes the subsidies, tax incentives and the green credit if applicable.
The contract relies on the current 30 percent federal Investment Tax Credit for solar energy, which is scheduled to be reduced to 10 percent in 2016. The reduction means solar prices could rise between 2016 and 2020, city documents state.
It's always in the details and I'll guarantee that if I look further there is move involved in that, the next thing to look at is if they are generating green credits being sold to the power distributors in Texas to meet state imposed mandates.
I don't have the time right now to check your calculation, but I see a couple of points where it looks off to me, so maybe I'll dig in later. But this just jumped out at me from that post...
Quote:
The US national average per watt for solar panel is $4.31 this month, It should be noted that the bottom of market for solar panels bottomed out last year and apparently hasn't recovered yet. The average cost prior to that was about $4.80 per watt for many years.
So to meet the electric needs alone for a house using 1000kWh per month:
9170 * 4.31 = "$39,522"
Apparently you made this calculation just before the bottom did fall out of the prices for solar panels, which have declined about 70% since 2009. Today, if you shop carefully, you can find solar panels at a cost of about $1/watt capacity. So providing for your electrical needs today... per your figures... might only run $10,000 or so.
Since Pennsylvania now has net metering, you could do what most consumers are doing... tie your system to the grid, spin the meter backwards during the summer months, accumulating energy credits toward the darker winter months. And you might find, as many have, that the payback on a system like that might be reasonably short. 6-8 years is a typical figure.
Apparently you made this calculation just before the bottom did fall out of the prices for solar panels, which have declined about 70% since 2009. Today, if you shop carefully, you can find solar panels at a cost of about $1/watt capacity. So providing for your electrical needs today... per your figures... might only run $10,000 or so.
Firstly my post was in reply to heat and not electrical needs, the person asked if I should burn coal or turn the dial for heat from solar. I don't know where you are getting 10K from. The $260,854 is for typical 2000 sq. ft. home in this area, I need double that so now I'm up to $521,708. 30% of that is $156,512. We still have installation costs etc.
The soalr array would have to last 78 years before I'd see a return.
Quote:
that the payback on a system like that might be reasonably short. 6-8 years is a typical figure.
Only when you consider the 50% tax break and the renewable energy credit would I get payback in that time. Certainly when someone else is paying for it anything is cheap.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-24-2014 at 08:48 AM..
I think that coalman has illustrated the perfect way to make people go to cleaner heating and power technologies. Immediately, any and all subsidies related to coal should cease. In addition, a law should be passed that you can't sell coal cheaper than it costs to extract it. (Like Gasoline, where a company is forbidden to sell it cheaper than they buy it for). If that doesn't raise the price of coal high enough to make thecoalman's payback work out better, than we should just tax it like we do cigarettes and alcohol. Problem solved. Even the Coalman will want to go to some other form of heat/electricity.
And anything you priced out from 2009 you gotta just throw out the window and do all over again. Beside ithe inverter, converter, charge controller, grid tie devices have changed, the biggest change is panels are more efficient (more watts per square inch) and cheaper than they were 5 years ago. Since in 2009 you needed $521k, sounds like you could order by the container load and pay anywhere from .59 to .78 per watt for a 250-300 watt panel...
To avoid the appearance being a hypocrite, last year I used two 5kw HVAC electric heaters for a total of 16 hours. And only because I didn't want my kids to get cold. I live in an area that just doesn't get cold. And since I am planning on moving I haven't installed an panels at my own house. Realistically, wind, solar, alt. power generation is only going to attract a few % of the people in the US at the moment. It takes a commitment and work to have it. I like green and alt. technology, but the first green I like is the green in my wallet. It has to eventually make some economic sense since I am not "rich". However, I don't have to worry about burning coal either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
