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.
The operating cost of solar is so low that no fossil fuel is competitive.
The per kWh cost including the capital costs and operating over the lifetime is the only important one and solar comes no where near that.
Quote:
Operating costs go down due to the replacement of fossil operating costs with solar costs.
Even if costs are competitive you can't replace base power with solar. Any solar capacity idling fossil fuel plants is going to increase the cost of operating those plants.
Yeah right, meanwhile big oil will receive 46 billion in subsidies....Tax breaks and incentives for the big oil companies began in 1916, and continue today....What is wrong with this picture?
Nothing wrong with this picture. You are talking about companies keeping their own money as opposed to giving tax payer dollars to companies who aren't competitive but me the 'politically correct' criteria. It's daylight to dark.
Letting people keep some of the money the earned is not a subsidie.
Did you know the government makes more from the sale of oil products than the oil companies? They actually have a very low profit margin.
.Gov makes six times what the oil companies make per gallon.
Personally I'd love solar but power is cheap here and I'd have to cut down about 8 trees to make it work (which keep my house cool in the summer), so not worth it.
The per kWh cost including the capital costs and operating over the lifetime is the only important one and solar comes no where near that.
Even if costs are competitive you can't replace base power with solar. Any solar capacity idling fossil fuel plants is going to increase the cost of operating those plants.
One operates existing facilities based on their operating costs not their total costs. So wind and solar are always operated when available.
Depends on how you do the numbers. If solar improves by another factor of 2...which is likely...you will end up with it becoming the standard new utility facility. You will still need backup but it gets to be cheap enough that you build the solar with NG backup. I believe in many regions wind is pretty close to that level now.
And subsidies of course will change the outcome. Wind and solar are much more competitive today because of the subsidy.
And note the home roof situation has different economics. It deals with retail not wholesale energy prices. I would think we will see clever solutions to this marketplace. Certainly the first place where storage may actually begin to be implemented. The Tesla wall may actually be cost effective in Hawaii and perhaps LA.
One operates existing facilities based on their operating costs not their total costs.
Those facilities may take decades to begin turning a profit. Again they are expected to operate at near capacity for 50 or 60 years. The longer they operate the cheaper the power gets. Forcing the limitations of solar onto the conventional power market is just shear stupidity.
Look at this way if you spend 30K on a car and go 100K in 10 years you might spend $10K on gas for a total of $40K. That's $0.40 per mile. If you drive it 200K in that ten years now you're down to 25 cents per mile.
The per kWh cost including the capital costs and operating over the lifetime is the only important one and solar comes no where near that.
Even if costs are competitive you can't replace base power with solar. Any solar capacity idling fossil fuel plants is going to increase the cost of operating those plants.
Carbon nanotube electrical transmission would allow for plants to ship energy all over the country at minimal loss. This would allow for various shared plants instead of many regional plants.
I only make this comment because tech developments ARE going to occur and those could completely change the game.
It's kinda like all the bad projections of oil production that were made under the assumption of static technology.
I guess, that's why I struggle with this whole discussion since the rules\reality keep changing.
Those facilities may take decades to begin turning a profit. Again they are expected to operate at near capacity for 50 or 60 years. The longer they operate the cheaper the power gets. Forcing the limitations of solar onto the conventional power market is just shear stupidity.
Look at this way if you spend 30K on a car and go 100K in 10 years you might spend $10K on gas for a total of $40K. That's $0.40 per mile. If you drive it 200K in that ten years now you're down to 25 cents per mile.
Makes no difference as I suspect you know. If you have the choice of taking power from a source that costs close to 0 per kwh versus one that cost from $.03 to $.06 per kwh. It is obvious which one you pick.
And the retail is far worse. I would think the real issue is the one being fought right now in NV. NVEnergy wants to pay $.055 per kwh as opposed to their present retail cost of $.11 per kwh. It is a good argument...NVEnergy can buy the product for about the $.055 rate. So why should the retail customer get to sell it to them for twice as much.
Then again on time of day pricing NVEnergy gets as high as $0.25 per kwh. So is that a true version of their cost or are they price gouging in their time of day plans?
Overall though a factor of two more on wind or solar capital cost and they will blow away good NG plants even if the NG plants sit there idle.
.Gov makes six times what the oil companies make per gallon.
Yeah and that might be a low estimate when you factor in "soft taxes" not directly tied to the gas in the form of per gallon gas taxes. Things like property taxes, payroll taxes, corporate income tax and much much more.
I remember Hillary leading the witch hunt to "take those profits" with amusement as the people making $1.50 a gallon in taxes and fees complained about the people making 30 cents a gallon.
Makes no difference as I suspect you know. If you have the choice of taking power from a source that costs close to 0 per kwh versus one that cost from $.03 to $.06 per kwh. It is obvious which one you pick.
And the retail is far worse. I would think the real issue is the one being fought right now in NV. NVEnergy wants to pay $.055 per kwh as opposed to their present retail cost of $.11 per kwh. It is a good argument...NVEnergy can buy the product for about the $.055 rate. So why should the retail customer get to sell it to them for twice as much.
Then again on time of day pricing NVEnergy gets as high as $0.25 per kwh. So is that a true version of their cost or are they price gouging in their time of day plans?
Overall though a factor of two more on wind or solar capital cost and they will blow away good NG plants even if the NG plants sit there idle.
I'm confused about some of this.
Are you talking purely about operational costs and removing capital investment from the discussion?
Carbon nanotube electrical transmission would allow for plants to ship energy all over the country at minimal loss. This would allow for various shared plants instead of many regional plants.
I only make this comment because tech developments ARE going to occur and those could completely change the game.
It's kinda like all the bad projections of oil production that were made under the assumption of static technology.
I guess, that's why I struggle with this whole discussion since the rules\reality keep changing.
The hard thing is we hope we will see advancements, and we will see some, but we don't know what they will be and how they will affect us. It is difficult to plan on these advancements because you could be left in a bad situation.
That is why I support modern nuclear tech. It is safe, very low levels of waste, very minor impact on the environment, and it has the capacity to support expanding energy needs. Lower energy costs help citizens and business alike.
The problem is the image of nuclear power is poor. People do not understand the technological advancements in safet and in minimizing waste. They are stuck on their 1970's talking points.
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.
