Solar power is getting cheaper every year

[HTSS_TR]

Quote:

Solar energy has grown 100-fold in this country in the past decade. Globally, solar has doubled seven times since 2000, and Dubai received a bid recently for 800 megawatts of solar at a stunning “US 2.99 cents per kilowatt hour” — unsubsidized! For context, the average residential price for electricity in the United States is 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

We pay 12-15c/KWh(rate are change every month) for the first couple hundreds KWh, then 20-25 cents the next few hundreds KWh, the top rate is about 40-45 cents per KWh. The lowest rate is from 10 PM till 7-8 AM, but we don''t use much power during that time period so SCE(Southern California Edison) charges us standard rates. In winter we use about 200-250 KWh, summer is a little more up to 400-600 KWh.

Quote:

It illustrates the plummeting prices utilities have to pay for large-scale solar. But while the study is only a year old, it’s already out of date. For instance, Austin Energy has reported that last fall they they “signed on the dotted line for 288 MW of utility-scale solar power with First Solar Inc. and Hanwha Q CELLS USA Corp” with both offerings “coming in below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour” [below $40/MWh]! This year we learned “City of Palo Alto considers solar power contract at under $37/MWh.” Bloomberg reported last week that “Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s NV Energy agreed to pay 3.87 cents a kilowatt-hour for power from a 100-megawatt project that First Solar Inc. is developing.”

Quote:

It is worth remembering that U.S. solar power bids include the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit. According to one analysis, NV Energy’s “$.0387/kWh would potentially turn into about $.07/kWh if we backed out the 30% Federal Tax Credit and 60% depreciation in Year One.” The bids seen around the world this year without subsidies or incentives are even more stunning. Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) received a bid this year for 800 megawatts at a jaw-dropping “US 2.99 cents per kilowatt hour.” Two other bids were below US 4 cents/kWh, and the last two bids were both below 4.5 cents/kWh — again all of these bids were without subsidies!

Quote:

That 2.99 cents bid is way down from a 2015 deal Dubai signed for more than 1000 megawatts at 5.84 cents over 25 years. So Dubai has seen a 50 percent price drop in solar in just 18 months. And these prices aren’t unique to the Middle East. As Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in April, Enel Green power signed a contract for $.036/kWh in in Mexico — 3.6 cents.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/18/3797907/solar-energy-miracle-charts/ I will not surprise to see below 2 cents per KWh somewhere in the world before 2025.

Quote:

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015 Coal = 33% Natural gas = 33% Nuclear = 20% Hydropower = 6% Other renewables = 7% .Biomass = 1.6% .Geothermal = 0.4% .Solar = 0.6% .Wind = 4.7% Petroleum = 1% Other gases = <1%

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 At the peak year of coal's contribution to U.S. power production, coal produced 57.0% of U.S. power in 1988. It was only 33% of last year, the percentage of power generated by coal is getting smaller every year. Image below shows coal power plants in U.S., very few in the western states. One state stand out, that is Idaho without a single coal power plant. Owners of BEV in Western States can sleep well knowing they use cleaner sources of electric to charge their batteries. Especially these states: CA, NV, ID, OR and WA.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yes, the Chinese have been driving down the price of panels massively. It doesn't solve the problems with their low output relative to size, nor their sporadic nature, but coupled with some sort of storage medium they are getting more cost effective, particularly in places like the ME where there is so much sun and no real winter.

 

[dave1251]

Doesn't help here. You can not even get discounted rates using solar and a maxim of 30 customers a month can go solar.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

We are going to put those miners back to work. I much rather have coal power, than nuclear... when New Madrid faults big league, coal won't kill us.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL

We are going to put those miners back to work. I much rather have coal power, than nuclear... when New Madrid faults big league, coal won't kill us.

So you want to be in a coal mine during an earthquake? Sweet.

 

[Shannow]

As I've mentioned before, while solar (and wind) are disruptive technologies, they have the possibility to be cheap. Problem is that WHEN we rely on them, you need to install 3-4,000 MW of them to replace a 1,000MW coal plant. That's simply to harvest the same amount of energy in a 24 hour period... THEN you need to install storage to hold the amount that you need to store to use overnight. A "renewable" grid based on Solar will have 0 to -ve prices prices during the day, and the round trip cost of storage is of the order of $200/MWh+ which means that the majority of the time, the WHOLESALE prices will be of the order of 27c/KWh. Assuming that you can build that amount of storage. In disruptive stage, yes, they can, will, and do push thermals out of the market...when they succeed, they get necessarily extremely expensive.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

Originally Posted By: eljefino

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL

We are going to put those miners back to work. I much rather have coal power, than nuclear... when New Madrid faults big league, coal won't kill us.

So you want to be in a coal mine during an earthquake? Sweet.

I know miners, they love their jobs. They understand the dangers, I have great respect for the workers, I am not a miner, nor ever insinuate that I was, so where do you get the Ideal that I would be in a coal mine during a geological event?

 

[daves87rs]

Waiting to put some solar power on my house....

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Owners of BEV in Western States can sleep well knowing they use cleaner sources of electric to charge their batteries. Especially these states: CA, NV, ID, OR and WA.

Ca was second worst polluter in 2013... http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

 

[simple_gifts]

India is ripe for some seriously creative and aggressive deployments. Regardless of the path here, it promises to improve the lives of 100s of millions.

 

[Jimzz]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Owners of BEV in Western States can sleep well knowing they use cleaner sources of electric to charge their batteries. Especially these states: CA, NV, ID, OR and WA.

Ca was second worst in 2013... http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

They also have the largest population yet are only 2nd. Per person they are doing very well. Texas on the other hand have over 10million fewer people but is almost double the output of CA.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Jimzz

They also have the largest population yet are only 2nd. Per person they are doing very well. Texas on the other hand have over 10million fewer people but is almost double the output of CA.

I cede that, but over 25% of Ca's electricity consumption comes from energy generated out of state...the figures are based on the state in which it is generated, not consumed.

 

[Shannow]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente...m/#52ffa51fe96b

Quote:

California’s SB 350 requires the state to procure 50% of electricity from renewable energy and double energy efficiency savings by 2030. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan” wants states to “to act more like California.” Yet, beyond power rates 45% above the U.S. average, California has another problem that makes it less of a model than some proclaim. California now imports 33% of its electricity supply from fast growing neighbors, with about 65% of that coming from the Southwest and 35% coming from the Northwest. These numbers increase most in summer months when air conditioning loads peak. Imports have been rising rapidly: in 2010, California “only” imported 25% of its power.

Quote:

Besides having the most expensive electricity west of the Mississippi River in the continental U.S., California already has the least reliable electricity. California easily leads the nation with nearly 470 power outages a year, compared to 160 for second place Texas, which is really amazing because Texas produces 125% MORE electricity! (here). California’s reliability problems will be multiplied as more wind and solar enter the power mix, intermittent resources located in remote areas that cannot be so easily transported to cities via the grid

And smoke and mirrors...

Quote:

Just look at California’s troubled Ivanpah solar thermal plant near Nevada, being “paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural-gas powered plants.” But, very quietly, Ivanpah has become a big natural gas plant. That’s because Ivanpah uses gas to preheat water that goes into boilers mounted on three 459-foot-tall towers, allowing “heat from the sun – captured by 352,000 mirrors – to make steam more quickly. The steam turns the turbines that produce electricity.” In 2014, enough natural gas was used at Ivanpah to meet the annual power needs of 17,000 California homes, or over 25% of the plant’s total projected electricity output. Thus, Ivanpah is a hybrid gas and solar power plant, but obviously wasn’t touted as such

 

[CharlieBauer]

Solar City and others all offer to install and completely maintain solar with a monthly bill lower than your current bill. Of course, that's partly possible because electricity here is expensive and who knows what subsidies are involved. But I do think that solar near the point of use has the potential to be a more effective way of moving to renewables. The power companies don't want to build capacity for peak demand because the marginal cost for those megawatts is very high. No wonder they import electricity from cheaper locations instead. The state should also increase and enforce energy conservation on new build properties in particular. As far as AC is concerned, most of California has a cool enough night time temperature that a building design that precools overnight plus whole house fans in the evening would mean AC is rarely needed. The energy efficiency and install quality of my HVAC system in a now 11 year old property is shocking. The builder and contractor will choose the least efficient equipment to save hundreds up front for themselves but instead cost the homeowner hundreds more per year.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

As I've mentioned before, while solar (and wind) are disruptive technologies, they have the possibility to be cheap. Problem is that WHEN we rely on them, you need to install 3-4,000 MW of them to replace a 1,000MW coal plant. That's simply to harvest the same amount of energy in a 24 hour period... THEN you need to install storage to hold the amount that you need to store to use overnight. A "renewable" grid based on Solar will have 0 to -ve prices prices during the day, and the round trip cost of storage is of the order of $200/MWh+ which means that the majority of the time, the WHOLESALE prices will be of the order of 27c/KWh. Assuming that you can build that amount of storage. In disruptive stage, yes, they can, will, and do push thermals out of the market...when they succeed, they get necessarily extremely expensive.

People are so easy to fool.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer

Solar City and others all offer to install and completely maintain solar with a monthly bill lower than your current bill. Of course, that's partly possible because electricity here is expensive and who knows what subsidies are involved. But I do think that solar near the point of use has the potential to be a more effective way of moving to renewables. The power companies don't want to build capacity for peak demand because the marginal cost for those megawatts is very high. No wonder they import electricity from cheaper locations instead. The state should also increase and enforce energy conservation on new build properties in particular. As far as AC is concerned, most of California has a cool enough night time temperature that a building design that precools overnight plus whole house fans in the evening would mean AC is rarely needed. The energy efficiency and install quality of my HVAC system in a now 11 year old property is shocking. The builder and contractor will choose the least efficient equipment to save hundreds up front for themselves but instead cost the homeowner hundreds more per year.

The problem is when the owners allow Solar to be installed on their property on a lease basis. Here, those properties sit if they need to sell because potential buyers do not want to get involved on the lease.

 

[RedOakRanch]

CA buys power from the coal plants in AZ, also takes water from other states too but that's another story.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Ca was second worst polluter in 2013...

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/ Your linked clearly stated this on second sentence :

Quote:

Total state CO2 emissions include those from direct fuel use across all sectors, including residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation, as well as primary fuels consumed for electric generation.

You already know that California is the populous state of U.S. I think CA population is about 39 millions, the second state is Texas at 27 millions. We have 40% more people than Texas but we pollute 50% less. You should know that most highways in California are congested most of the times, some sections have stop&go traffic as early as 3 AM until 11-12 PM. This congestion does create more pollution. California is known as a car culture state, there are more car on the road per capita at any given 24 hours than most states. You can take a look the "Per capita carbon dioxide emissions" in your linked few page down. You will see that California is 4th from the best. Texas is worst polluter in the total emission but it is in 15th place per capita chart. DC doesn't count in this study because they don't have these: power plant, manufacture industry of any kind.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

As I've mentioned before, while solar (and wind) are disruptive technologies, they have the possibility to be cheap. Problem is that WHEN we rely on them, you need to install 3-4,000 MW of them to replace a 1,000MW coal plant. That's simply to harvest the same amount of energy in a 24 hour period... THEN you need to install storage to hold the amount that you need to store to use overnight. A "renewable" grid based on Solar will have 0 to -ve prices prices during the day, and the round trip cost of storage is of the order of $200/MWh+ which means that the majority of the time, the WHOLESALE prices will be of the order of 27c/KWh. Assuming that you can build that amount of storage. In disruptive stage, yes, they can, will, and do push thermals out of the market...when they succeed, they get necessarily extremely expensive.

Originally Posted By: CT8

People are so easy to fool.

Quote:

The bids seen around the world this year without subsidies or incentives are even more stunning. Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) received a bid this year for 800 megawatts at a jaw-dropping “US 2.99 cents per kilowatt hour.” Two other bids were below US 4 cents/kWh, and the last two bids were both below 4.5 cents/kWh — again all of these bids were without subsidies!

Quote:

That 2.99 cents bid is way down from a 2015 deal Dubai signed for more than 1000 megawatts at 5.84 cents over 25 years. So Dubai has seen a 50 percent price drop in solar in just 18 months. And these prices aren’t unique to the Middle East. As Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in April, Enel Green power signed a contract for $.036/kWh in Mexico — 3.6 cents.

CT8, Do you understand this paragraph "Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) received a bid this year for 800 megawatts at a jaw-dropping “US 2.99 cents per kilowatt hour.” Two other bids were below US 4 cents/kWh, and the last two bids were both below 4.5 cents/kWh — again all of these bids were without subsidies!" ??? Someone builds a 800 megawatts solar farm and sells electricity to DEWA (Dubai Electricity and Water Authority) at a rate of 2.99 cent a KWh without string attached and no subsidies. DEWA needs to sign a long term contract, something likes 20-30 years and probably will have to pay all power(up to 800 megawatts) this solar farm will generate at any given day. Enel Green power of Mexico signed a contract for $.036/kWh in Mexico. These power companies will resale the power to its customers(individual and/or business) at a higher rate to cover their costs and make some profit. This 2.99 cents is whole sale price, retail price is much higher. Remember that this 2.99 cent per KWh solar power is only 800 megawatts, they may need a lot more to supply power to the people and businesses they serve. Where are other power sources and prices ? I don't know.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

CT8, Do you understand this paragraph "Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) received a bid this year for 800 megawatts at a jaw-dropping “US 2.99 cents per kilowatt hour.” Two other bids were below US 4 cents/kWh, and the last two bids were both below 4.5 cents/kWh — again all of these bids were without subsidies!" ? Someone builds a 800 megawatts solar farm and sells electricity to DEWA (Dubai Electricity and Water Authority) at a rate of 2.99 cent a KWh without string attached and no subsidies.

And someone else needs to provide that 800MW for the 16+ hours of the day that the solar isn't producing 800MW...what's so difficult about that ? OR as per my post that you quoted but don't seem to have addressed... * they have to install 2,400MW of solar panels (more actually); * plus 1.3GW of storage (batteries and the like)... Which in and of themselves use about 25c/KWh round trip lifecycle cost to store and release that energy. While solar is a disruptive technology, it CAN be cheap...when a country ends up solar renewable, it HAS to be expensive.