Solar May Be Cheaper Than Fossil, Nuclear Power in Five Years, GE Says

Source: Bloomberg

Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)

“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.

<snip>

Solar-panel makers from Arizona to Shanghai are expanding factories to add more cost savings that analysts say will sustain the industry’s expansion. Installations may increase by as much as 50 percent in 2011, worth about $140 billion, as cheaper panels and thin film make developers less dependent on government subsidies, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast.

Solar Costs Dive

The cost of solar cells, the main component in standard panels, has fallen 21 percent so far this year, and the cost of solar power is now about the same as the rate utilities charge for conventional power in the sunniest parts of California, Italy and Turkey, the London-based research company said.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

---

And remember that the price will keep dropping after that.
More info at Climate Progress: http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/26/ge-solar-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

In the mid-1990s, GM made an electric car that consumers wanted. There was a waiting list!

But GM decided to call-in all cars (they were leased) and voila! No more electric cars!

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

And I'm getting sick and tired of these f*cking corporations claiming that some huge technological development that will be less expensive and help the environment will be coming out in 5 or 7 or x years!

Only 5 or 7 or x years away! And it never comes...

Has more to do with expectations and reality.

Not to let them totally off the hook, but people want the capability of their gas guzzler with the positives a battery-powered car would bring. Perhaps the hardest part is making the plate that connects the existing transmission to the new electric motor, but kits are available for more popular moddels.

Ain't gonna happen, at least not for a few years. There is so much less stored energy in batteries that there is nearly no comparison, though there is always hope for research. Many times the (roundtrip?) range is limited to 40 miles, unless you get a Tesla and pay through the nose for it (they use much more expensive batteries, though I think they are working on cheaper alternatives).

But the good news...for those that want to get back and forth and are willing to give up the luxurious cadillac or hp of their 442...

Most people could build their own by retrofitting an old vehicle sans engine. You want to pick something without a lot of weight - one of the popular ones has been the old S-10 pickup. The bed is fairly easily converted to flip up, and storage for the batteries can be built between the frames, putting the batts outside the cab. The batteries have to be replaced every few years, but care with how you charge them can make a real difference,

Directions exist in books and sites like http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/.

Between $10,000 and $15,000, (unless you want to drop the big bucks on Li-on batteries to get more miles versus the standard golf cart batteries - for most people I don't think the ROI of that makes sense yet). That becomes a great deal for someone who commmutes less than 20 miles, doesn't need an A.C. (or perhaps a heater). The cost drops to perhaps a penny or two per mile, depending on your electrical cost, with a dramatic change in how you use the car - for example, plugging it in every night. (Might even think about a solar panel if electrical costs get too high)

A lot of people aren't ready to make the tradeoff, but on the day gas goes to $5 gallon and you blow by in your super cheap to run battery-powered car for far less cost than the other, without the gas line, and an "engine" (elecctric motor) that will last for decades, who will be smiling (unless it is really cold outside).

It is the same problem as nuclear - wasteful, non-renewable, or dangerous fuels provide so many "advantages", so much power, with their real costs hidden and not paid up front that they simply swamp other ideas. But it won't be that way forever.

Personally, I am still doing research to, hopefully, get algae ponds will provide me (and perhaps diesel-driving neighbors) with enough home-made biodiesel to forego gas entirely.

He was talking about the EV-1. Obviously.

And I think the range had made it up to 80 miles when the batteries were switched out. The idea that you need to be able to constantly travel hundreds of miles is sort of silly when most people live within 50 miles of where they work and a large number of that group live within 30 miles.

EPA testing, because they use the more expensive batteries. Same with the more expensive Tesla. Most owner-builders start with Ni-cads just to save, but they are fairly easily switched out if they decide they want to spend the money.

But as you said, most people don't live that far from their work, and they spend a ton on silly commuting expense when such a car, whether owner-built or purchased from a mfr, could save them thousands of dollars per year. With the difference one could easily rent a car a few times a year and still come out quite a bit ahead.

And there is a lot of research going on with batteries these days, so I suspect they will do nothing but improve.

...suffered a similar fate. Although admittedly it was a technology just a little before its time.

Today however. Turbines are smaller still, and the responsiveness problems inherent in the Chrysler's direct mechanical linkage drive chain can be elimiated through the use of high efficiency alternators and electric motors coupled by either a capacitor bank, or deep cylcle accumulators.

Jaguar's C-X75 high performance vehicle falls just shy of 1 litre per 100 kilometres for fuel ecconomy. So just exactly what should be possible with an ordinarly family vehicle? 1 litre per 200 km? 250? more?

Assuming a similar improvement across the board for all transportion, a switch to turbine electric hybrids has the potential to reduce transportaion from 25% (or so) of the greenhouse problem to about 6%. Or to put it another way, knock just shy of 20% straight off the top.

And it's conceivably something which could be accomplished with almost zero impact over as little as a decade.

I wish the President would direct all the subsidies given to the oil and nuclear companies to be funneled into research into clean energy. Old energy systems are a problem; we need new modern ones.

...to rock and roll.

With a turbine electric, onboard electrical storage can be reduced to "down to the shops and back" and achieve 70-80% of the immediate advantages of an all electric fleet, and see fuel efficiency combined with regenerative braking take a largish bite out of the remainder.


The infernal combustion engine continues to hold sway, because baldly put it offers the greatest potential for profit taking at every level.

\It's times like these that I wish JFK were still here. Change out "landing a man on the moon" with "create a new energy infrastructure."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kza-iTe2100

the free marked might do us a favor.

We will never run this nation on any kind of alternative fuel because our country runs on oil. And guess what, oil production on a worldwide basis is going to fall in the coming decades and there is nothing we can do about it.

Suicide it is. You first.

which is dwarfed by the horrific cost of oil and nuclear.

?w=441&h=395

Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia 2010



Gulf Oil Spill 2010

$36 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans to big nuke corporations for new nuke plants.

Just what we need :sarcasm:

but the fossil fuel lobby has infinitely deep pockets. But so does GE. But this could mark the beginning of permanent change.

First thing I remember was askin' papa, "Why?",
For there were many things I didn't know.
And Daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', "Someday you'll understand."


Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mother's son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
'Cause, "Someday" Never Comes."

Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When Daddy went away, he said, "Try to be a man,
And, Someday you'll understand."


And then, one day in April, I wasn't even there,
For there were many things I didn't know.
A son was born to me; Mama held his hand,
Sayin' "Someday you'll understand."


Think it was September, the year I went away,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And I still see him standing, try'n' to be a man;
I said, "Someday you'll understand."

-Credence Clearwater Revival, "Someday Never Comes"


Some Renewable Consolation for Now:

Wind Power IS Now Cheaper Than Nuclear Power says EU Climate Chief

Wind Power:
USD$0.05/installed watt

Nuclear Power:
USD$1.50/installed watt


Generating energy from wind turbines at sea would be cheaper than building new atomic power plants, Europe's climate chief has said, in the latest challenge to the crisis-stricken nuclear industry.

Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate change commissioner, said: "Some people tend to believe that nuclear is very, very cheap, but offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear. People should believe that this is very, very cheap."

Offshore wind energy has long been seen as an expensive way of generating power, costing about two to three times more than erecting turbines on land, but the expense is likely to come down, while the costs of nuclear energy are opaque, according to analysis by the European commission.

The nuclear crisis in Japan has led the UK, France and other countries to tell their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading nuclear contamination. The crisis also prompted the EU's energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, to say: "There is talk of an apocalypse, and I think the word is particularly well chosen."


6 Standard lies of the nuclear industry
1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKS NOW

The nuclear industry would have you believe that we NEED nuclear power as a response to climate change. That is false. We have less expensive alternatives that can be built faster for FAR less money. This is a good overview of their claims:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

In a comparative analysis by another well respected researcher nuclear, coal with carbon capture and ethanol are not recommended as solutions to climate change. The researcher has looked at the qualities of the various options in great detail and the results disprove virtually all claims that the nuclear industry promote in order to gain public support for nuclear industry.

Nuclear supporters invariably claim that research like this is produced because the researchers are "biased against nuclear power". That is false. They have a preference,however that preference is not irrational; indeed it is a product of careful analysis of the needs of society and the costs of the various technologies for meeting those needs. In other words the researchers are "biased" against nuclear power because reality is biased against nuclear power. We hear this same kind of claim to being a victim of "liberal bias" from conservatives everyday and it is no different when the nuclear proponents employ it - it is designed to let them avoid cognitive dissonance associated with holding positions that are proven to be false.

The nuclear power supporters will tell you this study has been "debunked any number of times" but they will not be able to produce a detailed rebuttal that withstands even casual scrutiny for that claim too is false. The study is peer reviewed and well respected in the scientific community; it breaks no new ground and the references underpinning the work are not subject to any criticism that has material effect on the outcome of the comparison.

They will tell you that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. Actually they do. The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. However researcher have shown that a complete grid based on renewable energy sources is UNQUESTIONABLY SOMETHING WE CAN DO

When the local conditions warrant the other parts of a renewable grid kick in - geothermal power, biomass, biofuels, and wave/current/tidal sources are all resources that fill in the gaps - just like now when 5 large scale power plants go down unexpectedly. We do not need nuclear not least because spending money on nuclear is counterproductive to the goal of getting off of fossil fuels as we get less electricity for each dollar spend on infrastructure and it takes a lot longer to bring nuclear online.

In the study below Mark Jacobson of Stanford has used the quantity of energy that it would take to power an electric vehicle fleet as a benchmark by which to judge the technologies.


Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Reference Links:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Reference Link:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

The price of nuclear subsidies is also worth looking at. Nuclear proponents will tell you the subsidies per unit of electricity for nuclear are no worse than for renewables. That statement omits the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.
http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve /


In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.

Reference Links:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken


Reference Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-eu-climate

There's a big, big difference.

In five years it will also probably be illegal to live off the grid with ones own solar power because in collusion with the various electric companies, GE will push through a law that will make that crime.

Still have to pay to corporate rule.

GE doesn't make money if you live off the grid, just remember that.

I hope this happens!

And five years before that. And five years before that. For 30 years I've been hearing these stories. When I see one that ends with "click here to purchase" I'll start getting excited.

Nuclear has been uninsurable for a long time now.

If its full costs were included and not shoved onto taxpayers.

Solar has been cheaper than oil, if you include the cost of the wars to corner the oil supplies.