RE<C - Renewable energy cheaper than coal

Great news! With Google's financial and technological clout, things will get moving. I like the logo!

Reading things like this gives me hope.

Sounds promising Sam.

Sounds great, good news!

As soon as that gets done they need to ship it to China and India stat.

China and India, two very big roadblocks!

Since that corporation seems to be competant and has a corporate conscience so far as I can tell (not much data) it does give one hope. If they do come up with a breakthrough I wonder how the current energy giants will react (both corporate and national). There could be interesting times ahead.

good

Sam, you are more and more becoming the bringer of good environmental tidings!

Sam- cheaper than coal is nice, but it has to replace coal even if coal remains cheaper. it is not about money it is about survival.

I heard about it, but thanks for spreading the word!

Renewable energy is already cheaper, Chris, if you take into account to what extent the government supports polluters and protects them against compensation claims. For starters, governments should stop supporting polluters and instead let market mechanisms sort out what works best.

Furthermore, there should be a global commitment to tax emissions, and proceeds should be used to subsidize local supply of clean and safe alternatives. Each nation could determine how high these taxes should be, conditional to increases if emissions fail to reach agreed targets.

How would this work out? My earlier articles discussed a number of such policy details. To reduce carbon dioxide, we should tax fossil fuel and spend the proceeds to subsidize local supply of renewable energy. To reduce methane, we should tax meat and use the proceeds to subsidize things such as vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. To reduce nitrous oxide, we should tax fertilizers, using the proceeds to subsidize agrichar. Similarly, a shift could be achieved from the conventional way of making concrete to better alternatives. Nations should adjust the percentage of each tax depending on their meeting of annual targets, keep each other informed about progress and review policies on an annual basis.

"Renewable energy is already cheaper,"
No it isn't Sam.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.pdf

At 5% discount rate, levelised generation costs range between 25 and 50 USD/MWh for most coalfired power plants.

At 5% discount rate, the levelised costs of generating electricity from gas-fired power plants (Figure 3.5 and Table 3.13) vary between 37 USD/MWh and 60 USD/Mwh

At 5% discount rate, the levelised costs of nuclear generated electricity range between 21 and 31 USD/Mwh

At 5% discount rate, levelised generation costs for the wind power plants considered in the study range between 35 and 95 USD/Mwh

At 5% discount rate, hydroelectricity generation costs range between some 40 and 80 USD/Mwh

Even in the United States, where reported investment costs
are lower and capacity/availability factors higher, the levelised costs of solar generated electricity are reaching around 150 USD/MWh at 5% discount rate

Hey look at that nuclear is one of the less expensive and it puts out no C02!

As said, renewable energy is already cheaper, if one takes into account to what extent governments support polluters and protects them against compensation claims.

The figures that Dan quotes come from a 2005 report by the Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency, which states that their estimates for coal are too low as they exclude the cost of a carbon tax or carbon allowances. The report even calculates how coal would be uncompetitive, depending on how high that extra cost would be.

Since the report was released, a permit for two coal-fired power plants in Kansas has been rejected because of emissions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21378777/
At this very moment, nations are discussing an emission tax in Bali.

"As said, renewable energy is already cheaper"
Sam, I have posted facts, that show your statement is not correct, do you have any facts that disprove the facts I have posted?
Your nebulous and almost continual reference to the government's support of polluters doesn't hold any weight just like most of your positions because you don't offer any validation to it other than your "belief" that it is so.

Forgot to add this,
"Since the report was released, a permit for two coal-fired power plants in Kansas has been rejected because of emissions."

Well Sam that's just great but look at what the rest of the world is doing.
http://ww.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ONART&PUBLICATION_ID=41&ARTICLE_ID=312027&C=INDUS

"A new forecast by the International Energy Agency is consistent with the McIlvaine predictions. The report acknowledges the "spectacular growth of the past few years." In its forecasts, the report says that "coal sees the biggest increase in demand in absolute terms, jumping by 73% between 2005 and 2030 and pushing its share of total energy demand up from 25% to 28%. Most of the increase in coal use arises in China and India"

http://www.energybulletin.net/31202.html

"In the last six years, the Chinese coal industry, with reserves put at more than 1 trillion tonnes, has doubled production to more than 1.2bn tonnes a year. The country is now building 550 coal-fired power stations - opening at the equivalent of two a week - and in the five years to 2005, electricity generation rose 150%."

And you would have us wait for your hydrogen economy rather than build clean, safe nuclear power plants.

Dan: "I have posted facts, that show your statement is not correct, do you have any facts that disprove the facts I have posted?"

You took figures from this report out of context, Dan. The report itself admits that its estimates exclude costs such as for carbon allowances or carbon taxes.

Dan: "look at what the rest of the world is doing."

At this very moment, nations are discussing an emission tax in Bali. Cost of coal has risen dramatically and can be expected to rise a lot further with carbon tax.

Sam,
Ahh yes "CONTEXT" The argument of people who have no argument!
Still no facts to contradict the facts I have posted.
Sorry Sam, but the possibility of a carbon tax being imposed across the board at Bali are minimal.
At the rate countries are building fossil fuel power plants just to keep up with power demand, it is unlikely they will accept any carbon tax within their individual countries.
The implementation of the carbon tax up to this point has been very limited by only a few countries, not wide spread at all.

It is a blatant misrepresentation of facts to exclude things like recent cost rises of coal and global warming. The latter has already resulted in increased cost for coal through carbon taxes or allowances, cheaper cost for solar through feed-in tariffs and denial of permits to build coal plants, such as in Kansas. Furthermore, your figures came from a 2005 report by the Nuclear Energy Agency, rather than from a more independent source. Solar already commands the biggest slice of the market if you include passive thermal energy. If you're interested in solar, come to the symposium at http://www.solarpaces.org/

Thanks for the update on this, I was not aware of this.

Thanks, Vicky, you are welcome!

"It is a blatant misrepresentation of facts to exclude things like recent cost rises of coal and global warming."
Sam,
Quit postulating and post some facts, you don't say anything except your opinion and your faith in what you believe, which ain't fact!

Fact is that you're quoting figures out of context, Dan, and the fact that you refuse to admit this makes you unfit to even give an opinion.

Deleting my posts because you don't like what I say (highlighting your attack) Sam, is utter desperation!
Another tactic Goebbels would be proud of.

On a mission, can't talk now, Trying to give fifty points (at least) to all my connections for Christmas, or whatever:

Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!