• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Falling Costs of Renewable Energy

Energy storage is already a reality, and is part of the costs of generation -- i.e. storage costs are also dropping. Crescent Dunes already uses a molten salt energy storage system; there are wind systems as well.

Constant supply has its own issues, as it can be inflexible. E.g. it is not easy to modulate coal or nuclear plans, and constantly changing generation can strain existing equipment, which increases costs, maintenance and risk. I.e. constant sources are not without their own problems.

Exactly, because consumption isn't constant.

We have an interesting system here: A nuclear plant, which has to run constantly, is linked to a hydro plant. When there isn't enough demand for the nuclear energy, it's used to pump the water back uphill so it can be run through the generator again. It works well. It's in effect a huge battery for storing energy.

Oh, and the trout fishing in the two reservoirs is a great fringe benefit.

Such a system could work for solar or wind as well.
 
Energy storage is already a reality, and is part of the costs of generation -- i.e. storage costs are also dropping. Crescent Dunes already uses a molten salt energy storage system; there are wind systems as well.

Constant supply has its own issues, as it can be inflexible. E.g. it is not easy to modulate coal or nuclear plans, and constantly changing generation can strain existing equipment, which increases costs, maintenance and risk. I.e. constant sources are not without their own problems.

Look at the costs of molten systems...
 
That doesn't change the fact that the cost of sustainable energy has steadily dropped over time, and is nearly at parity with fossil fuels.

E.g. in Germany in 2013, coal costs 38-80 Mwh/Euro; wind was 45-107 for onshore, and up to 145 for offshore; solar 78-142. Keep in mind that doesn't include the costs relation to pollution, which are high for coal and very low for wind/solar. Germany expects solar and wind to be cheaper to generate than nuclear by 2025.

About 1/3 of Germany's energy is generated by sustainable sources:

fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2016.png


Germany still has lots of issues with its energy supply. The grid has problems keeping up; coal plants are hard to shut down, as they can be lucrative and are more consistent; they're also trying to phase out nuclear power. All things to take note of, but again doesn't change how solar and wind prices are dropping fast.

That gets it about right. The infrastructure must be massively rebuilt which is costly and the population has to pay much more in Germany than it would otherwise have to. But as you say, new plant is falling in price and is now beginning to become competitive for certain situations. This will continue to improve. So, it has been better to wait.
 
Ok, i will bight.

Your statement makes no sense to me so i will just start by a simple wiki link.

Just at even a casual glance i would find it difficult not to make a relationship between the two.

I can name some foolish economists who can make the same link. Can you name the fool who claims there is no link?

The market is not the pure determination of cost of energy.
 
The market is not the pure determination of cost of energy.

That is a silly statement. the market is not a pure determination of cost of cattle feed either but that does not deny it a part in the economic market.
And certainly the price of energy can and does effect the costs of other basic products. As well as being a cost on its own.

If your trying for some kind of point that oil companies are not big enough or powerful enough to put any blame on then your obscure method of doing so is failing .
 
Transmission and distribution is the problem.

and it's a solvable problem. A lot of our power is hydroelectric. The dams don't happen to be in the cities where the power is needed, so there are high voltage transmission lines to move it from one place to another.
 
and it's a solvable problem. A lot of our power is hydroelectric. The dams don't happen to be in the cities where the power is needed, so there are high voltage transmission lines to move it from one place to another.

No I think you're misunderstanding me. The further one has to move electricity from it's source the more is lost in transmission.
 
Transmission and distribution is the problem.

and it's a solvable problem. A lot of our power is hydroelectric. The dams don't happen to be in the cities where the power is needed, so there are high voltage transmission lines to move it from one place to another.

Los Angeles gets 3.1 GigaWatts of power from Oregon, from the Pacific DC Intertie. These systems are not cheap, and Path 65 possible would have never been built, if at the time, there wasn't so much extra hydro-power available, than what the northwest could use.

I am all for the expenditures of HVDC systems. One of the few things I think our government should do.

An expansion beyond what BPA is planning would be good. There is the desire for wind farms, but no place nearby to use the power. Desert where solar is effective are also rather long distances from consumers and would benefit from an HVDC infrastructure.
 
No I think you're misunderstanding me. The further one has to move electricity from it's source the more is lost in transmission.

Very little is lost at 500 KV DC.
 
Here is an article on fossil fuel subsidies.

US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge

And now my opinion.

Wind, biofuel, and solar are great sure. But as stated above, storing and transmitting is a problem. That's why I've always been in favor of a tidal generator system along both coasts, and an overhaul of our powerline systems. Need to bury em to protect from solar flares, hurricanes, and drunk drivers.

Right now tidalenergy would be expensive to implement, but if we worked on it the costs would come down, like most things. And would be way more reliable than sun or wind.

Another great energy source we need to focus on over wind or solar is geothermal. Believe it or not, fracking is the answer here. We just to frack deeper than we are now.

I think we are focusing on the wrong type of renewable energy, and I think we need to end the tax breaks to fossil fuel,and use that tax money to develop the right kinds of renewable. Obama picked losers, I think on purpose. But I can't prove it.
 
My prediction is that Solar Energy will be the main energy source by 2050, and that during the second half of the century we will have the new Industrial revolution based on Solar Energy. I did study the subject thoroughly.
 
Currently the world uses 104 trillion kWh of energy. But given 40% efficiency of most power stations it is actually about 40 trillion kWh final energy. With Solar Power, it would be easy to increase energy production 60 times -- which would be the Industrial Revolution of 2050 -- 2100.
 
Here is an article on fossil fuel subsidies.

US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge

And now my opinion.

Wind, biofuel, and solar are great sure. But as stated above, storing and transmitting is a problem. That's why I've always been in favor of a tidal generator system along both coasts, and an overhaul of our powerline systems. Need to bury em to protect from solar flares, hurricanes, and drunk drivers.

Right now tidalenergy would be expensive to implement, but if we worked on it the costs would come down, like most things. And would be way more reliable than sun or wind.

Another great energy source we need to focus on over wind or solar is geothermal. Believe it or not, fracking is the answer here. We just to frack deeper than we are now.

I think we are focusing on the wrong type of renewable energy, and I think we need to end the tax breaks to fossil fuel,and use that tax money to develop the right kinds of renewable. Obama picked losers, I think on purpose. But I can't prove it.

First off, I am skeptical of the so-called facts by a journalist of politician when they misuse words. They are using the word "subsidy"incorrect, which means they are perpetrating a lie, or they are ignorant of the facts. Either way, the integrity of the article is corrupt.

I am a fan of solar and geothermal, but not wind, tidal, or biofuels. I have already voiced my views of HVDC systems.

As for tax breaks, subsidies, etc. We shouldn't be subsidizing any corporate ventures.
 
Currently the world uses 104 trillion kWh of energy. But given 40% efficiency of most power stations it is actually about 40 trillion kWh final energy. With Solar Power, it would be easy to increase energy production 60 times -- which would be the Industrial Revolution of 2050 -- 2100.

Do you have a source for the efficiency?

I think it's a bit higher than that.
 
The Germans have found that alternative energy has been considerably more expensive than traditional sources.

Unfortunately, according to 1770 data waterwheels provide much less expensive power then the steam engine despite James Watt's improvements. Thus, like steam power in its day, Photo-voltaic electricity needs to grow and evolve.
 
Like here. I have studied energy conversion for many years.

So you are speaking of the actual energy efficiency. Not power transfers.

Infrastructure and transmission losses should also be used.
 
No I think you're misunderstanding me. The further one has to move electricity from it's source the more is lost in transmission.

That's true. We can't be moving power all across the country, but we can move it quite a way, and we do it all the time.
 
First off, I am skeptical of the so-called facts by a journalist of politician when they misuse words. They are using the word "subsidy"incorrect, which means they are perpetrating a lie, or they are ignorant of the facts. Either way, the integrity of the article is corrupt.

I am a fan of solar and geothermal, but not wind, tidal, or biofuels. I have already voiced my views of HVDC systems.

As for tax breaks, subsidies, etc. We shouldn't be subsidizing any corporate ventures.

I don't actually care what you think a subsidy is, in the real world, when the governement gives an incentive in either a tax break or a cash payment it's a subsidy. The article even gives an example with BP and their oil spill clean up.

But I do agree we shouldn't subsidize any corporate venture at all, and that includes tax breaks.

Geothermal is the best longterm, but it's the one we are most behind on. Tidal would need an advance in tech to be economically viable, but it's closer than geothermal. Not a low hanging fruit, but maybe middle of the tree so to speak.
 
I don't actually care what you think a subsidy is, in the real world, when the governement gives an incentive in either a tax break or a cash payment it's a subsidy. The article even gives an example with BP and their oil spill clean up.

But I do agree we shouldn't subsidize any corporate venture at all, and that includes tax breaks.

Geothermal is the best longterm, but it's the one we are most behind on. Tidal would need an advance in tech to be economically viable, but it's closer than geothermal. Not a low hanging fruit, but maybe middle of the tree so to speak.

It's that lack of respect you have for word clarity that makes you an unreliable source for any fact.
 
It's that lack of respect you have for word clarity that makes you an unreliable source for any fact.

If an amount has to be paid to me, and I either give the person the money to pay me, or I just say don't worry about paying, the effect is the same. It's your dismissal of anything that doesn't fit neatly in your worldview that makes you an unreliable source.
 
If an amount has to be paid to me, and I either give the person the money to pay me, or I just say don't worry about paying, the effect is the same. It's your dismissal of anything that doesn't fit neatly in your worldview that makes you an unreliable source.

Words have meaning.

Remain ignorant if you wish. Just keep in mind that it shows worse than ignorance when continually used wrong after being pointed out.
 
I am still waiting for an all electric car that costs under 22-23K and has a range of at least 150 miles.

When/if that ever arrives, then I think EV's have a real chance at supplanting fossil fuel cars.
 
I am still waiting for an all electric car that costs under 22-23K and has a range of at least 150 miles.

When/if that ever arrives, then I think EV's have a real chance at supplanting fossil fuel cars.

Depends on how much replacement battery packs cost too. Now if they maintain at least 70% capacity for 100k miles, then maybe you're right.

I don't see that anything soon. Still, I would buy a Tesla if it was in my budget.
 
Back
Top Bottom