Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[jimmy olsen]

Nice   

https://thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-keep-getting-cheaper-33c38350fb95/

New study reaches a stunning conclusion about the cost of solar and wind energy

Building new renewables is now cheaper than just running old coal and nuclear plants.

Joe Romm Nov 20, 2017, 11:34 am

In one of the fastest and most astonishing turnarounds in the history of energy, building and running new renewable energy is now cheaper than just running existing coal and nuclear plants in many areas.

A widely-used yearly benchmarking study — the Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE) from the financial firm Lazard Ltd. — reached this stunning conclusion: In many regions "the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear."

Lazard focused on the cost of a power for a plant over its entire lifetime in North America, and how the "increasing economic advantage of renewables in the U.S." will drive even deeper penetration of solar and wind here.

But Lazard also makes a key global point: It's more expensive to operate conventional energy sources in the developing world than it is in the United States. So the advantage renewables have over conventional sources is even larger in the rapidly growing electricity markets like India and China.

Since power from new renewables is cheaper than power from existing coal and nuclear, it's no surprise that the lifetime cost of new renewables is much cheaper than new coal and nuclear power. And that gap is growing.




Lazard notes that in North America, the cost for utility scale solar and wind power dropped 6 percent last year, while the price for coal remained flat and the cost of nuclear soared. "The estimated levelized cost of energy for nuclear generation increased ~35 percent versus prior estimates, reflecting increased capital costs at various nuclear facilities currently in development," the analysis found.

Indeed, as Lazard shows in this remarkable chart, while solar and wind have dropped dramatically in price since 2009, nuclear power has simply priced itself out of the market for new power.

The lifecycle cost of electricity from new nuclear plants is now $148 per megawatt-hour, or 14.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, while it is 5 c/kwh for utility scale solar and 4.5 c/kwh for wind. By comparison, the average price for electricity in United States is 11 cents per kWh.

So it's no big shock that there's only one new nuclear power plant still being built in the United States — or that even existing power plants are struggling to stay competitive.

Indeed, over half of all existing U.S. nuclear power plants are "bleeding cash," according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report released earlier this summer. Even the draft report from the U.S. Department of Energy staff for Secretary Rick Perry conceded that coal and nuclear are simply no longer economic.

Right now, as the chart above shows, new solar and wind are actually cheaper than new gas plants. The variability of solar and wind still give new gas power an edge in some markets. But with the price of electricity storage, especially lithium-ion batteries, coming down sharply, the future of renewable energy is sunnier than ever.

[Valmy]

Nice   

I told you Tim. All the Solar and Wind people told me this when I was asking them about the future of the industry two years ago. The tipping point is way in the rear-view mirror now. It is really up to the battery people now to complete the revolution.

[CountDeMoney]

Nuclear power is no longer economic because we choose not to make it economic.  Funny how the French have no problem doing that.

[mongers]

Nuclear power is no longer economic because we choose not to make it economic.  Funny how the French have no problem doing that.

It's also saved them producing several billions of tonnes of CO2 down the years. 

[CountDeMoney]

Nuclear power is no longer economic because we choose not to make it economic.  Funny how the French have no problem doing that.

It's also saved them producing several billions of tonnes of CO2 down the years. 

As well as become the world's largest net exporter of electrical generation by TWh.  Holy shit, imagine that.

[Valmy]

Nukes were making progress but then Fukushima happened and that is pretty much that.

[CountDeMoney]

Nukes were making progress but then Fukushima happened and that is pretty much that.

Yeah, I could see how those 9.0 earthquakes on the Richter scale and the resulting tsunami in the Mediterranean could make people sensitive.

[Valmy]

Nukes were making progress but then Fukushima happened and that is pretty much that.

Yeah, I could see how those 9.0 earthquakes on the Richter scale and the resulting tsunami in the Mediterranean could make people sensitive.

It was enough for the Germans to shut theirs all down. Hey I am not saying it was right just that there was already strong opposition to nukes and that made it incredibly unlikely it would ever be overcome.

[garbon]

Nuclear power is no longer economic because we choose not to make it economic.  Funny how the French have no problem doing that.

It's also saved them producing several billions of tonnes of CO2 down the years. 

And yet they are responsible for pollution in London.

[CountDeMoney]

Nukes were making progress but then Fukushima happened and that is pretty much that.

Yeah, I could see how those 9.0 earthquakes on the Richter scale and the resulting tsunami in the Mediterranean could make people sensitive.

It was enough for the Germans to shut theirs all down. Hey I am not saying it was right just that there was already strong opposition to nukes and that made it incredibly unlikely it would ever be overcome.

Germans never do anything in moderation, you know that. 

[Duque de Bragança]

Nukes were making progress but then Fukushima happened and that is pretty much that.

Yeah, I could see how those 9.0 earthquakes on the Richter scale and the resulting tsunami in the Mediterranean could make people sensitive.

It was enough for the Germans to shut theirs all down. Hey I am not saying it was right just that there was already strong opposition to nukes and that made it incredibly unlikely it would ever be overcome.

Germans like their coal plants too.

[The Larch]

Nuclear power is no longer economic because we choose not to make it economic.  Funny how the French have no problem doing that.

They are not expanding their nuclear power base either. The one new reactor they've been building since 2007 is way over budget and over schedule because of safety issues, and the one they had planned got shelved after Fukushima. It's sensible to keep the existing plants up and running, but nuclear power is not going to expand.

[Duque de Bragança]

Hard to expand when the nuclear part of the electrical power mix is around 80 %.
Plans were changed recently, instead of reaching 50 % of renewable energy in 2025 now 2050 it is.

But yes, Flamanville has seen many screw-ups, some of them linked to cheap attempts at saving money actually.

[jimmy olsen]

Looks like California will reach its goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030 in 2020!

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-may-reach-50-renewable-power-goal-by-12354313.php

[The Larch]

Hard to expand when the nuclear part of the electrical power mix is around 80 %.
Plans were changed recently, instead of reaching 50 % of renewable energy in 2025 now 2050 it is.

But yes, Flamanville has seen many screw-ups, some of them linked to cheap attempts at saving money actually.

What I meant to say is that not even in France, the most nuclear friendly country in Europe, are there plans in place to expand nuclear power. And if that's not happening during the phasing out of coal powered plants all over the continent, it's not going to happen any other time.