Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[Monoriu]

Speaking of China, Mono.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/may/13/tantalisingly-close-is-solar-thermal-energy-ready-to-replace-coal-fired-power

Chinese company Shenhua Coal, which signed a memorandum of understanding with SolarReserve last week to build ten, large-scale solar tower and storage plants in China, totalling more than 1,000MW and at a cost of $2bn.

That is the funny part. For all of Mono's bluster the Chinese have been big leaders in this process.

What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year

[Valmy]

What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

[Monoriu]

What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.  The consequences of burning coal are not suffered by the ones who burn the coal.  They are shared and diluted.  There needs to be extra economic incentives for people to switch to wind or solar.  A car is obviously better than a horse for the guy who buys the car.  Building wind turbines isn't necessarily better than burning coal for the local party chief. 

[Valmy]

What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.  The consequences of burning coal are not suffered by the ones who burn the coal.  They are shared and diluted.  There needs to be extra economic incentives for people to switch to wind or solar.  A car is obviously better than a horse for the guy who buys the car.  Building wind turbines isn't necessarily better than burning coal for the local party chief. 

No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

[Monoriu]

No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus

[Valmy]

No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus

What is your obsession with global warming? The Republicans in Texas are driving this and they think global warming is a liberal plot to destroy the US economy

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.

The US EIA is due to revised their levelized cost estimates (incorporates capital and variable cost), but for 2015 they were:

Onshore Wind: 73
Natural gas (conventional CC): 75.2
Hydro: 83.5
Conventional coal: 95.1
Nuclear: 95.2
Solar PV: 125.3
Offshore wind: 196.9

Coal is not particularly cheap as a power generation method.  Gas and onshore wind is cheaper, solar PV is more expensive but not by ridiculous amounts. But what is more significant is that only a few years ago (2011), the same analysis showed more than 100% price premium for solar, which was then over 200.  So the cost trend is clearly in favor of solar.

PRC costs may be differ from the above which are calculated for the US, but I suspect that some of the pressure for coal in the PRC is due to both the relative abundance of domestic resources, and the power of the existing business lobby in the counsels of the Party.

[Monoriu]

No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus

What is your obsession with global warming? The Republicans in Texas are driving this and they think global warming is a liberal plot to destroy the US economy

I think global warming is the greatest prisoners' dilemma ever.  The best solution for each individual is for him to burn coal while others spend money to switch to solar.   I think we are all doomed, because you will betray me, and I will betray you. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The Republicans in Texas are driving this and they think global warming is a liberal plot to destroy the US economy

The cost curve is coming down and Texas has plenty of land, sun and wind.
Market economics FTW

[Monoriu]

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.

The US EIA is due to revised their levelized cost estimates (incorporates capital and variable cost), but for 2015 they were:

Onshore Wind: 73
Natural gas (conventional CC): 75.2
Hydro: 83.5
Conventional coal: 95.1
Nuclear: 95.2
Solar PV: 125.3
Offshore wind: 196.9

Coal is not particularly cheap as a power generation method.  Gas and onshore wind is cheaper, solar PV is more expensive but not by ridiculous amounts. But what is more significant is that only a few years ago (2011), the same analysis showed more than 100% price premium for solar, which was then over 200.  So the cost trend is clearly in favor of solar.

PRC costs may be differ from the above which are calculated for the US, but I suspect that some of the pressure for coal in the PRC is due to both the relative abundance of domestic resources, and the power of the existing business lobby in the counsels of the Party.

I read somewhere that as many Chinese coal miners die each year as the US lost in 911.  I think the cost structure in China is different, with coal being markedly cheaper as there is no incentive to invest in safety precautions

[Valmy]

I read somewhere that as many Chinese coal miners die each year as the US lost in 911.  I think the cost structure in China is different, with coal being markedly cheaper as there is no incentive to invest in safety precautions

Yet they are spending tons of money on solar and wind technology and have shown a real commitment to being world leaders in this area. We will see.

[Valmy]

I think global warming is the greatest prisoners' dilemma ever.  The best solution for each individual is for him to burn coal while others spend money to switch to solar.   I think we are all doomed, because you will betray me, and I will betray you. 

The money is already spent Mono. Time to reap the benefits.

[The Minsky Moment]

I read somewhere that as many Chinese coal miners die each year as the US lost in 911.  I think the cost structure in China is different, with coal being markedly cheaper as there is no incentive to invest in safety precautions

But then nuclear should be a bargain ...

[jimmy olsen]

What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.  The consequences of burning coal are not suffered by the ones who burn the coal.  They are shared and diluted.  There needs to be extra economic incentives for people to switch to wind or solar.  A car is obviously better than a horse for the guy who buys the car.  Building wind turbines isn't necessarily better than burning coal for the local party chief.

That's just not true. Coal companies are going bankrupt all over the world because a combination of natural gas, solar and wind are able to consistently undersell them.

[Monoriu]

That's just not true. Coal companies are going bankrupt all over the world because a combination of natural gas, solar and wind are able to consistently undersell them.

You mean these companies, right? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunEdison

Following years of major expansion and the announcement of the intent – which eventually fell through – to acquire the residential-rooftop solar company Vivint Solar in 2015, SunEdison's stock plummeted and its more than $11 billion in debt caused it to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 21, 2016