When Will We Next See Cheap Energy ?

[mongers]

Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.

Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?

You could always look it up yourself and decide ? 

Alternative just for a member of the demanding it on a plate generation here's all the figures you'll ever need:

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481

Click on the link to historical data, but NB this is quite a large XLS spreadsheet.

[Sheilbh]

Solar is not really anywhere near close to be cost-effective, simply due to the primitive technology involved, which hasn't really changed that much in decades*. Wind is much closer, especially once you account for externalities like health, security and environmental costs for other sources.

There's a number of problems with wind but it's by far the best so far and probably the most cost-effective.  But you need a good mix with hydro, biomass and all the rest.

Solar, from what I understand, isn't very cost-effective.  I read one paper that basically suggested that solar does very well because it's a bit sexy so politicians and the public are far more likely to support it.  Geo-thermal, hydro and wind power may be more effective but they're less well sold.

[mongers]

Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.

Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?

This is my source:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,783314,00.html

That article appears to be somewhat poor, it seems to assume electric generation is the same as total energy use.

[Iormlund]

Solar has one saving grace: it produces when it's most needed. Other than that and 'unplugged' applications, it's fairly crappy.

Geothermal is very situational. So is hydro (which is also environmentally damaging). Wind is, at least here, very popular. But then we've got some of the leading producers in the world like Gamesa.

Ideally what you want is a baseload of nuclear. Peak covered with wind and other renewables, plus whatever hydro you can get away with without farmers shooting your ass for robbing them of their precious water. Finally gas as backup.

[CountDeMoney]

We have cheap energy;  it's called nuclear.

[Sheilbh]

That article appears to be somewhat poor, it seems to assume electric generation is the same as total energy use.

Here's a bit more from a blog on German energy policy, mainly because it's in English:

BDEW: German Renewable Electricity Supply Exceeds 20% in First Half of 2011
Published on August 29, 2011 in Biomass, Renewable, Solar, Water and Wind. 0 Comments
Tags: bdew, statistics.
According to preliminary estimates by the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry (BDEW), renewable electricity supply in Germany exceeded 20% for the first time in the first six month of the year.

Electricity from renewable sources delivered some 57.3 billion kWh and covered 20.8% of the German electricity demand, compared with 50.4 billion kWh or 18.3% in the first half of 2010.

With a share of 7.5% (2010: 6,6%) wind power remains the most important renewable energy source in Germany, followed by biomass, which accounts for 5.6% (2010: 5.4%). Due to strong growth and the sunny spring months, PV was able to almost double its share from 2.0% to 3.5%, overtaking hydro power and coming in third. Hydro power contributed 3.3% after 3.6% in the same period last year. The change was due to the weather conditions, BDEW said. The share of 0.8% for renewable energy from waste power plants and other renewable energy sources remained unchanged.

The strong contribution of PV power reflects the tremendous capacity increase of 2010. A comparison with Q1 figures by BDEW, which showed PV still in fourth place with a share of 1.9%, demonstrates the possible contribution of solar in Germany if weather conditions are favourable. On the whole, the results fit in well with the governments aim of reaching a 35% renewable energy share by 2020, as recently put down in Section 1 para. 2 of the amended Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2012).

Source: BDEW

But on consumption the German Ministry of Energy ( http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Navigation/Energie/Statistik-und-Prognosen/Energiedaten/energiegewinnung-energieverbrauch.html ) both have energy consumption from renewables at just under 10% and just over for 2010 and 2011 respectively.  They seem to account for imported electricity too.  Eurostat seem a bit more generous, but I don't know if I'm reading them right.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, I'm not sure how that affects what I've said though?

You don't achieve scale economies by paying for your fixed capital costs up front, you achieve them by having a given amount of fixed capital investment generate more output.

[Tonitrus]

I remember back when I lived in San Antonio, thinking that the roofs of all the cheap-ass houses they build there would be a great platform for solar.

Of course, probably one good Texas hail storm would wipe that all out.

[Ideologue]

It's about 25% or so in the US's energy mix, which is behind oil but increasing.  It's about 40% in the UK, and I think we've been producing it for longer too.  It's not so far behind oil that its got no economy of scale - like some renewables.

Are you saying renewables do or do not enjoy scale economies?

As to monger's original question, I imagine the real price of gasoline is pretty low by historical standards.

Well, a gallon of gas today is far cheaper than the first gallon pumped out of Texas or the last gallon to come out of Ploesti, I suppose.

So is hydro (which is also environmentally damaging).

What?  Well, maybe if you're in Egypt or Arizona or something.  Our (southeastern U.S.) dams have limited environmental impact.

If someone wants to live in a desert and use their water supplies to generate electricity instead of stay alive, that seems like a personal problem.

Anyway, the answer is still solar (or "off-site fusion").  There's no reason we should not invest billions into it, either in terrestrial or spaceborne solar collectors.  It works.  It's already there, being wasted by being reflected or reradiated into outer space.

I would say fission, but afaik usable fission materials have the same finite nature as oil, and in any event there are better uses for them than electricity generation, like genocide or space arks.  I suppose it might be useful in the short term while solar infrastructure is developed.

[Sheilbh]

I remember back when I lived in San Antonio, thinking that the roofs of all the cheap-ass houses they build there would be a great platform for solar.

This is an aspect of the German system - and one that's beginning to be encouraged elsewhere in Europe.  If you install a solar panel, or windmill on your property (tax deductible) then you can sign a long-term deal with energy providers that gives a guaranteed price per kw.  That way you power your house/property and get paid for any excess which is pumped into the mains.

So I think a lot of the reason Germany's got so much solar capacity is because individual homes, farms and businesses have installed solar panels in the hope of producing enough power to cover themselves and a little excess.  Possibly a poor investment on their part.

Anyway, the answer is still solar (or "off-site fusion").  There's no reason we should not invest billions into it, either in terrestrial or spaceborne solar collectors.  It works.  It's already there, being wasted by being reflected or reradiated into outer space.

I prefer the offshore wind farms.

[Tonitrus]

We could start putting the homeless/criminals/etc onto giant hamster wheels to generate power.

Or Wheels of Pain, like in Conan.

[Zanza]

Solar in Germany is a massive misinvestment. The power consumers, i.e. the average citizens (because industrial power consumers get other rates), will have to pay for that shit for the next two decades. Something like 80 billion Euro or so IIRC. It's completely pointless and only motivated by the ideology of the Green Party.

Wind power on land is so-so, but at least the subsidies there aren't as high.

Wind power at sea in big offshore parks seems to be a competitive source of power and we currently invest billions in that.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I can't recall what the feed-in tariff for solar was in Germany, but it was 41p/kWh here in the UK. To be paid by increasing the bills of your fellow electricity consumers. In the UK that would give a return of something like 8-10% (more if you installed in the past few months as panel prices fell). I contemplated fitting solar panels when we had our roof renewed but decided not to on the grounds that it would be an immoral move.

[Admiral Yi]

I can't recall what the feed-in tariff for solar was in Germany, but it was 41p/kWh here in the UK. To be paid by increasing the bills of your fellow electricity consumers. In the UK that would give a return of something like 8-10% (more if you installed in the past few months as panel prices fell). I contemplated fitting solar panels when we had our roof renewed but decided not to on the grounds that it would be an immoral move.

Presumably you could also be hosed down the road if they lowered the rates.

[The Brain]

Sunshine belongs to everyone. Trapping it for your own use seems a tad selfish.