Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[SunEagle]

Maybe he meant $0.0299/kWh? Supposedly that's what the bids came in at for phase III of the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park. It's not alone; there are others in the same ballpark. In the US, low bids are a bit higher, like $0.06/kWh.

See https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/20...arubeni-score/ for a list.

The DOE feels that in the next decade and 1/2 Utility size arrays will come in at $0.03/kWh, commercial at $0.04/kWh and residential at $0.05/kWh so the amount stated is not off the mark.

[DanKegel]

And will be in the dark for part of the day unless they find a way to cover what RE doesn't.

Right, so 90% is a more likely target. Nothing wrong with aiming high, though.

Clear, simple proposals like "100% clean" or "build a wall" seem to resonate well with people, and get people lined up towards the real goal, which might be slightly different (like "90% clean" or "discourage immigration").

[DanKegel]

$0.0299 / W? This isn't correct.

Maybe he meant $0.0299/kWh? Supposedly that's what the bids came in at for phase III of the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park. It's not alone; there are others in the same ballpark. In the US, low bids are a bit higher, like $0.06/kWh.

Admin Note, no links to that website please

[SunEagle]

Looks like 47 of the world's poorest countries are aiming for 100% renewable energy: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38028130
so the folks involved seem to think it's doable.

In a way, it might be easier for them, since for currently unserved areas they can bypass fossil fuel and go straight to renewables.

And will be in the dark for part of the day unless they find a way to cover what RE doesn't. Don't say energy storage will do it because IMO that is still a way off for most of those countries.

Look wanting to do something and being able to do is are two completely different things. I can say one thing in public to get the worlds approval then in private I can say well that may get some people off my back now lets get back to what we can really do.

[DanKegel]

I agree that 90% is doable for some parts of the world but IMO only a very very small % can do it. ...IMO would be very hard since a large portion of the world population is still in the renaissance of their industrial period and are hungry for electrical power consumption. It will be hard to hold them back on expanding what they consume let alone how they generate that power.

Looks like 47 of the world's poorest countries are aiming for 100% renewable energy: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38028130
so the folks involved seem to think it's doable.

In a way, it might be easier for them, since for currently unserved areas they can bypass fossil fuel and go straight to renewables.

[HollySprings]

The most fair and practical way to combat climate change is to implement a carbon tax so that the effect of dumping carbon in the atmosphere is account for in the price of fossil fuels. The USA then should get rid of all subsides for fossil fuels, wind and solar. What I do personally has little effect on carbon since I only make up %,000000001 percent of the human carbon output. Solar is dropping rapidly in price and the fossil fuel companies are scared and putting serious money in a disinformation campaign. Solar energy is already produces 7.5% of California's electricity. With much cheaper solar panels solar panels will provide for cheaper and cleaner energy. We already have utility scale solar at 2.99 cents a watt and within 5 to 10 years 1 cent a watt will be achieved and if you think at a penny a watt people won't be building solar power plants like crazy, you aren't super sharp.

$0.0299 / W? This isn't correct. Canadian Solar, in their SEC 20-F filing, shows their average sales price per W for their solar modules as $0.58 for the year ending 12/31/2015. I think they are just under $0.50 now, for the average selling price, with container pricing being the cheapest... but not close to $0.0299 / W.

[SunEagle]

100%, perhaps. But 90%, now that's another matter. And 90% would be a great place to be by 2040.

It's clearly possible to provide enough storage - and shift enough load to daytime, and reduce enough load with efficiency improvements - to cover a very large % of usage with a combination of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. The question is schedule and cost.

I agree that 90% is doable for some parts of the world but IMO only a very very small % can do it. The logistics just makes it very hard and expensive when it comes to storage and transmission.

Maybe when I am in a better mood I would agree to more than 50% but even that would take an extreme step in conservation and efficiency improvements which IMO would be very hard since a large portion of the world population is still in the renaissance of their industrial period and are hungry for electrical power consumption. It will be hard to hold them back on expanding what they consume let alone how they generate that power.

[DanKegel]

Solar, even assisted with other forms of RE just can't supply enough power 24/7/365 to fill 100% of the needs of the worlds appetite. Fossil fuel has to be part of the mix even if you don't believe so.

100%, perhaps. But 90%, now that's another matter. And 90% would be a great place to be by 2040.

It's clearly possible to provide enough storage - and shift enough load to daytime, and reduce enough load with efficiency improvements - to cover a very large % of usage with a combination of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. The question is schedule and cost.

[DanKegel]

I'll share that salient and insightful wisdom will my water company, and, while I'm at it, with SDG & E. I'm sure they'll treat it as profound, something no one's thought of yet, and give it all the attention it deserves.

? I'm just describing standard practice.

[SunEagle]

The most fair and practical way to combat climate change is to implement a carbon tax so that the effect of dumping carbon in the atmosphere is account for in the price of fossil fuels. The USA then should get rid of all subsides for fossil fuels, wind and solar. What I do personally has little effect on carbon since I only make up %,000000001 percent of the human carbon output. Solar is dropping rapidly in price and the fossil fuel companies are scared and putting serious money in a disinformation campaign. Solar energy is already produces 7.5% of California's electricity. With much cheaper solar panels solar panels will provide for cheaper and cleaner energy. We already have utility scale solar at 2.99 cents a watt and within 5 to 10 years 1 cent a watt will be achieved and if you think at a penny a watt people won't be building solar power plants like crazy, you aren't super sharp.

I guess time will tell who is correct. 'Those that think that price is the only thing holding back more solar or those that think (or know) a little more about the physical science of how power is generated and how it is delivered to the consumers of the US and other countries.

Heck even Bangladesh which is a developing country that wants to go with more RE will still be building coal fired generating plants because it needs more cheap power for it's people.

Solar, even assisted with other forms of RE just can't supply enough power 24/7/365 to fill 100% of the needs of the worlds appetite. Fossil fuel has to be part of the mix even if you don't believe so.

[word]

The most fair and practical way to combat climate change is to implement a carbon tax so that the effect of dumping carbon in the atmosphere is account for in the price of fossil fuels. The USA then should get rid of all subsides for fossil fuels, wind and solar. What I do personally has little effect on carbon since I only make up %,000000001 percent of the human carbon output. Solar is dropping rapidly in price and the fossil fuel companies are scared and putting serious money in a disinformation campaign. Solar energy is already produces 7.5% of California's electricity. With much cheaper solar panels solar panels will provide for cheaper and cleaner energy. We already have utility scale solar at 2.99 cents a watt and within 5 to 10 years 1 cent a watt will be achieved and if you think at a penny a watt people won't be building solar power plants like crazy, you aren't super sharp.

[J.P.M.]

The boundary between fixed and variable costs is flexible. Utilities and their regulators can and have pushed costs in one category to the other to meet some policy goal.
The goals "use less water" and "don't go broke" can both be achieved by allocating more of the fixed costs to people who use an "unfair" amount of water, and this has been seen as good and fair policy at times.

I'll share that salient and insightful wisdom will my water company, and, while I'm at it, with SDG & E. I'm sure they'll treat it as profound, something no one's thought of yet, and give it all the attention it deserves.

[J.P.M.]

You are including data for heating which is misleading since the thread was implicitly discussing electricity, not total energy. It is amazing how much money fossil fuel interests and electric companies make, and it is amazing how much people will mislead when it is in their economic interest. The electric companies and especially the fossil fuel companies are rightly afraid of competition. Wholesale solar panels prices are now at 39 cents a watt vs $1.60, with prices headed drastically lower. The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

Well, I actually cited production data by source of fuel, and to repeat, from Holly Springs cited source BTW, not only for heating as you incorrectly state, but for total energy production from all sources.

You may think the discussion was, is, or ought to be confined to electrical production to the exclusion of everything else.

I do not.

IMO, seeing the situation as one of electrical production only, as you seem to want to do, is a sociologically and economically limited and somewhat ignorant outlook, and is, of its own right, misleading. I'd respectfully suggest you get informed and look at the bigger picture instead of repeating out of context information of which you seem to be at best, incompletely informed. Consider the concept that there may be more to this than you know.

Furthermore, limiting the discussion only to electrical consumption seems a bit simplistic and perhaps deceiving when talking of energy matters. An example: At this time the portion of total U.S. electrical production that goes to power vehicle transportation is miniscule. I don't know what the future holds, but at some point the amount of electrical production devoted to transportation may well increase, perhaps substantially if/when EV's take off, changing the mix a bit - or a lot. Looking at the bigger picture of how energy is produced as well as used helps to broaden one's outlook.

If you consider energy companies as a contributor to a sad footnote to human greed, I'd further and also respectfully suggest you make your actions follow what seems to be the sense of your words and concentrate your efforts more on using less of their product. It'll be better for the planet, you'll get the most bang for your buck, and you'll save the most $$.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[HollySprings]

Thanks J.P.M. for the civil discussion. You are indeed correct, I am looking at 'energy' only from electricity production. I don't see the drop in renewables from 11.28% in 2014 to 10.86% in 2015 and assume this may have been a cut/paste typo. Clearly some areas are better for 'harvesting' wind or solar, just like most commodities. NC has 0 wind production today. NC also has 0 offshore oil drilling today. Time will tell if those numbers change.

In the complete energy picture, I don't think that carbon based fuels are going away anytime soon. Capital life cycles are long.

Not sure if I am allowed to post the links below, but from what I can tell some states have more wind energy production that their coal fired counterparts... and I speculate that if trends continue solar PV could in some states do the same at some point. Maybe 10 years?

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_14_b

Table 1.14.B. Utility Scale Facility Net Generation from Wind
by State, by Sector, Year-to-Date through August 2016 and 2015 (Thousand Megawatthours)
South Dakota 1,957 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/month...?t=epmt_1_04_b
Table 1.4.B. Utility Scale Facility Net Generation from Coal
by State, by Sector, Year-to-Date through August 2016 and 2015 (Thousand Megawatthours)
South Dakota 1,506

[Sunking]

The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

You are as big of a fool as Dan, completely delusional.