Solar Power More Economical Than Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear In Texas

25 Comments on "Solar Power More Economical Than Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear In Texas"

Arthur on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 7:50 pm 



Bad news for the doomer fundamentalists.

bobinget on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 8:15 pm 



Yeah but the seven or eight cent per is based on Today’s price for gas. Almost everyone agrees, it’s almost impossible to make money at today’s gas prices. A person can make the argument that NG prices will never go much higher (than $4.50) in which cases
energy companies will simply stop drilling for gas.

Or one can hope for shortages on account of low prices hoping low prices will cure low prices.

Solar technology is leaping forward both on the manufacturing and efficiency angles. Even if PV price
stabilizes, in 2014 dollars, in a few years either NG
is No More or it’s futures price makes it better suited to make plastics and fertilizer than burning to power
that wall to wall TV.

Depending on region, wind, hydro, geothermal
should eventually surpass gas as cheaper BASE power.

Owning too much stigma, nuclear power may never
rule .. (always add the little word ‘may’)

meld on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 8:28 pm 



Yawn….we’ve read it all before. We have a liquid fuels crisis ( which globalisation, transport and food growing/delivery works off) Air conditioning and icrap are pretty much the least important part of the equation here, that’s why articles like this are useless

Joe Clarkson on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 8:32 pm 



Two things to keep in mind: 1)Solar provides energy only, not capacity, so the capacity payments for coal and gas to back up solar should be included in the solar price per kWh. 2) While I am a big fan of solar PV (I have used it for 27 years to power my off-grid house), solar is still very capital intensive compared with gas or even coal. The politicians, and the voters who elect them, don’t want to pay the huge price of converting our existing energy system to renewables. That price should have been paid gradually over decades; now it is too late.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 9:44 pm 



Arthur, being a mild doomer fundamentalist I am sorry but solar will not save us. It will be part of the equation in mitigating our energy decent. But in the end it is a dead end technology.

Meld, great point to emphasize the real issues and that is liquid fuels! It will be the weak link that brings the other fuel sources down.

Joe said – 1) Solar provides energy only, not capacity, so the capacity payments for coal and gas to back up solar should be included in the solar price per kWh. 2) While I am a big fan of solar PV (I have used it for 27 years to power my off-grid house), solar is still very capital intensive compared with gas or even coal

Joe, so true, this is why it will be so hard for Europe to reach their goals of maximizing AltE power sources. The cost and complexities are so great. I have a solar system I use as a side by side source for my home and barn. I am still preaching low tech, low cost, and dispersed solar to power the minimum basics. Let us forget about the big HP items in the home and let the grid handle these items. The important point is get as many home as possible powered in this side by side arrangement. I fully believe the very large renewable power sources we see talked about with starry eyes and jaw dropped amazement may get stranded when the grid destabilizes in the coming energy decent. If this happens then we will see very large investments wasted. I do not believe we should complicate the grid further. In fact we should now be working to simplify and disperse grid areas. These huge solar and wind farms I think are potential wasted investments. It would be far better to power up residential with Low –tech/power/cost systems. In the process we can teach new attitudes and lifestyles. Will this excite people, NO not in the US, but in the 3rd world it is working.

sunnyboy on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 9:56 pm 



The point here is that an investor can build a solar field, sell the power produced for 5 cents/kWhr and make a profit. If that’s true they will be popping up all over the place. I personally have been involved in two multi megawatt fields in the last 6 months. And the same investor wants more. He’s making a return better than the stock market.
Every kWhr produced offsets the same amount of fossil fuel based power. Less CO2 in the atmosphere.

GregT on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 10:31 pm 



I agree, the more solar PV, the sooner, the better. We need to end our reliance of FF based electric power generation, if we hope to avert a runaway greenhouse event. That being said, this article is not entirely factual.

From the Austin Business Journal:

City Council MAY give Austin Energy the go-ahead to negotiate a $525 million, 150-megawatt contract with solar electricity provider SunEdison at its March 20 meeting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/techflash/2014/03/austin-energy-to-power-about-14-000-homes-with.html

“The deal has already been deemed one of the lowest prices for solar energy by industry watchers.The contract relies on the current 30 percent federal Investment Tax Credit for solar energy, which is scheduled to be reduced to 10 percent in 2016. The reduction means solar prices could rise between 2016 and 2020, city documents state.”

If approved, could provide enough power for 14,000 homes by 2016. Austin, with a population of 1.5 million, still has a long ways to go before weening itself off of FFs.

Now for the doomer fundamentalism, as mentioned above, we are facing a liquid fuels crisis, solar does not address our main energy shortfall concerns. Keeping the lights on for a couple more decades, is of course, nice.

rockman on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 11:22 pm 



Unfortunately they don’t offer the rest of the details given in their own reference:”From a wind power plant, the estimate was 2.8¢/kWh to 3.8¢/kWh”. Which is about a third less then the stated solar costs. Probably why Texas produces as much wind power as the #2 and #3 states COMBINED.

Also something I tried to dig out but couldn’t find the distinction one way or the other: the cost comparison may include the cost of building the generating system. IOW if the cost of building a NEW NG or coal fired plant is included in the calculation but not the same cost for continuing to operate existing plants. So more economical when compared to building new systems but not compared to existing facilities. IOW new solar plants won’t replace existing NG/coal plants. But as I said it isn’t clear that this is the case. But it makes sense: the new solar plant has to recover $550 million + operational cost to just break even while existing NG/coal plants have recovered their caped and only have to pay fuel and operational costs.

Either their own reference says wind in Texas is still cheaper than solar.

Kenz300 on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 11:47 pm 



Elon Musk Thoughts on transitioning to 100% renewable energy – YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rce5RZHCzLk

ghung on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 12:19 am 



Yeah, Rock, I’m a little confused with the cost comparisons. Comparing apples and oranges can’t be done in a few paragraphs.

As for “… the cost comparison may include the cost of building the generating system. IOW if the cost of building a NEW NG or coal fired plant is included in the calculation but not the same cost for continuing to operate existing plants.”, a quick search for “Texas coal plant closures” showed mainly planned coal projects that have been canceled. No doubt coal and gas are being slated to fill the gap, in part. No worries though; that coal will get burned somewhere, probably in a dirtier fashion.

Joe Clarkson on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 1:07 am 



Aloha Kenz300,

I watched the Elon Musk presentation. Nothing he says is untrue, but much is left out. Just one example: while a 100×100 mile square of Arizona could supply all of the electricity we need, the PV modules alone needed to cover that much area would cost $512 billion. Add in site prep,installation and transmission and the cost goes to say $2 trillion, not including any storage. This amounts to about $20,000 per taxpayer (about 99 million people pay taxes).

Now consider that this only includes electricity, not transportation fuels. To electrify most transportation is possible, but it would also cost trillions of dollars. I expect that the overall cost of a full transition to renewables would be similar to every family purchasing a new home in addition to the one they are already purchasing or renting.

I doubt that very many people are now willing to make the kind of sacrifices needed to divert family financial resources to the energy changeover. Even if they were willing, it would take decades to make the switch. With peak oil and climate change upon us, we have run out of time.

Jimmy Carter called the effort needed for an energy transition the “moral equivalent of war”. It is a battle we have already lost.

PapaSmurf on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 2:11 am 



Joe,

100% of that is unsubstantiated. When you are going to say so definitively that something is impossible, you need to back it up with facts, not estimates that are pulled directly from your ass.

The transition is already underway. The doomer fundamentalists are just disappointed and trying to ignore it.

GregT on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 2:40 am 



Joe Clarkson,

You forgot about the debt that each taxpayer already owes. 170K per person, and growing. Not including CDSs, and unfunded liabilities. The next oil price shock will probably kill not only the markets, but the remains of the economy that is already on life support.

Carter was correct, we should have listened, but we didn’t. Too little too late. Plan accordingly, and get as far away from the clueless as possible.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:29 am 



Someone tell me why fundamentalist is added to doomer to give us a doomer fundamentalist? I consider myself a mild doomer and very flexible on the range of a correction, duration, and decent start.

GregT on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:49 am 



Davy,

Sounds like you’re more of a mild, but flexible, fundamentalist doomer. 🙂

Makati1 on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 4:28 am 



Well, there are no true renewables except mother nature’s conversion of sunlight into plants and those plants being converted to muscle power in animals. All of the other renewables talked about are not able to reproduce themselves 100% from their excess energy. Especially when all of the energy production is needed just to keep BAU from crashing. After all, that new power plant requires people to maintain them, roads to move stuff on that have to be maintained, power lines to distribute that power with more maintenance there, mines, smelters, machines, vehicles, and on and on. The total system is NEVER looked at in these articles because it would expose them for the fake hope they are.

I agree that sollar may ease the pain of contraction, but not much and not for long. The claim that a stand alone will last 25-30 years is a dream. Without replacement parts, ongoing maintenance and good luck, they may last 5-10 years. But, even that is something. We are planing a wind/solar mix for our farm as a stand alone system producing about 2,000 watts per day. Enough to power a well pump, very small fridge, and some lights and fans. Maybe a PC on the really sunny days. Fortunately, we have more sunny days than rain or clouds, and being less than 5 miles from the Pacific coast, it is always windy, so we should be ok. The cost of the system should be less than I have spent the last 5 years on electric in my condo.

BTW: Electric cost is about $0.31 KWh here in Makati.

PapaSmurf on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:05 am 



Most doomer fundamentalists have a religious ecstasy about them where they like to make predictions. Such as, “The End is Near” or other references to Judgement Day for our sins related to oil.

Oil seems to have almost a religious important to you, such that you will attack anyone that insults your Allah.

You twits come across as a religious cult similar to the Branch Davidians or the Muslim Brotherhood.

GregT on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:47 am 



Makati1,

“Well, there are no true renewables except mother nature’s conversion of sunlight into plants and those plants being converted to muscle power in animals.”

Correct, and the fossil fuels that we are rapidly burning, are nothing more than stored ancient sunlight. Tens of millions of years worth. The storage of which, allowed life as we know it to exist on the planet Earth. Putting tens of millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 back into the environment in less than 2 centuries, was a really stupid thing to do. We have screwed up in a big way, and now we are going to pay the consequences.

Some of us still believe that we are above nature. We are all in for a very rude awakening. Nature could care less about us humans. We were nothing more than a mere blip in the grand scheme of things. The planet Earth has all of the time in the world, human beings, do not.

Joe Clarkson on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 7:52 am 



Does anyone ever respond to PapaSmurf’s posts, or is it best just to ignore him?

Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 11:14 am 



Joe, PoopSmurf on rare occasions adds something worthwhile to read. His rants betray his mental conditions. It makes for good mental exercise if you do correspond with him. I actually get more stirred up by the anti-Americanism here that I feel is applied in a generic application. I told Gav I would chill and let it slide since these folks are not going to change and my battle with them is repetitious.

Poop thanks for the update on doomer fundamentalist. I am always open to education. I do believe there are DF’s out there on the net. I sincerely don’t think the doomers here have a religious bend. I just don’t get much religious bends here. The doomers here are for sure influenced by PO and all the other related predicaments our global society is in. I tend to be a mild doomer because I feel there is no sure case for status quo BAU’s immediate or severe collapse. It could be a Kunstler “long emergency”. Since the advent of the nuclear age complete collapse is a button push away so there is no way to shelve it as a possibility. We now have the added complications of overshoot, energy predicament, and a financial Ponzi scheme of global debt. These issues I feel are so great that they warrant a mild doomer stance strictly in a scientific sense.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 11:35 am 



Makati, total agreement on your solar summary. I too have a small system similar to your planned system. I have a diesel welder on wheels that functions as a generator. I use this to power up the batteries on bad winter weather periods. I usually have 1500 gal diesel on the farm at any time. I have a wood stove and plenty of wood heat. My 480 sq/ft oak log cabin is very easy to cool being a shotgun style design. I am in good shape for power. But like you say in a contraction, I am good until something breaks and there is no spare parts. My diesel may run out too. So in the end it is 100% sunlight renewables, animal/human muscle, and mechanical wind. I am a big believer in “LOW” – tech, power, and cost solar for a bottom up plan for the coming contraction. This should be a society wide effort. I do not think large solar farms are the answer because of the future instability of the grid. I am afraid these power sources will further complicate the overly stressed grid. The variability will make the grid more complex when we need less complexity. These sources may be stranded at some point when grid instability starts. They are going to be built and I guess it is better than nothing. The cost to society at this point is high because of the upfront nature of the investment. Very soon our financial system will not be able to fund these very large projects on a widespread scale. A LOW t,p, and c solar systems will make the end user more resilient. My focus is on a side by system with grid power. The grid is there it should be utilized for big draw items. It provides resiliency while it lasts. It is a matter of attitude and lifestyle change to move to the low tech, low cost, low power solar. We need 10,000 small plan B’s for all walks of life and locations to lifeboat through the coming contraction. This solar I described is one approach.

Arthur on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 11:53 am 



Yeah but the seven or eight cent per is based on Today’s price for gas. Almost everyone agrees, it’s almost impossible to make money at today’s gas prices.

BTW: Electric cost is about $0.31 KWh here in Makati

Peanuts, who cares if electricity costs 31 or 100 cents/kwh. 1 kwh represents more than one man-day of very hard manual labor:

http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/one-kilowatthour/

…that’s the equivalent of say 150$ in today’s money terms. If solar can produce 1 kwh for say 10 cents, you can already figure out that we don’t have an energy problem, only a storage and more important a timing problem. We should have listened to the peanut farmer from Georgia, 35 years ago. We’re too late for a smooth transition.

Someone tell me why fundamentalist is added to doomer to give us a doomer fundamentalist?

As the smurf suggests, there is this tendency for some to be a little bit in love with their own grandiose romantic (read: escapist) visions of doom, to the tune that they resist any notion to potential solutions for the coming energy problems, like the one presented in the article above. Being called a ‘techie’ is the equivalent of being called a sinner by Christian fundamentalists in bygone centuries.

1)Solar provides energy only, not capacity, so the capacity payments for coal and gas to back up solar should be included in the solar price per kWh. 2) While I am a big fan of solar PV (I have used it for 27 years to power my off-grid house), solar is still very capital intensive compared with gas or even coal.

You’re ignoring that 27 years ago, your installation must have cost a fortune, where today I can order a sufficient 3000 Watt turnkey installation for 6000 euro (Holland). The ‘capacity’ (read: storage) problem you are hinting at can be solved with conventional means with mass hydro-storage, at least for every nation blessed with sufficient mountains. The not so lucky guys need to be nice to those that have mountains:

tinyurl . com/oc8hvog

The claim that a stand alone will last 25-30 years is a dream.

That statement was just debunked by Joe Clarkson and his 27-year old (and counting?) solar installation and JS apparently is still a ‘big fan’.

We have a liquid fuels crisis ( which globalisation, transport and food growing/delivery works off)

Yeah, we have! Conclusion: globalisation is over, for many Americans perhaps an unbearable idea, but there are quite a few ‘Natzis’ around, who can’t wait to lead a quiet, localized life among your own kind, free of noisy traffic, leading to mass immigration and constant threat of violence or even genocide. Thanks, but no thanks. The more planes dropping out of the sky for good, the better. The ideal world for US elites consists of 8 billion Obama lookalikes, all going to MacDonalds and follow with one eye what the Wolf Blitzers du jour have to say about the holocaust.

The worst thing that can spoil the party is that some ITER-Bozo gets fusion working after all, leading to a global idiocracy, with millions of tourists jetting with MACH10 from London to Melbourne to do their Saturday-afternoon shopping there. The absolute horror.

Solar panels on every roof and windturbine(s) next to every village is just enough.

I love peak-oil.

Makati1 on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 12:36 pm 



@Arthur, ask someone that cannot afford even $0.30/KWh what he/she thinks about cost. When your income is only $12 per day, as it is here for most unskilled labor, then cost is the difference between some electric and none. And for most here, it is none. That is why I say that the 3rd world will hardly notice a collapse of everything. Not so the spoiled West.

You could say the same thing for gasoline. A $4 gallon does the work equal to hundreds of hours of manpower, yet most everyone in the West moans and complains about it’s high cost. In you mind, then $4 equals $1,000 per gallon. At that cost, how much would you buy?

Meld on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 12:54 pm 



@papasmurf – you need to work on that trolling a bit harder, it’s only raising a smile at the moment. 😀

DC on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 4:45 pm 



Anyone else here getting a distinct Econ101 Vibe from ‘Papasmurf’…..