It’s clear that fossil fuel industries have been pursuing the latter strategy for quite some time now. But as awareness of the true costs of climate change and air pollution grows, this position becomes increasingly precarious.
The latest indication that things must change comes in the form of a European Union commissioned report—written about over at Recharge—which finds that onshore wind is the cheapest energy source of all, once externalities such as climate change impacts and health effects are taken into account.
With onshore wind costs coming in at about €105 ($133) per MWh, this figure compares favorably to gas (€164/MWh), nuclear (€133) and, most dramatically, coal (€162-233).
We should note that onshore wind also beats offshore wind (€186/MWh) and solar (€217) by a considerable margin. However, while the cost of coal and other fossil fuels is likely to go up as supplies get harder to reach and lawmakers get serious about putting a price on carbon, solar costs continue to drop dramatically and industry insiders estimate offshore wind costs could drop 40 percent in coming decades.
The report also highlights the difficulty in talking about relative subsidies that are going to fossil fuels versus renewables. While renewables received nearly twice as much money in terms of EU subsidies than fossil fuels in 2012, the report also noted that this disparity would be mostly negated if free carbon allowances to fossil fuels were taken into account.
According to Arthur Nelsen over at The Guardian, this ambiguity around how to measure subsidies was omitted from the EU’s press release on the report, a move which renewable advocates attributed to fossil fuel lobbying before publication. Frauke Thies, the policy director at the European Photovoltaic Industry Association told the paper that providing similar levels of subsidies to mature, polluting industries like coal could not be compared to subsidizing emerging technologies like solar, especially as the costs of solar are falling thanks to rapid technological advancement.
Plantagenet on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 9:37 am
Given the huge amounts of CO2 released by burning coal, it’s a no brainier to switch to wind whenever possible.
Makati1 on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 9:38 am
More ‘renewables’ BS. Too little, too late. Go hug another tree, or better yet, plant a few. You will need the wood to keep warm when the windmills fail and cannot be repaired or replaced. They rely on oil energy to exist.
bobinget on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 9:55 am
Forget about CO/2. Even AGW Deniers can’t defend
coal’s extreme pollutant qualities. Coal directly kills hundreds of thousands world-wide annually.
It isn’t CO/2 that is killing, at least near term, it’s a long list of potent chemicals.
Late news from China:
By 4pm Friday the Air Quality index in Beijing reached 470, with anything over 300 considered severe pollution, while in neighboring Hebei province Dangerous PM2.5 particles climbed above 500 micrograms per cubic meter, forcing the Chinese authorities to issue an “orange” warning.
The World Health Organization’s recommended expose is 25. PM2.5 particles lodge deep inside the lungs and are considered the most dangerous kind of air pollution to human health.
Other nearby cities were also shrouded in smog, including Xingtai, Shijiazhuang, Dingzhou and Yangquan, while 18 highways linking Beijing to other major cities had to be closed.
Dave Thompson on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 10:21 am
Wind turbines all require fossil fuel inputs to exist. The mining of ore for steel and rare earth metals head the list, along with copper and plastic polymers. Installation and maintenance all require fossil fuels over the life span of use. I do not see how the wind turbines can produce enough energy to replicate more wind turbines. BAU cannot go on as we here in the US think of BAU without fossil fuels.
Feemer on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 10:22 am
Although I believe we should do everything to tackle our CO2 emissions, Tightening sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions as well as particulates from coal plants is a more pressing issue than CO2. SO2 is a green house gas, but also leads to acid rain. Reducing it from coal plants is relatively easy and cheap compared to reducing CO2. We should plant more trees though…
GregT on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 10:43 am
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate
“The huge increase in coal-fired power stations in China has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade because of the cooling effect of their sulphur emissions, new research has revealed. But scientists warn that rapid warming is likely to resume when the short-lived sulphur pollution – which also causes acid rain – is cleaned up and the full heating effect of long-lived carbon dioxide is felt.”
rockman on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 10:45 am
Need to appreciate the assumption behind those numbers. From the contained link: “Onshore wind is cheaper than gas, coal and nuclear when air quality, climate change and human toxicity are taken into account, according to a study published by the European Commission.”
IOW some very subjective factors are used to make those estimates. And the obvious misrepresentation: the folks who will have to invest that huge capex needed to expand the alts won’t see their investment directly benefit from those off-book gains and thus can’t be used to make the investment decisions.
IOW, to be blunt, their numbers are fictitious and will have no impact on alt construction decisions. Unless, of course, govts decide to transfer some of those off-book savings to the alt builders. IOW the public directly kicks in some of the capex. Which has actually been done already via subsidies, etc.
JuanP on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 12:37 pm
My country, Uruguay is blessed with an abundance of wind and water. This allows us to produce more electricity from hydro than we use in the country, so we export some and also have a long term lease to Argentina of much of our production capacity at our largest binational dam.
Uruguay is now in the process of installing large amounts of wind turbines which were bought very cheap. They are also building a huge double pumped hydro storage system using the second and largest dam lakes in the country that will be relatively low cost because the two hydroelectric dams and 2 of the 3 lakes needed are already there. This lakes will store the energy from the turbines when it is too much and give it back on calm days and droughts.
I believe that for some countries, like Uruguay, renewable energy will delay and soften collapse. Uruguay will be exporting significant amounts of electricity for years to come, and could electrify its whole transport system in the future with electric trains and trolleys.
HARM on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 12:54 pm
@Makati1,
What’s preventing any country from doing *both* (planting trees and building wind farms)?
Also last I checked, the Greeks, Dutch and Persians all managed to successfully build and maintain windmills for centuries before the age of fossil fuels began.
bobinget on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 1:00 pm
Rockman, “There will always be an England”.
Wind-power may be intermittent in some locations,
it’s true. Maybe not the original intention but why grids are necessary for wind energy while a person can alway crank up a personal old diesel generator at least till 2017 when Suncor begins to favor Eastern Canada
over a Denver refinery.
Days are indeed numbered for fossil fuel electrical power generation. Perhaps… in 20 years personal transportation will be replaced by centralized and decentralized solar and wind power. Almost every major auto maker has either a plug-in, pure or hi bred
electric on the market today.
Ten years ago, who would have thunk? This summer I noticed more electric cars at my U-Pick then last. It just makes too much sense not to spend more on gasoline to pick a few pounds of blueberries then one can ‘pick’ at the supermarket.
Hydro is so 20th Century!
California is finding that out becoming more dependent on NG because of drought.
Wind power being built today is like comparing your
low cost Google powered laptop to a ten year old tower.
JuanP on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 1:05 pm
I meant to say “using the second and third largest” up above.
Uruguay’s largest dam is Salto Grande Dam: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salto_Grande_Dam
Of the 14 turbines, Uruguay owns half and Argentina half. Of the seven turbines Uruguay owns five are leased to Argentina long term and are not considered Uruguayan production capacity in international statistics, I think.
This dam produces too much electricity for a small country like Uruguay that has other hydroelectric dams, so we have always leased those five turbines to Argentina because we don’t need them.
rockman on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 2:07 pm
Bob – I agree conceptually. But “Perhaps… in 20 years…”. I just don’t see the system voluntarily changing that quickly. And if it’s forced to change the economic degradation that demands such a harsh move away from BAU will also limit the ability to make the switch.
Remember how long the discussion of moving away from BAU has been going on: at least since the early 80’s. Think about it: that’s about 30 years go and how much SIGNIFICANT movement away from BAU have we experienced? So in 20 years we’ll see a major change…a change we’re seeing only minor movements despite recent events?
Feemer on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 3:00 pm
I’ve read that wind power could supply over 20% of the US’ energy. What we should really do is have a wind power manufacturing plant that is completely powered by wind turbines. We need to use oil as a platform to create a renewable world
Kenz300 on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 5:33 pm
Climate Change is real…… if the world wants to deal with the impact of Climate Change it will need to stop building any more coal fired power plants and begin to shut down the oldest ones.
Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.
——————-
New Cost Analysis Shows Unsubsidized Renewables Increasingly Rival Fossil Fuels « Breaking Energy – Energy industry news, analysis, and commentary
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/09/25/new-cost-analysis-shows-unsubsidized-renewables-increasingly-rival-fossil-fuels/
Makati1 on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 8:47 pm
A lot of “We need to…” dreams here. If you are over 50, you know how long real change takes in this world. There will be NO effective change speed increase in the future, NONE.
I’m not sure what the physics term is, but it takes energy to increase speed relative to mass, and we now have 7,100,000,000+ bodies in that mass. Most are either deeply involved in BAU or not even in the loop and not able to affect anything. The few who see reality are not going to change anything except for themselves and their families, maybe, if they prepare. Easing the pain of decent is all we can do now.
Real change would take such a drastic event that it would destroy BAU and any chance to step up the ladder, or even move sideways. The next steps will be down. A radical thought for some on here. But much more likely than the dreams of more tech and a bright, shiny future.
dashster on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 9:11 pm
“Given the huge amounts of CO2 released by burning coal, it’s a no brainier to switch to wind whenever possible.”
I think an even better reason is that coal is finite and depletes. Peak Coal is likely a lot closer than people think.
dashster on Tue, 14th Oct 2014 9:35 pm
You can’t compare wind and coal plants directly. You need to compare wind + [non-existent] electrical storage costs with a coal plant.
Davy on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 5:42 am
Wind is a no brainer as one of those higher level investments society can make as opposed to a new football stadium. Large scale wind is not as sustainable and resilient as something smaller and less complex. End user wind does not seem to be as effective a power source as solar but it could be made smaller than the giant farms we see now. When the grid destabilizes as I see coming with fuel shortages large scale AltE will be problematic. A variable grid reliability mixing with a variable power source is not a good combination when complexity levels are deteriorating. Yet, seeing the reality of where society puts capex today I have no choice but to say build more wind farms where they have high eroi. At least cover those sweet spots and hopefully improve the grid as necessary to disperse that power per grid harmony. You can bash coal all you want but don’t be a hypocrite about it. Coal equals BAU as a necessary component to the power mix. Coal will be part until the end. There is no other source that can replace coal in the short time frame we have left with industrial society. No other energy mix level minus coal can support BAU. BAU must grow and cannot without coal. If a majority of you are ready to make the plunge than I am ready. Just don’t fool yourself with greenie fantasy.
Kenz300 on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 11:59 am
The world is in transition to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources. Climate Change is real and the sooner we transition the better.
—————-
IEA Report Predicts Solar Power Domination by 2050
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/iea-report-predicts-solar-power-domination-by-2050
Mike999 on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 12:00 pm
Wind Turbines DO NOT require fossil fuel to exist, they are now NET POSITIVE, AND PRODUCE MORE then enough Energy to power their own creation.
You OLD Fools need to die off already,
You’ve FUCKED up this Nation Enough.
louis wu on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 2:31 pm
Show me a wind farm that used only wind power to complete the entire process needed to manufacture the turbines, transport them to their destination and erect them and the transmission system needed to distribute whatever power generated and maintain that entire system and you may be onto something.Otherwise your assertion is incorrect.
Davy on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 3:04 pm
Louis, just greenie delusions. It reminds me of asteroid mining and humans on Mars.
GregT on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 5:20 pm
Come on Davy,
Asteroid mining and putting humans on Mars are both possible. ‘Wind turbines powering their own creation’, is not.
Davy on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 5:32 pm
Thanks, Greg for my reality check.
GregT on Wed, 15th Oct 2014 5:48 pm
No problem,
Fellow OLD fool. 🙂
joyfulbozo on Thu, 16th Oct 2014 7:09 am
The biggest problem with wind power is that it is not always windy. But, many places have enough wind to make wind power efficient. If it is not windy in North Dakota it will probably be windy in Texas. I am for putting up wind power in the high efficient areas. Several large projects are in the works.